rtiftro to t4t
TREATMENT OF THE POPISH AGGRESSION.
5th November 1850.
Sin—Let me begin my letter by fairly stating that I differ with much that you have written upon the recent Papal outrage. For my part, I rejoice that men of all parties are uniting to express their indignation at it; and I hope that this act, in conjunction with the Irish exhibition at Thurles, and other recent events, will open all eyes to the nature of the yoke which Rome would fain cast around our necks. I would therefore by all means protest against this invasion of our national and spiritual liberties : I would address the Queen ; and, if it be thought expedient, petition Parliament to make tbe assumption of the new titles unlawful : would resist priestly domination in all shapes, whether openly displayed in the Romish Church or travestied in our own. But I most heartily agree with your apprehension, that in our fears for the present we may forget the lessons of the past. With you, I fear the rekindling of those unholy feelings which the last twenty years have done so much to allay—the revival of the old "No Popery" cry in all its ignorance and intolerance. For example, what do you think of the following scene, which I witnessed last Sunday at a church in London ? After the Nicene Creed, the minister addressed the people on the duty of attending service on the 5th of November. I really want words to describe the vehemence of his harangue. "let your voices reach the Vatican"—" let the Abomination of Iniquity tremble"—" I do not scruple to tell you, that if any one is lukewarm at such a crisis as this, so clearly foretold in prophecy, he is neither a vital Christian nor a loyal subject." Such are a few specimens of this extravagant effusion ; which, be it observed, was totally distinct from the sermon which followed ; it was delivered, not in the gown, but in the surplice—not from the pulpit, but (after the fashion of denunciations in the Romish chapels of Ireland) from the altar. Such, too, were the feelings with which a Christian minister thought it right to prepare his flock for the reception of the holy communion, which he proceeded afterwards to administer!
In accordance with such exhibitions, I find that there has been today. a very general observance of the anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot, even in churches where the custom had happily dropped. Now against this observance all real enemies of Itomanisn ought ,to protest, because the cause of truth cannot be served by falsehood and want of charity. And that the service for the-5th of November does rest on Founds both false and uncharitable, and that it ought to be disused, I maintain, for the following reasons.
1. Iltecause, while the service implies throughout that the plot was general among the Romanists, history tells us that very few of them were privy to it.
2. Because, even if the conspiracy had been more extensive than it was, the furious severity of the penal laws, and the persecutions which provoked it, ought to make us Protestants almost as ashamed of the whole story as the Romanists themselves.
3. Because this shame may well be increased when we remember the spirit in which the plot was avenged—the treacherous eavesdropping by which evidence was procured against the accused ; the manner in which they were bullied and browbeaten at their trials ; the horrible tortures, the rack, the disembowelling, which preceded their deaths ; and above all, the wicked legislation by which the discovery was followed up. 4. Because, if we are right in keeping alive bad feeling. by offering thanksgivings for this deliverance, the Romanists may, on their side, with equal justice, institute a rival commemoration of the day on which a stop was put to the infamous plot carried on against them in 1678, under the auspices of Km' g Charles the Second, and the chief authorities of Church and State, by means of false witness, unrighteous judgment, and legalized murder, through the instrumentality of Titus Oates and William Bedloe, the former a triple renegade, the latter a convicted thief.
5. Because the service itself is written in a spirit and in language wholly alien to the Liturgy of the Church of England. 6. Because it rests on no legitimate authority. Unsanctioned by Convocation, it cannot be consistently used by the High Church clergy ; unauthorized by Parliament, its use is quite opposed to the principles of their more Erastian brethren. For although, according to the laws of England, there ought to be service on this day, yet this particular form of prayer has no other sanction than that of an order in Council, which cannot lawfully supersede the ordinary morning and evening prayer, with the regular psalms and lessons for the fifth day of the month. Much more might be said on other dangerous developments of that spirit 'whereof the solemnities and puerilities of the 5th of November are the most offensive exhibition. Feeling, then, deeply, that unless the present resistance to Roman aggression is conducted in a calmer, wiser, and more reasonable way, the efforts of the most moderate men will be paralyzed and the movement degenerate into mere fanaticism, I would implore all who care for the lessons which the last three hundred years should have taught us—all who love truth, justice, and Christianity—to separate most clearly the true grounds of opposition to Rome from the frantic violence which may soon surround us on every side.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant, A CLERGYMAN, Who has signed a protest against the intrusion of Romish Bishops.
Previous page
