Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

Catholic Church. They entirely separated from her communion, and faithfully denounced her as Antichrist. Bishop Hurd remarks, "It is well known that when the Reformation was set on foot in the 16th century, this great work was everywhere justified and conducted on the general principle that the Pope, or at least the Church of Rome, was Antichrist.'"-Bishop Hurd on the Prophecies. Ed. 1772.

[ocr errors]

Popery is not Christianity, nor any form or modification of it, but a base counterfeit. It is, in fact, the great antagonist principle of Christianity. Mr. Scott correctly defines Popery as "Satan's grand scheme for opposing the gospel." Other writers have characterised it in terms equally strong. Mr. Southey calls it "a prodigious structure of imposture and wickedness";2-Mr. Townsend, "a monstrous system of iniquity and soul murder ";3 -Dr. Macknight, "an intolerable fabric of spiritual and civil tyranny conjoined "-Rev. Robert Hall, "a detestable system of impiety, cruelty, and imposture, fabricated by the Father of Lies"; and Mr. Cecil, "the masterpiece of Satan."

[ocr errors]

Such is Popery, and such is the Church of Rome; for Popery, and the Church of Rome in its apostate state, are synonymous terms. Attempts have been made to distinguish between them, but all such attempts have turned out signal failures. Nor have we any warrant from scripture for making such a distinction. A great antichristian power is spoken of in the Revelation of St. John under the figure of a harlot, drunk with the blood of the saints and of the martyrs of Jesus. In the opinion of all enlightened Protestants, Popery, or the Church of Rome, is the antichristian power here alluded to. The Rev. G. S. Faber observes, "By the unanimous consent of Protestant expositors in every age and country, the apocalyptic harlot is the corrupt and bloodstained and domineering Church of Rome."-(Faber's Letter in answer to Dr. Chalmers' Speech.) Assuming the correctness of this interpretation, can the Church of Rome with any propriety be regarded as a legitimate branch or portion of the Christian Church? If Christ and Antichrist have no fellowship with each other, what connexion can an apostate and idolatrous church have with the Church of Christ? It is admitted that the Church of Rome is apostate and idolatrous by those very persons who contend that she is a christian church; with what degree of reason or consistency they do so, it is for themselves to explain, or how they

1 Scott's Bible, Rev. xvii. 7, 8.

2 Southey's Book of the Church, ch. x., p. 91, fourth ed.

3 Townsend's Accusations of History against the Church of Rome, p. 130. 1826. 4 Macknight on the Epistles, 2 Thess. ii. 12.

5 In a critique upon Burt's Letters on Popery.-See Protestant Journal, Feb.

1833, p. 122.

6 Cecil's Remains, p. 152. 1821.

reconcile the solemn injunction to come out of her, with her character as a Church of Christ, we have yet to learn. Thus much is clear, that by whatever process of reasoning the Church of Rome may be made to appear a christian church, by the same process of reasoning evil may be made to appear good and good evil. But whoever has the temerity thus to confound things so essentially dissimilar, exposes himself to the woe denounced by the prophet against those who call things by their wrong names. Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness.

Concessions made to Papists with the view of conciliating them, never have been, and never will be, productive of any good. It is like casting pearls before swine, they will turn again and rend you. Witness the Popish bill of 1829, which was to accomplish so much good, that the glorious constitution our forefathers purchased for us with their blood, must needs be broken in upon and destroyed. What has this fatal measure effected, that its advocates predicted it would effect for Ireland and the Papists? Literally nothing: it has neither tranquilized the one, nor conciliated and satisfied the other. But it has done one thing,-it has entirely disappointed the expectations of those who supported it. Some statesmen have had the candour and the honesty to admit this; would that Sir Robert Peel were among the number!

There is but one way of putting Satan to flight, and that is by resisting him. If we attempt to conciliate this arch-fiend by parleying with, or giving place to him, we are undone: resist the devil and he will flee from you. Precisely the same thing applies to Popery, which is the religion of the devil. If we would successfully contend with this restless and relentless foe, we must wage interminable war with it, and inscribe upon our bannersNO PEACE OR COMPROMISE WITH ROME. There ought to be no halting between two opinions here.

Papists may be exceedingly indignant if we refuse to acknowledge them as fellow-subjects and fellow-christians; but in strict and sober truth they are neither one nor the other. For how can they in truth be called Fellow-subjects, who, unlike the rest of their fellow-countrymen, are bound by an overruling oath of allegiance to a Foreign Potentate, (the Roman Pontiff,) whose sway over their consciences and actions is absolute; and who practically proves its continuing power by constant interference in the affairs of some states, and partial intervention with the affairs of all? If Papists be under obligations to a Pope who can dispense with their other obligations whether civil or religious, surely, they must be deemed his subjects, and not in fact the subjects of the government under which for the time they happen to reside. Popery in every land is an "imperium in imperio,"

and it is madness or folly not to treat it as such, and its subjects as practical aliens to their local commonwealth.

This unanswered and unanswerable argument may be sufficient to silence those who maintain that Papists are fellow-subjects.

As it respects the other title-fellow-christians, the Rev. Thos. Lathbury, in his valuable little work entitled, "Protestantism the Old Religion, Popery the New Religion," observes: "It is asserted by some Protestants. that the Church of Rome is a true church and that her members are christians. But those persons who maintain doctrines at variance with the Bible, cannot be christians in reality. The Papists receive doctrines which Christ never taught, and which his word condemns; how then can they be viewed as his followers?....She (the Church of Rome) may arrogate to herself the title of the Catholic Church, but as she teaches doctrines fundamentally erroneous, she has no right whatever to the sacred designation. She may be termed the church of the Pope, or the synagogue of Satan, since she teaches doctrines which originated in the Father of Lies; but the Church of Christ she cannot be."

