vain is the dark attempt:-the labourer who can read a newspaper, scoffs at her denunciations, though embellished by the wood-engraver with "faithful" illustrations of the "Torments of Hell" for those who laugh at or oppose her *. " When we commenced the Introduction to our subject, we determined to adhere to it as closely as possible, and to avoid every expression that might fairly be deemed unjustifiable, or that ought to be considered offensive by any advocates of the cause of TRUTH ; but that those should think so to whose "Profession of Faith " we are opposed, is beyond our hope, although we have not stated, knowingly, one single cir cumstance throughout our comments upon the "autho rized practices" of Popery, which TRUTH would bid us: disavow. We now more particularly address ourselves to our fellow-Protestants, and simply ask if, amidst the daily calumnies which assail their Church-or, more *Speaking of these edifying compositions, The Times (Dec. 1825) says, "It appears that body (the Roman Catholics) are active in distributing Tracts in support of their faith; in truth, we have met with such. But could they not offer a pretty little relic of some kind or other, of which the religion of our forefathers had such abundance, along with the Tracts? a nail out of the real cross, a thorn out of the crown? Or even a crucifix would be a handy thing, or a little image like a tobacco-stopper, of the Goddess whom they worship, the Queen of Heaven, with the bambino in her arms; which objects of idolatry are in all their churches, where there are no Protestants to turn them into deserved ridicule. Above all, why cannot they compass a miracle or two? The religion of our forefathers could work you a miracle or two every day; and Popery, they tell us, never alters. Miracles, also, are incessantly performed at Rome to convince the faithful who have no need to be convinced. We subject with mockery, because we think it the best way of an end to the foolish stir which the Papists are making in support of the relia gion of our forefathers." -The just remark with which the sentence concludes, as it is political, we decline quoting. We could refer to the Herald, Chronicle, Post, Courier, Globe, in short, every respectable London Journal, for similar opinions of the purity of Popery, however different their politics. properly speaking, the religion of Christ, in which they have been taught to believe-if, whilst it is every day averred that their tenets, drawn from that unpolluted Source THE WORD OF GOD HIMSELF, are "heretical," "illiberal," "intolerant," &c. &c. &c.-have Protestants, we ask, no duty to perform toward the Church of which they are members, and to society in general? Are the inflammatory declamations against those Institutions which Protestants hold most sacred, to be tacitly con sidered as mere Papal figures of rhetoric, and their recorded falsehoods to be disseminated without a contradiction, lest it be deemed illiberal to refute and expose them? If there be those in this enlightened age who affect such superlatively-refined notions of libe→ rality as thus to sacrifice TRUth and the EviDENCE OF THEIR OWN SENSES to the prejudices of an implacable hierarchy which has already condemned them (with all its power of doing so-to eternal perdition!) we must confess that our own humble ideas are of a more comprehensible stamp; and whilst we regard all mankind as our brethren, we are not inclined to give up our birthright-THE PLAIN USE OF OUR REASONmerely because some fanatical foreigner may choose to declare we cannot appreciate its value, nor profit by its exertion. To ourselves, who have, with some patience and attention, compared Primitive Christianity with Protestantism, and contrasted it with Popery, it would appear somewhat strange that the sheer abuse which is every day "levelled at heretics" should be deemed by the enlightened and liberal as the mere vituperation of ignorance, did we not know that thousands of honest men cannot imagine but that gentlemen of the Romish Church speak the truth when they affect to deplore these attacks. We say, affect to regret them, because, if the practice were objectionable to the learned and most influential of that body, IT WOULD, AT ONCE, CEASE. The Christian faith, as professed by Protestants, is as open to comment as the profession of the Romish Church; and if it can be proved contrary to the doctrines of its Divine Founder, let the Popish clergy fairly exhibit the whole of it, and the Scriptures (if they can find them) to which it is opposed. It is not insisting that the tenets of Protestantism are "pestiferous," &c. that is calculated to convince a reflecting man; and this leads us to think that quantity rather than quality is the great object of Papal conversionmore of Papist, if less of Christian. For our own parts, the only difference we perceive in the writings of the liberal and the learned the ridiculous and the vulgarly ignorant of Romish authors, is in the style and language of their works-whether it be in the theological compositions of Mr. Charles Butler, Bishops Milner, Poynter, Doyle, &c., or the disgusting trash of the most humble order of their tract-writers :-still, we say, they all breathe the same immutable spirit of Popery. How can it be otherwise when they ALL (see p. 17) "promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome"-when they all "profess ALL other things" the Church of Rome commands; and when they ALL " condemn, reject, and anathematize" ALL that she deems inimical to her temporal and secular interests? It may, in conclusion, be observed that, had we felt it necessary to do so, we could have filled our pages with quotations from the "ancient fathers," in proof of their opposition to the inventions of Popery, which she has, at her own peril, introduced into the Romish Church as essentials to salvation. But we rely upon the SCRIPTURES ALONE as our best authority for the refutation of these; and, as we think we have extracted sufficiently from Papal authorities to corroborate every assertion we have made, we deemed further references to any secondary source a useless labour, as it would have been equally unprofitable to our readers. Of the modern authorities, we have chiefly preferred Mosheim; since, independent of his own individual research, he gives us his references to, and accounts of the most respectable ecclesiastical writers, from the Apostolic age down to that in which he lived; and as the very sword-in-hand controversialists of the Romish Church refer to this acknowledged meritorious author, our Popish friends will perhaps credit the authority of our extracts. We have also (as we stated, in our Introduction, we intended to do) referred to many writers, some of whose observations are thrown into the text, and, where they are of a general tenor, are unacknowledged. |