« PreviousContinue »
the maintenance of the Irish Roman Catholic Clergy by the State. Any act more prejudicial to the Protestant Establishment in Ireland cannot well be conceived.
Lord John Russell, in answering for himself with reference to the Irish Church, said, that he thought that a portion of that Church's revenues were misapplied. He thought that a part of those revenues ought to be otherwise applied.
Then came forward Mr. O'Connell. He said that the Protestants of Ireland had as much right to maintain their Church in Ireland, as the Roman Catholics had to maintain theirs, which they did by their own exertion. Would that the Protestant Church were on the same footing! The temporalities were another affair. He could not allow that they formed any part of the Irish Church, and he begged to press on the House their allOCATION !
There is quite enough in the above discussion and the declaration of the several parties to excite alarm in the minds of Protestants for the safety of the Irish Church. APPROPRIATION was the term used by the Melbourne Administration when the attempt was made in their day to rob that Church of her possessions. Allocation is Mr. O'Connell's phrase now, by which he no doubt intended, if he had fully spoken his mind, the transfer of a part at least of those possessions to the Church of Rome. And on this head it will be seen that the sentiments of Lord John Russell quite coincide with those of Mr. O'Connell. Nor can it be supposed that Sir James Graham differs much from those two, after his gratuitous and uncalled for vindication of the opinions held by Lord John Russell.
But for O'Connell to talk of alienating or disturbing the temporalities of the Church of Ireland, after having taken an oath as a Member of Parliament to do nothing to weaken or disturb the settlement of the property of the Church in the United Kingdom, is the most outrageous and unprincipled conduct that ever was heard of. It is time that the House of Commons was called upon to enforce the observance of this oath, and I would beg leave to request the attention of the Protestant Association to the subject. It is also time that all Protestants should come actively forward in defence of the persecuted Church in Ireland.
The obsequiousness of Her Majesty's Ministers to O'Connell, and their readiness to meet his demands, ought not to be overlooked.
I beg therefore to suggest the following Petition on behalf of the Irish Church :" To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland in Parliament Assembled. 66 The humble Petition of -- showeth,
“That your Petitioners feel the greatest apprehension for the safety of that part of the Church of the United Kingdom established in Ireland, not only from the dangerous and criminal conspiracy now carried on in that country for the avowed Repeal of the Union, but also from opinions extremely hostile to that Church held and expressed by persons in high public situations, some of them of the Romish persuasion.
“ In these alarming circumstances, your petitioners earnestly intreat your Honourable House to enforce with respect to Roman Catholic Members the strict observance of that oath, whereby they solemnly pledge themselves to do nothing to weaken or disturb the settlement of the property of the Established Church
.” This or a similar Petition might be productive of great good.
I remain, your obedient servant,
Debate on the Second Reading of Mr. Watson's Bill for the Relief
of Roman Catholics from Certain Disabilities. Sir,-- In the absence of Mr. Watson, the Bill was advocated by Mr. Bickham Escott. It was opposed by Sir R. H. Inglis, on the ground that the Bill went to repeal the Act of Supremacy, the Act for expelling the Jesuits, and the Act for prohibiting the Roman Catholic Clergy from assuming the titles of sees of the Established Church. In fact, that it would take
In fact, that it would take away the securities and safeguards of the Act of 1829.
Sir James Graham said that he thought a partial repeal of the Act of Supremacy advisable. He thought that it should not be any longer a matter of penalty for affirming the Pope's ecclesiastical and spiritual supremacy.
Mr. O'Connell defended the Jesuits. He called them an illustrious order. They had been greatly persecuted, but now, thank God, they were in a different position. They were now enabled to dispense their utility over vast parts of the globe. Within the last year no fewer than forty Jesuit Missionaries had been sent to Corea, to China, and to Cochin China, He ventured to hope that double that number would go forth in the course of next year.
The question here occurs, whether Mr. O'Connell himself is not a Jesuit. Lord John Russell expressed his wish that the penalties for corresponding with the Pope were repealed.
