(4thly. The muttering of the liturgy, so as to disguise the language, in which it is written.) Now, what this sentence really means, I am at a loss to divine; whether, it refers to the indistinct utterance, of the clergyman's enunciation, or it means, that some of these Protestant clergymen, have been performing certain parts, of the Church of England liturgy, like Catholics, in the Latin tongue, I am at a loss to determine. It is a pity, when Lord John is finding fault, about muttering, so as to disguise the language, (and of course the meaning,) of his Church liturgy, it is really a pity, Lord John did not express himself, in more intelligible terms; but, perhaps, the obscurity of Lord John's meaning, may be owing to the blunt acumen of my popish understanding. I am rather, however, inclined to think, that Lord John, is here warning his clergy, against the use of the Latin tongue, in the Church liturgy, and if so, he is perfectly right. For the English Protestant Church, is a modern church, its language, therefore, should be modern, that its liturgy, may announce to posterity the period, in which it was formed. But the Church of Rome, is an ancient Church, and therefore, she preserves her ancient liturgy, the language of which, remounts to the origin of Christianity. I do not believe, that history, can furnish an instance of a people, who ever changed the language of their liturgy, and who did not, at the same time, change their religion. But are the Catholics of the Latin Church, singular in the use of an ancient tongue, in their service? Certainly not. The Greeks, Russians, Armenians, Syrians, Copts, Ethiopians, Georgians, and the other Christians of the East, all retain the liturgies, which they received from the fathers of their faith, and which are written in languages, unintelligible to the common people. The same, was the discipline of the Jews, after their captivity; and we do not find, that it was ever blamed by Our Saviour. But is it true, that the modern Church of England, has always held in such abhorrence, the celebration of her liturgy, in an unknown tongue? certainly not: for, in the year 1560, an act was passed, for the introduction of the English Protestant Common Prayer Book, among the natives of Ireland, who were compelled, by the severest penalties, to assist at the celebration of the English liturgy; though these poor Irish, were utterly unacquainted, with the English language. Hence, Dr. Heylin, in his History of the Protestant Reformation, (Eliz. p. 128.) says, "The people, by that statute, are required under severe penalties, to frequent their churches, and to be frequent, at the reading of the English liturgy, which they understand, no more than they do the Mass." * * * "By which," continues this Protestant writer, "we have furnished the Papists, with an excellent argument against ourselves, for having the divine service celebrated in such a language, as the people do not understand."
But is the adoption of the Latin tongue, peculiar only to some of the Protestant Clergymen, of the present day? I answer no; for in the Act of Uniformity, the Protestant minister in Ireland, if he could not read the English, was permitted to read a Latin translation, which was, no doubt, equally unintelligible to the most of his parishioners. (See Dr. Heylin's Hist., as above.) In the same year, the Universities of Oxford, and Cambridge, and the Colleges of Eton, and Winchester, obtained permission from the head of their Church, to perform the divine service in the language of Rome. (Wilk. Conc. Tom. iv., p. 217.) Thus you see, that the muttering of the Liturgy, so as to disguise the language, in which it was written, is not (if I understand rightly Lord John's meaning,) is not peculiar only to some of you Protestant ministers of the present day; for it was claimed and exercised by some of your Protestant ancestors. But then, we all know, Lord John is a consistent and straight-forward man, and therefore, he may perhaps wish you, to adopt in your Liturgy, a modern language, significant of the modern origin of your Church, and therefore, he may perhaps wish you to show, by the language of your Liturgy, that your Church, is so many hundred years too late, to be the Church of Christ.
But if the muttering of the Liturgy, &c., by the Clergy, be a great crime, is it not a far greater crime, for the Protestant Bishops, and clergymen, so to mutter the tenets of their creed, as to disguise the language, and the meaning of them, by their perpetual disunions, and contradictions? Is it not a notorious fact, that in one Protestant Church, you are taught to believe in ecclesiastical infallibility, in another, in the all-sufficiency of the Scriptures; in one Protestant parish, you have a sacrificial, mediatorial priest, in another, one of an opposite, and contrary opinion; in one Protestant Church, you have an altar, in another, you have a communion table; in one Bishop's See, the Protestant prelate rigorously insists, on the necessity of spiritual regeneration by baptism, in another Bishop's See, it is acknowledged to be an unnecessary act of religion; in Pimlico Protestant Church, you have auricular confession insisted on, in a Liverpool Protestant Church, you have the punishment of death, recommended as a penalty for such a practice; in short, is it not notorious (as I said before) that the Protestant Bishops, and Clergymen, are at sixes, and sevens, all over the land, about their articles of faith, matters of discipline and ceremonies? Really, what are the people to do, amidst all this disunion, and dissension about their religion, so as to disguise, and confound the sense, and meaning of its tenets? Had not Lord John Russell, better have called his bishops, and Clergy to an account, on this Babel muttering of religion, before he chastised them, for the muttering of the Liturgy? The building of the mighty tower of Babel, was arrested, and demolished by the confusion of tongues; and be assured, most Reverend Gentlemen, unless your Scriptural Church, changes this muttering, and confusion of tongues, of her weathercock, and Babel faith, and doctrines, she must also be demolished. For does not the Scripture, plainly tell us, that "a house divided against itself, cannot stand?" and the rains (of fallibility, and of muttering the Liturgy, &c.) fell, and the floods (of clerical protestant dissensions) came, and the winds (of disunion among the bishops, about the necessity of baptismal regeneration) blew; and they beat upon that house, (the Protestant, fallible, Babel, Church,) and it fell; and great was the golden fall thereof, for it was built, not upon the rock of God's infallible word, but upon the mere fallible inventions, and pecuniary conveniences of men.
