There is a danger, however, which alarms me much more than any aggression of a foreign sovereign.
Clergymen of our own church, who have subscribed the Thirty-nine Articles, and acknowledged in explicit terms the queen’s supremacy, have been the most forward in leading their flocks, “step by step, to the very verge of the precipice.” The honour paid to saints, the claim of infallibility for the church, the superstitious use of the sign of the cross, the muttering of the liturgy so as to disguise the language in which it is written, the recommendation of auricular confession, and the administration of penance and absolution, all these things are pointed out by clergymen of the Church of England as worthy of adoption, and are now openly reprehended by the Bishop of London in his charge to the clergy of his diocese.
What, then, is the danger to be apprehended from a foreign prince of no great power, compared to the danger within the gates from the unworthy sons of the Church of England herself?
I have little hope that the propounders and framers of these innovations will desist from their insidious course; but I rely with confidence on the people of England; and I will not bate a jot of heart or hope so long as the glorious principles and the immortal martyrs of the Reformation shall be held in reverence by the great mass of a nation which looks with contempt on the mummeries of superstition, and with scorn at the laborious endeavours which are now making to confine the intellect and enslave the soul.
I remain, with great respect, &c.,
J. Russell.
Downing-street, Nov. 4.
Whether the noble writer of this letter was sincere in the feelings he expressed was doubted by few at the time, although his subsequent turning and time-serving justified the public in believing that the letter was used merely for the party purpose of forestalling the opposition by an appeal to the Protestant feeling which then seemed irresistible. The immediate effect of the letter upon the country was to stimulate afresh the indignation which had been so keenly felt and warmly expressed. Public addresses were presented to the Queen, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and other notable persons, by the clergy of the various dioceses, the universities, the corporations of cities, and voluntary assemblies, pledging those who presented them to the most loyal support of her majesty and the legislature in resisting the pretensions of popery. On the 5th of November, the anniversary of the gunpowder plot, there was a burst of anti-popish feeling all over the kingdom, such as had not been witnessed since the glorious revolution of 1688. The pope, Cardinal Wiseman, the new bishops, members of the conclave at Rome, and various other persons, offensive by their popery, were burnt in effigy, and “Guys” were carried about through London and the provincial cities in mockery of their assumed dignity and pretensions.
These events produced very opposite effects upon the Roman Catholics themselves. Cardinal Wiseman manifested some alarm, and endeavoured to appease the popular wrath by directing his emissaries to speak slightingly of the importance of the matter, and to represent it as an ecclesiastical arrangement only of any interest to Roman Catholics themselves. Lord Beaumont, and other members of the Latin church, who were men of culture and enlightenment, deprecated the whole proceeding of the court of Rome, and the haughty spirit in which its English agents proclaimed them. In Ireland the Roman Catholic party were stirred up to perfect fury, and “Conciliation Hall” echoed with blustering attacks upon the government, and upon Protestantism. The following extract of a speech of John O’Connell’s depicts the spirit of the Irish sympathies with Cardinal Wiseman and his English coadjutors:—“If a cry be raised against the Catholic Church, cannot a cry be raised against the Protestant Church? In Ireland, at least, we shall do so. Does the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster send tax-gatherers and bring the force of law to bear upon Protestants to compel them to contribute to the support of his dignity? No; he will be supported by the voluntary contributions of the Catholics; he will receive no money under false pretences; he will take no money for services he does not render. But the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin, and the Protestant archbishop and bishops of other sees are not so; they receive money under false pretenses—they exact money for services they do not perform. The Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, or the other Catholic bishops in England or Ireland, do not enforce the payment of tithes at the point of the bayonet; the life of no widow’s son is taken on their account. The soil of Ireland has been saturated with blood in the forced collection of this odious impost, and the Catholic people are still compelled to pay it indirectly, for they cannot get their receipts for their rent until they pay the tithes to the landlord, who has to pay it to the parson in the first instance. We must put an end to this. I hope the country will rally, and meet the cry against popery by a cry against the Protestant Church establishment.”
The cardinal and his colleagues persisted in their assumption of territorial ecclesiastical authority, and the ceremony of his enthronisation was attended with extraordinary pomp and parade, while the doctrines propounded on the occasion showed Rome to be, as to her ambition and purpose, semper eadem.