Part 10

All these things, are pointed out by _certain_ clergymen of the _Church_ of _England_, as worthy of adoption! Here, according to Lord John Russell, is the "enemy within the gates." Here, are seven enormous errors, pointed out by a layman, as corrupting, and disfiguring the pure, the Scriptural, the reformed Church of England. I will make a few remarks on each, marking the number of each, as I proceed.

(1st. The honour paid to saints.) So certain Reverend Gentlemen of the Church of England, are no longer to honour the saints, as they have done; the Whig prime minister, will not permit it. But can it be, that Lord John here intimates, that these Protestant Clergymen, have been paying _divine_ honour to the saints? Why, this would be idolatry! "Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?" Catholics, indeed, honour the saints, but a true Catholic, would sooner die, than give _divine_ honour to any saint, or to all the saints in bliss. But, whether you Reverend Protestant Gentlemen, are to honour them at all, or with what sort of honour, or with what degree of it; all this you will learn, perhaps, from Lord John Russell, or from some of his Bishops. In the meantime, you had better observe the _Protestant_ Church doctrine, as to holy angels, laid down in your _Protestant_ collect, on the feast of St. Michael, where your scriptural Church, prays, that "the holy angels, may, by God's appointment, succour and defend us on earth." (Coll. of St. Mich. Ch. Eng. Prayer Book.) Surely, this doctrine of your Church of England prayer book, will not alarm Lord John Russell, and surely, the Bishop of London, will not openly reprehend this, in his next charge, to the clergy of his diocese; although, in my humble opinion, it smells very strongly of the popish doctrine of angels, and saints, and looks very like, leading the people, step by step, to the very verge of that precipice.

(2ndly. The claim of infallibility for the Church.) It seems, some of you, Reverend Gentlemen, have had the _temerity_ to preach up, the infallibility of the Church. _This_, is to be "put down." _You_ are not to claim _infallibility_ for _your_ Church. Infallibility belongs to the _Catholic_ Church, which is "built upon a rock," which is the "pillar and ground of truth," "formed upon the prophets, and apostles, having Christ for its chief corner stone," with which Church Christ has promised, "to abide all days, even to the end of the world." Such is the Catholic Church, according to the _Scriptures_. But, as regards _your Church_, Reverend Gentlemen, you are to be diligent in teaching, that your Church is _not_ infallible, is not built upon a rock, _not_ founded upon the prophets and apostles,--has not Christ for its chief corner stone,--for if _she had_, she would _assuredly_ be _infallible_. But above all, you are to teach, either that Christ did _not_ promise, to be always with His Church, or that, even his abiding presence, with the Church, is _not_ sufficient to make _her_ infallible; at all events, you are to teach (if you teach anything) that _your_ Church, has _no claims_ to infallibility, and that she may be involved in the grossest errors, and may be altogether, misleading and deluding, both you and your flocks. This shows, what a cuckoo cry, that was, which the vicar of Leeds, was sometime ago, sounding with _such iteration_, from the housetops, crying, "HEAR THE CHURCH." This cry, has died away, and I suspect, Dr. Hook will not _renew_ it, with the return of spring. For why, in the name of common sense, should we hear, or follow the guidance of this Church of England, which does not pretend, to be a _sure_ and _infallible_ guide? Or where indeed, shall we find the Church? In convocation? that has been extinguished. In synod? She is not permitted to hold one. On the bench of Bishops? The Bishops, are _notoriously_ at sixes and sevens, all over the land, both on matters of _faith_, _discipline_, and _ceremonies_.

Yours, Reverend Gentlemen, is a _hard_ lot! I know nothing to equal to it. You glory in liberty of conscience, and are the bound slaves of a _fallible_ Church, as if she were _infallible_. The Bible, and the Bible alone, is your rule of faith, and yet, you are remorselessly compelled, to subscribe to the thirty-nine Articles, which have been _added_ to the Scriptures, and which are in part self-contradictory, and in part, impossible to be understood.[P] You exult in freedom of thought, and in the privilege of private interpretation, but if you _dare_ to exercise _either_, you are dragged to the ecclesiastical courts, to answer for your temerity, at the bar of a Lay Judge. Ah! Reverend Gentlemen, Cranmer, and Latimer, and Ridley, did an _evil_ thing; they bowed their _own_ necks, and prepared for _your_ necks, a galling yoke, when to rid themselves of the supremacy, of the divinely appointed head of the Church, they cried out, "we have no king but Caesar." From _that_ day to _this_, Parliament, and Parliamentary leaders, have lorded it, over your inheritance, both _spiritual_ and _temporal_. You _must_ either submit to _Lay_ tribunals, or there are _no loaves_ and _fishes_ for _you_.