(5th. The recommendation of Auricular Confession, to which, I beg to add (the 7th) Absolution.)
Every well-instructed Catholic, knows that no man, as man, can forgive sins; but at the same time, he knows, that God can forgive sins, and that God, can give that power to man; for the Apostles were men, and yet, Jesus Christ (as I shall shortly shew) gave his Apostles, a power to forgive sins. You know, that our Saviour, was both God and man, and that he acted, sometimes as God, and sometimes, as man. Now, if you will read the ninth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, you will find, that our Saviour worked a miracle, to prove that He as man, (but mind assisted by his heavenly Father) had power to forgive sins, even on earth. Now, he gave this power, also to his Apostles, for we read in St. John's Gospel, (chap. xx. 22,) He "breathed upon them," and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins, you shall forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." Now, why was not this power of forgiving sins, to extend also to future ages? Are not God, and Jesus Christ, as good and as kind, now, as they were, in the time of the Apostles; and are there not, as many sinners now, as there were then? If therefore, God, and Jesus Christ, in their infinite mercy, gave this power of forgiving sins, to the Apostles, for the good of mankind then, and if there are, as many sinners now, as there were then, in the name of common sense, why was not this power of God, given to the Apostles for the benefit of mankind then, why was it not, to extend also to all future ages, for the benefit of mankind afterwards? No such things, cries out the Lay Metropolitan of England. Such doctrine, would lead the people, step by step, to the very verge of the precipice. But of what precipice? Would you believe it? to the recommendation of Auricular Confession, and Absolution, as laid down, in the Church of England Prayer-book.
In the Church of England form of Ordination, the Bishop says, to the candidate for the priesthood: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins ye shall forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins ye shall retain, they are retained." These words, most Reverend Gentlemen, were said over each of you, by your Bishops, when you presented yourselves candidates, for ordination. Now, did you receive any spiritual power, or was this a mere form? If you answer, it was a mere form, you then have no more power, in this respect, than a mere layman; but if you answer, you did receive a power, it must have been, either a declaratory, or a judicial power to forgive sins; if it was only a declaratory power, viz., to declare, that the sinner, would obtain forgiveness if he truly repented, then, any layman, possesses this power without ordination; for any layman, can confidently declare, that penitent sinners are pardoned; but if you received a judicial power, to forgive sins, then, this is popish doctrine, and this would lead you, and your flock, step by step, to the very verge of the precipice. But to the verge of what precipice? Why your Protestant common prayer-book, shall now tell you. Really, most Reverend Gentlemen, I am afraid of quoting this passage, from your prayer-book; for it will not merely lead you to the verge, but it will hurl you, all headlong, down the precipice of the popish doctrine, of Auricular Confession, and Absolution.
But we had better, go step by step, and therefore, I will quote a choice piece, that occurs in your Protestant common prayer-book, just before the recommendation of Auricular Confession, and Absolution. Your godly prayer-book, says, in the visitation of the sick, "the ministers shall not omit, earnestly to move, such sick persons, as are of ability, to be liberal to the poor." It is a pity, O godly Church, that thou didst not give this advice to thyself, at the Reformation, when thou stolest, so much money from the poor, and then, made the nation make up, by church-rates and poor-rates, for what thou hadst stolen. Thou art really a very disinterested spiritual physician, for thou art most solicitous about thy children, practising the virtue of charity themselves, but as for thyself, thou will practise charity, as soon as it is convenient, or as soon as the spirit moves thee, or the nation makes thee.