By confounding Popery with Christianity, and the Church of Rome with the Christian Church, we bring a reproach upon Christianity and confirm infidels in their prejudices against it; for if the Church of Rome really be a portion of the Christian Church, then may the infidel triumphantly exclaim-" What a curse has the Christian Church been in the world!"

PROGRESSIVE ATTEMPTS AGAINST CHURCH AND

STATE.

It is not a little remarkable that there should be a difference of opinion, even among men of acknowledged piety, as to the propriety of the public profession by a nation of its dependence upon God, not only for its national prosperity, but, even for its existence. Yet such is the case with numbers who are loud in their protests against the existence of a National Church. Men who would upon no consideration engage in the most ordinary duties of life without invoking the blessing and guidance of their Creator, can yet contemplate, nay, insist upon, the extirpation of every symbol of national submission to that being "by whom kings reign." A queen may pour out her prayers where no human eye can see, but there must be no public blessing askedno dedication of her crown to Him who gave it-Dei Gratiâ, must be obliterated from the coin of the Realm. Her Judges may obey privately the dictates of their own religious principles, but the Assize Towns must no longer witness any official ac

knowledgment of their dependence upon the great Judge of all the earth. Famine and pestilence may depopulate the land, but there must be no national humiliation or thanksgiving for their removal.

The body to which we allude forms the rallying point for others of a far different character, and no less their enemies than ours, but with whom they are content to make common cause for the accomplishment of an object so dear to their hearts. Liberty of conscience is the cry of Protestant dissent, and Liberty of conscience is echoed by the Church of Rome where that liberty is a stranger.

We have seen Popery in Ireland, with the Church of England on its right hand, and the Church of Scotland on its left, clamourously pointing to itself as the great image of Christian charity. What then is the meaning of these specious professions which have served to unite those who seem to stand so much opposed to each other? Can it be true that a system so intolerant as the Church of Rome is in other countries, can be tolerant in this. Not at all. That Church has a purpose to serve, and if she can once succeed in depriving our Church of its recognized national character, and in levelling it with the various sects by which it is surrounded, from that moment she will commence a superstructure of which we have already permitted her to lay the foundation, and which will prove a scourge for the castigation of a credulous and thankless people. Then those noble channels through which for many a generation have flowed the currents of a pure and holy religion, which have scattered the seeds of the Gospel throughout the country, and nourished and blessed this happy land-those crystal streams must be dried up, or polluted and obscured by the muddy waters of Popery, which are even now preparing to break down the last remnants of those bulwarks which have hitherto, by the mercy of God, stemmed her impetuous course.

Happy is it for us, aye, and for those who are now numbered among our opponents, that the conservative spirit of this country is not yet prostrate at the foot of a spurious Liberalism. If this were the case, one blow might effect the purpose of those who cry Down with her, down with her, even with the ground." But our enemies, finding the National Church as firmly rooted in the State as in the hearts of its members, are adopting a more wary course. It is by a species of wedge-like policy that they calculate upon severing, by slow and almost imperceptible degrees, that bond of union in which the State upholds the Church while the Church sanctifies the State. We have already seen them giving their support to measures which tend to enfeeble the power and influence of the Establishment, and although this is

but the narrow end of the wedge, yet the broad part is close at hand, and will eventually, if its progress be not resisted, carry with it the direct national endowment of the "Mystery of Iniquity" upon a much larger scale than the Maynooth grant.

There are those who imagine that this is no more than the result of a progressive liberality, as they are pleased to term it; but let us not be deceived, every blow that is struck has been previously designed in the councils of those who abhor our Religion, its effect has been already forseen, and the triumphant laugh of derision is even now preparing to burst forth in our ears. The language of the Arch-agitator in one of his speeches delivered about twelve months since in Ireland, expresses the feeling, if not the language of a vast body; it is Popery to the life. "We cringed to them (the Protestants) when we were weak, but now we kick them off because we are strong enough." Such is his comment upon the conduct of his own party before and after the passing of the (so called) Emancipation Act.

A series of Popish measures might easily be enumerated which have passed the Legislature subsequently to this date, the whole aim of which is to carry out the design above alluded to. And not only are we subjected to the effect of such hostile enactments, but the very provisions introduced into them professedly for our protection are allowed to remain wholly inoperative. Of what avail is it to enact, that the Romish Priest or Monk who shall "exercise any of the rites or ceremonies of the Roman "Catholic religion or wear the habits of his order, save within "the usual places of worship of the Roman Catholic religion or in "private houses, shall be subjected to a fine of £50," if he be permitted with impunity by those in whom alone is the power of punishing, to parade the public streets in mid-day, arrayed in his gorgeous vestments, and carrying the host before him? Of what avail to enact, that "if any person other than the person there"unto authorized by law shall assume or use the name style or "title of Archbishop of any Province, Bishop of any Bishoprick, or Dean of any Deanery in England or Ireland, he shall, for every such offence, forfeit and pay the sum of £100," if the Government in whom alone is the power of prosecuting, regard the breach of this law with complacency? Of what avail to enact, that Jesuits and members of other religious orders "coming into this kingdom without license, or any persons becoming members of monastic institutions in this country, shall "be banished or transported for life;" whilst it is deemed inconvenient to give offence to a powerful party by enforcing this most important provision? All these things have happened and are happening, whilst the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act, which makes them penal, is only regarded as the instrument of bestowing freedom, and therefore receives a liberal construction. VOL. II.-October 1840.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

X

« ElőzőTovább »