How beautifully is your Church thus described by the poet,--

"For she was of that stubborn crew Of errant saints, whom all men grant, To be the true Church militant: Such as do build their faith upon, The holy text of pike and gun; Decide all controversies by Infallible artillery; And prove their doctrines orthodox By apostolic blows and knocks; Which always must be going on, And still be doing, never done: As if religion were intended, For nothing else, but to be mended."

(3rdly. The superstitious use of the sign of the cross.) The true Catholic, knows that the Son of God, obtained the salvation of the world, by dying _on a cross_, for all mankind; and hence, like the great St. Paul, he glories in the cross of Christ, and frequently crosses himself, with this holy sign, to remind himself of Jesus Christ, who obtained so many spiritual blessings for mankind, by the great sacrifice, which he once consummated _on the cross_. Hence the Catholic Church, keeps the cross, as the sign of the pledge of our redemption, in all her churches, and chapels, and by this holy sign, reminds the faithful, that all the blessings, that they either _have_ received, or _can_ receive, _must_ come through the _merits_ of Jesus Christ. Hence, in the oblation of her holy sacrifice, in the administration of her sacraments, and in all her sacred rites, and ceremonies, she is continually using this holy sign, to remind both herself, and the faithful, that it is by the cross, that is, by the merits of our Saviour's death, and passion, that she, and all other faithful, are to triumph over the world, the flesh, and the devil. Hence, this sign was used by antiquity with the greatest veneration. Thus, Tertullian beautifully says, "We sign ourselves with the sign of the cross, on the forehead, whenever we go from home, or return, when we put on our clothes, or our shoes, when we go to the bath, or sit down to meat, when we light our candles, when we lie down, and when we sit." But it appears, that the superstitious use of the sign of the cross, is offensive to Lord John, and, that it may lead people, step by step, to the very verge of the precipice; and therefore, you clergymen, must not make use of the sign of the cross, but you must keep the lion, and the unicorn, in _your_ churches, to remind the people, that _your_ church is the church of men, as by Law established. You may indeed, bow at the name of Jesus, and kiss the Bible, before you swear by it, in a court of justice, but, in the house of God, you had better omit the superstitious use of the sign of the cross, although, if _one_ of the popish ceremonies be _superstitious_, it is manifest that the _other two_ ceremonies, must be _also superstitious_.

(4thly. The muttering of the liturgy, so as to disguise the language, in which it is written.) Now, what this sentence really means, I am at a loss to divine; whether, it refers to the indistinct utterance, of the clergyman's enunciation, or it means, that some of these Protestant clergymen, have been performing certain parts, of the Church of England liturgy, like Catholics, in the Latin tongue, I am at a loss to determine. It is a pity, when Lord John is finding fault, about muttering, so as to disguise the language, (and of course the meaning,) of his Church liturgy, it is really a pity, Lord John did not express himself, in more intelligible terms; but, perhaps, the obscurity of Lord John's meaning, may be owing to the blunt acumen of my popish understanding. I am rather, however, inclined to think, that Lord John, is here warning his clergy, against the use of the Latin tongue, in the Church liturgy, and if so, he is perfectly right. For the English Protestant Church, is a _modern_ church, its _language_, therefore, should be _modern_, that its _liturgy_, may announce to posterity the period, in which it was formed. But the Church of Rome, is an _ancient_ Church, and therefore, _she_ preserves her _ancient_ liturgy, the language of which, remounts to the _origin_ of Christianity. I do not believe, that history, can furnish an instance of a people, who ever changed the language of their liturgy, and who did not, at the same time, change their religion. But are the Catholics of the Latin Church, singular in the use of an ancient tongue, in their service? Certainly not. The Greeks, Russians, Armenians, Syrians, Copts, Ethiopians, Georgians, and the other Christians of the East, all retain the liturgies, which they received from the fathers of their faith, and which are written in languages, unintelligible to the common people. The same, was the discipline of the Jews, after their captivity; and we do not find, that it was ever blamed by Our Saviour. But is it true, that the modern Church of England, has always held in such abhorrence, the celebration of her liturgy, in an unknown tongue? certainly not: for, in the year 1560, an act was passed, for the introduction of the English Protestant Common Prayer Book, among the natives of Ireland, who were compelled, by the severest penalties, to assist at the celebration of the English liturgy; though these poor Irish, were _utterly_ unacquainted, with the English language. Hence, Dr. Heylin, in his History of the Protestant Reformation, (Eliz. p. 128.) says, "The people, by that statute, are required under severe penalties, to frequent their churches, and to be frequent, at the reading of the _English_ liturgy, which they understand, _no more_ than they do the Mass." * * * "By which," continues this Protestant writer, "we have furnished the Papists, with an excellent argument against ourselves, for having the divine service celebrated in _such_ a language, as the people do _not_ understand."