But what comes next, in your godly prayer-book? Why, rank, and downright Popish doctrine, of auricular confession, and absolution. In the visitation of the sick, your prayer-book thus says; "Here shall the sick person be moved to make a SPECIAL confession of his sins, if he feel his conscience, troubled with any weighty matter. After which confession, the Priest shall absolve him (if he humbly and earnestly desire it) after this sort: Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to His Church, to absolve all sinners, who truly repent, and believe in Him; of His great mercy, forgive thee thine offences: and by His authority COMMITTED TO ME, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." Really, most Reverend Gentlemen, if all this, is not rank popish, auricular confession, and absolution, I know not what is; and mind, standing as large as life, in your Church of England, Common Prayer-book, which was made by act of parliament, by "the aid of the Holy Ghost, and for the honour of God." Really, what are you, and Lord John Russell to do now, when your Protestant godly Prayer-book, has not only led you to the verge, but hurled you all headlong down to the very bottom, of popish Auricular Confession, and absolution? Why, you must either renounce your Protestant prayer-book, and declare, it is not a work of the Holy Ghost, nor made for the honour of God; or your orthodox stomachs, must swallow, by wholesale, this abomination of desolation, of popish auricular confession, and absolution; and thus, allow the dreadful enemy, to remain "within your gates," an enemy more terrible than an hostile invasion by foreign powers.
(6th. The administration of Penance.) This, most Reverend Gentlemen, is the sixth error, in Lord John Russell's catalogue, of seven errors, but the last, which I have to answer, as I have already, included the seventh, in the fifth error. If Lord John, wishes to intimate, that Catholics teach works of penance, to be of themselves a sufficient compensation for sin, Lord John has yet, to learn, the first rudiments of the Catholic creed; but if he means, that Catholics consider the works of penance, as one of the conditions, on which our Saviour, is willing to communicate the merits of His death and passion, to the soul of the sinner, Lord John's meaning is just. But does Lord John, seriously condemn this doctrine, founded, as it is, on the plainest evidence of scripture, and confirmed by the practice of the earliest ages? If I understand Lord John rightly, he certainly does. Lord John, is perhaps the zealous champion of the all-sufficiency of Christ, and in his opinion, to do penance for sin, after the great sacrifice consummated on the cross, is to lead the people, step by step, to the verge of an awful precipice. If this, is Lord John's creed, it must, at least, be a very consoling one. Indulge your passions, it exclaims, to the sinner, indulge your passions, and cease to sin, when you can sin no longer; fear not the rigours of penance; to weep and pray, to fast and give alms, to repent in sackcloth and ashes, are external ceremonies, which are confined to the popish creed; but to practise them, in our new dispensation of free grace, as by law established, would be, to lead the people, to the very verge of the popish precipice. It is curious to observe, how Lord John's liberation from penance (if I understand him rightly,) has improved, on the rough sketch, which was delivered by our forefathers. St. Paul, was accustomed to keep under his body, and to bring it under subjection by acts of penance; and I have no doubt, he thought he was acting in a manner, pleasing to Christ, and yet, we learn from Lord John's doctrine, (if I understand it rightly,) this great apostle, was leading the people, step by step, to the very verge, of the awful precipice of penance. The penitents in ancient times, often spent whole years in works of penance; they fasted and prayed, they lay prostrate at the porch of the Church, they solicited the intercession of their less guilty brethren. By these penitential austerities, they hoped, they were fulfilling the will of the Redeemer, and yet, alas! according to Lord John's doctrine (if I understand it rightly) they were going, step by step, to the very verge of the awful precipice of penance. Even the learned men, who compiled the Church of England, Common Prayer-book, appear to have been involved in this awful error. "There was formerly," they tell us, "a godly discipline, that at the beginning of Lent, such persons, as stood convicted of notorious sins, were put to open penance, and punished here, that their souls, might be saved at the day of the Lord; and it were much to be wished, that this said discipline, may be restored." (Church Eng. Com. Pray. book.) Little did they imagine, that this godly discipline of penance, by means of which the souls of sinners, were to be saved in the day of the Lord, would be reproved by a Protestant layman, as an error, which would lead people, step by step, to the verge of an awful precipice. Yet so (if I understand his meaning) says Lord John Russell, and he is lay Metropolitan of all England.
I think I cannot better take leave of Lord John, than by addressing him in the words of the Reverend Mr. Bennett, under whose Puseyite teaching, he sat for some time. "If my course was insidious, (Lord John), why did you take part in that course? If I so muttered the liturgy, as to disguise its language, why did you join in so glaring a profaneness, for nearly seven years? If I practised 'mummeries and superstition,' why did you, come to join in them, for nearly seven years? Why did you so far and so deeply join, as to receive at my hands, so late as Ash Wednesday, 1849, the holy Eucharist, yourself and your family? If I were one, of those designated in your letter, as bringing a greater danger, than the Pope, why then, my lord, was it, that you said not all this before?" (Rev. Mr. Bennett's Letter to Lord John Russell.)