This debate shews with what rapid strides Romanism is making its advances.
NO PEACE WITH THE IDOLATROUS CHURCH OF ROME.
"I would go into the Mass-house, where that minister of Idolatry, a Papal priest, takes a thing like this in his hand (holding up a wafer), this idol of paste with an image stamped on it—and while he blasphemously mocks the incarnation of the Son of God mocks that wondrous Mystery of Godliness, God manifest in the flesh, pretending to embody in this, at bis fiat, the whole body, blood, soul, and inity of the Lord Jesus Christ'-I would tell him that this idol is, like other idols, the work of men's hands, having eyes, it sees not; having ears, it hears not; neither is there any breath in its mouth : they that make it are like unto it, and so are all they that put their trust in it.' I would tell him this. I would warn him to turn from this accursed idol, to serve the living God, and in the name of that God I would shout out, NO POPERY.” “What a dreadful superstition it is to call a wafer Jesus Christ, and say it is an offering for sin! The very fact of saying so, putting the idolatrous worship out of the question, proves that the man who says so can know nothing whatever of the salvation that is revealed in the Gospel; he has a plan of salvation for himself, but it is not the plan of salvation by the Lord Jesus Christ.
“In reflecting on this tenet of the Romish Church, I can hardly persuade myself that a Roman Catholic ever really thinks with sober reflection on the subject. I take a piece of flour and water and make paste of it, I suppose a Roman Catholic himself to supply me with it, he has sown the wheat, he has reaped it, he has made the flour, and he has made the paste; he can prove, if necessary, on his oath, with a clear conscience, that it grew last harvest in such a field, and that it is now a plain honest piece of wheaten flour and water. The priest pronounces a few words over it—will any Roman Catholic take the same thing that he proved one minute ago to be a bit of four and water and apply, in the presence of the Being that has endowed him with reason and senses, the word of his creed to that ?-is that thing now the only Son of God ?—was that thing, which he can swear grew in a corner of his own field, actually born of the Virgin Mary ?-did that thing walk about nearly 1800 years ago in Judea ? perform miracles ?-is that the thing that spoke all the words he reads in the Testament, if he ever does read them ?- -was that thing transfigured on the mount? is that thing He whose mighty voice silenced the winds and waves ? did that thing heal all the sick ?-did that thing speak the almighty word that raised the dead, Lazarus, come forth ?-did that thing stand in Pilate's judgment-hall ?—was that thing crowned with thorns, scourged, buffeted, crucified ?-is that thing He whose garments they parted among them, and on whose vesture they did cast lots ?—is that thing the mighty God, at whose crucifffion the sun was darkened, and the earth quaked, and the rocks rent, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose ?-is that thing He who was sealed up in the tomb, and who burst the gates of death, and rose triumphant from the grave ?-is that He who conversed with His disciples going to Emmaus ?—is it He who appeared to them and said, • Peace be unto you,' and showed them his hands and his feet?' Finally, is that He who ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead; and is that thing the Creator of the heavens and the earth ? You believe now, O Roman Catholic, before God, that this is the identical thing that has done all this, and five minutes ago you would have taken your solemn oath it grew in your field last harvest ! 0 what is reason -what is revelation, when man can so trifle with, can so abuse them both ?” *
The priest elevates this idol before the people, exclaiming, “ Behold, the Lamb of God !” They then “bow down to it, and afterwards receive it into their stomach as “truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and Divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ."
But what saith the second commandment of idols (which commandment as well as the fourth + is wholly suppressed in the authorized Catechism published “con licenza de' Superiori, e Privilegio,” in Rome, in 1836, and in several other editions of more recent date)? “ Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them : for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God."
And be it observed, that in the oaths of the Sovereign, of members of the Legislature, of magistrates, &c., this idol is expressly and solemnly protested against as being “idolatrous.” And, lastly, in the Book of Common Prayer" of the Church of England, it is denounced as “ Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians.”