But is the adoption of the Latin tongue, peculiar only to some of the Protestant Clergymen, of the present day? I answer no; for in the Act of Uniformity, the Protestant minister in Ireland, if he could not read the _English_, was permitted to read a _Latin_ translation, which was, no doubt, equally _unintelligible_ to the most of his parishioners. (See Dr. Heylin's Hist., as above.) In the same year, the Universities of Oxford, and Cambridge, and the Colleges of Eton, and Winchester, obtained permission from the head of their Church, to perform the divine service in the language of Rome. (Wilk. Conc. Tom. iv., p. 217.) Thus you see, that the muttering of the Liturgy, so as to disguise the language, in which it was written, is not (if I understand rightly Lord John's meaning,) is not peculiar only to some of you Protestant ministers of the present day; for it was claimed and exercised by some of your Protestant ancestors. But then, we all know, Lord John is a consistent and straight-forward man, and therefore, he may perhaps wish you, to adopt in your Liturgy, a _modern_ language, significant of the _modern_ origin of your Church, and therefore, he may perhaps wish you to show, by the language of your Liturgy, that your Church, is _so many_ hundred years _too late, to be the Church of Christ_.

But if the muttering of the Liturgy, &c., by the Clergy, be a great crime, is it not a far greater crime, for the Protestant Bishops, and clergymen, so to mutter the tenets of their creed, as to disguise the language, and the meaning of them, by their perpetual disunions, and contradictions? Is it not a _notorious_ fact, that in _one_ Protestant Church, you are taught to believe in ecclesiastical infallibility, in _another_, in the all-sufficiency of the Scriptures; in _one_ Protestant parish, you have a sacrificial, mediatorial priest, in _another_, one of an opposite, and contrary opinion; in _one_ Protestant Church, you have an altar, in _another_, you have a communion table; in _one_ Bishop's See, the Protestant prelate _rigorously_ insists, on the _necessity_ of spiritual regeneration by baptism, in _another_ Bishop's See, it is acknowledged to be an _unnecessary_ act of religion; in Pimlico Protestant Church, you have auricular confession _insisted on_, in a Liverpool Protestant Church, you have the _punishment of death_, recommended as a _penalty_ for such a practice; in short, is it not _notorious_ (as I said before) that the Protestant Bishops, and Clergymen, are at sixes, and sevens, all over the land, about _their articles of faith_, _matters of discipline_ and _ceremonies_? Really, what are the people to do, amidst all this disunion, and dissension about their religion, so as to disguise, and confound the sense, and meaning of its tenets? Had not Lord John Russell, better have called his bishops, and Clergy to an account, on _this_ Babel muttering of religion, before he chastised them, for the muttering of _the Liturgy_? The building of the mighty tower of Babel, was arrested, and demolished by the confusion of tongues; and be assured, most Reverend Gentlemen, unless your Scriptural Church, changes this muttering, and confusion of tongues, of her weathercock, and Babel faith, and doctrines, she must also be demolished. For does not the Scripture, plainly tell us, that "a house divided against itself, cannot stand?" and the rains (of fallibility, and of muttering the Liturgy, &c.) fell, and the floods (of clerical protestant dissensions) came, and the winds (of disunion among the bishops, about the necessity of baptismal regeneration) blew; and they beat upon that house, (the Protestant, fallible, Babel, Church,) and it fell; and great was the _golden_ fall thereof, for it was built, _not_ upon the rock of God's _infallible_ word, but upon the mere _fallible inventions_, and _pecuniary conveniences_ of men.

(5th. The recommendation of Auricular Confession, to which, I beg to add (the 7th) Absolution.)

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.