Such, then, is the awful idolatry of the Church of Rome. But far, far more awful is it to behold, in the forty-sixth year of the nineteenth century, this fearful system of idolatry adopted and endowed by a professed Christian Legislature, as part and parcel of the law of the land, by men who (with the exception of the Papal Members) have solemnly sworn that they themselves believe this very crime to be idolatrous.
Thus has this Protestant nation been betrayed—betrayed by those whose imperative duty should have urged them to stand forth and foremost in its defence.
But, Protestant Brethren, remember there yet remains within the United Kingdom, a faithful and formidable band of Christians, who, in despite of an Infidel expediency, will, in the strength of God, unfurl the banner of the glorious Reformation, and at all hazards uphold and maintain its sacred principles, which are the principles of eternal truth; and whose watchword is embodied in the ever memorable language of the martyred Protestant prelate Latimer, when he thus exhorted his fellow warrior at the stake as the first kindled faggot was laid at his feet, “ BE OF GOOD COMFORT, MASTER RIDLEY, AND PLAY THE MAN; WE SHALL THIS DAY LIGHT SUCH A CANDLE, BY GOD'S GRACE, IN ENGLAND, AS I TRUST SHALL NEVER BE PUT OUT."
Guildford, March, 1846.
A PROTESTANT SENTINEL.
* “Truth and Error Contrasted,” pp. 101–103. Hatchards.
+ In place of the fourth commandment another is substituted of man's invention namely, “ Remember to keep holy the festivals.”
TO ŘEPEAL THE ACT PASSED FOR THE ENDOWMENT OF MAYNOOTH
COLLEGE; ALSO AGAINST THE REPEAL OF THE ACT OF SUPREMACY, AND THE PROTECTIVE CLAUSES OF THE ACT OF 1829,
COMMONLY CALLED THE ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF ACT. THE following has been issued by the Protestant Association with the view of drawing attention to the importance of petitioning against measures in favour of Popery, now before Parliament, and to induce co-operation in endeavours to secure the demonstration of sound Protestant principles, and a consistent line of conduct, whenever the various constituencies of the Empire may be called on to exercise the elective franchise :
The Committee of the Protestant Association desire to draw the attention of the Protestant portion of the community, at this critical juncture, to the importance of petitioning both Houses of Parliament to repeal the Act passed last session for the Endowment of Maynooth College ; and of forming local organizations with reference to any future election. In the House of Commons, Mr. Plumptre stated last session, that he should, this session, move for the repeal of that Act.
If supported by the Petitions of Protestants out of Parliament, those exertions in Parliament will be the more influential towards the attainment of the end in view. The Committee deem this course the more important, as, in consequence of a Bill introduced by the Lord Chancellor, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, in the House of Lords, and also one introduced by Mr. Watson, in the House of Commons, the operation of which is to repeal the Act of Supremacy itself, and of a Bill also introduced by Lord John Manners, for repealing or altering the Mortmain Laws, it is quite clear that it is the bounden duty of Protestants, now more than ever, to bestir themselves in defence of their liberty and their religion. Petitions should forthwith be adopted : forms for this purpose are given at the end, and every proper exertion should be made.
To aid in this and all other Protestant efforts, the Committee are desirous of procuring a wide circulation of their magazines, Protestant tracts, and books for the formation of parochial and other libraries and reading-rooms.
The Committee are desirous of specially directing attention to the “ Protestant Magazine," and the " Protestant Operative Magazine."
It is well known what great influence the periodical and other literature of the day has upon the public mind, and what use the Church of Rome, and those who sympathize with her, have made and continue to make of it.
One object, therefore, of the Protestant Association, is to counteract such influence; to mark the movements and designs of Popery, and to point out how they may be defeated.
The Committee will be greatly aided in their efforts to this end by having their Magazines and other publications introduced as much as possible in Public Reading-rooms and Libraries.
Correspondence and communications, whether as intelligence, or