Seeing there is so much talk just now about Popery and the Pope; that the whole kingdom has been parcelled out into Popish Bishoprics under a Cardinal Lord Archbishop of Westminster, and that we are placed under the spiritual dominion of Romish priests, it may not be amiss if we inquire what we shall be expected to believe, and what we shall have to submit to, —what in fact Popery really is, —before we shut up or burn our Bibles, and forsake our present religious teachers.

Shut up and burn our Bibles! you say. Aye, to be sure. No one ever heard of Papists allowing the Bible to be read by the common people. Now I am not surprised that the Roman Catholics dislike the Bible, for very much the same reason that Ahab, the King of Israel, disliked Micaiah, the prophet of the Lord—1 Kings 22: 8. It is hard not to contract a strong dislike to that which is for ever bearing testimony against one. To love an enemy is one of the most difficult of attainments; and the Bible everywhere speaks against Popery, and prophesies, not good, but evil of it, just as Micaiah did of Ahab. It is natural therefore that the Papists should dislike it. We ought not to expect any thing else. But I am somewhat surprised that they do not take more pains to conceal their dislike of it, for it certainly does not look well that a (professed) Church of God should fall out with the oracles of God. It has an ugly appearance, to say the least, to see a (so-called) Christian Church fall out with the Christian Scriptures.

Now we know the Pope hates Bible Societies, and forbids his people to have anything to do with them. It certainly looks bad that when Christ says, "Search the Scriptures," a Vicar of Christ, as he calls himself, should say, "No, you shall not even have them." Let us however do the Pope justice. He does not forbid the use of the Bible altogether, but only in the vulgar tongue. The English Catholic may have a French Bible, and the Frenchman a Dutch or English one. The mischief is in having it in a language which they can read.

The Papists say that the Bible is the source of heresies. They trace all the errors which prevail to the use of the Scriptures; but Christ gives a very different account of the matter. He says—Matthew 22: 29—to the Sadducees: "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures." And Paul in writing to Timothy says, they are "able to make thee wise unto salvation." The Romanist tells us that our religion is only three hundred years old, but here is an Apostle who lived eighteen hundred years ago, writing amazingly like a Protestant about the Holy Scriptures.

We have besides an advantage for understanding the Bible, which we have not for any other book whose author is not personally accessible. We can, at any moment we please, go and ask Him to interpret to us any difficult passage. St. James tells us, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." So then we have the Bible to inform us, and we have constant opportunities of consulting its Author in regard to its meaning. Is not this enough? I am satisfied.

But it strikes me that the Papists themselves hardly believe that their religion is scriptural. For if they did, why should they not put the Bible into the hands of the people, and advise them to read it, that they might become good Roman Catholics?

I wonder that the Papists, in forbidding the Scriptures, do not except St. Peter’s Epistles. Was ever any Catholic forbidden to read the letters of a Pope? I believe not. But if they may and should read the letters of the Popes, why not let them read the Epistles of the first of the Popes, as they call him, Peter? I should like to know why it is worse to read the letters of Pope Peter than of Pope Pius? They acknowledge that he wrote two epistles; why not let every Catholic have them? I do not wonder that they wish to keep out of sight of the people the Epistles of Paul, who says he "withstood Peter to the face, because he was to be blamed." Paul forgot at the moment that Peter was supreme and infallible. (Infallible means not liable to err, or mistake.) We are all liable to forget. Perhaps it is because Peter says nothing about Rome, unless by Babylon he means Rome; and not a word about his being Bishop of Rome, and Pope! He seems to have had no idea that he was a pope. He says in his 1^st Epistle, "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder." An elder! was that all? Why, Peter, do you forget yourself? Do you not know that you are a Universal Bishop, a Primate of the Apostolical College, Supreme and Infallible Head of the Church? Ah, this Infallibility! We all know the Church of Rome professes infallibility, but when did she get it? It was transmitted from Peter, to be sure! Christ gave it to him, and he handed it down. But was Pater infallible? There was a day when I suspect he did not think himself infallible—when, smitten to the heart, he went out and wept bitterly. There is no doubt he made a mistake when he so confidently pronounced, "Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee," and we know that this was after Christ had said to him, "Thou art Peter, and on this rock," &c.

If Peter was infallible, I wonder he did not at once settle the difficulty of which we have an account in Acts 15. Why was the matter suffered to be debated in the presence of his infallibility? It seems that Peter, on this occasion, claimed no pre-eminence, nor was any particular deference paid to him by the council. He related his experience precisely as did Paul and Barnabas. James seems to have been in the chair on that occasion. He speaks much more like an infallible person, than any of the rest. He says, "Wherefore my sentence is," &c. What a pity it is for the Church of Rome, that Peter had not said that instead of James. We should never have heard the last of it. But it was the Bishop of Jerusalem, and not the Bishop of Rome, who said it.

But again, if Peter was infallible, I am surprised that Paul "withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." That was not the way to treat a Pope. But Paul had always something of the Protestant about him. And yet Peter did not resent Paul’s treatment of him, for in his second Epistle he speaks of him as "our beloved brother Paul." I suppose that Peter himself did not know he was infallible. Men do not always know themselves.

But if the superiority among the disciples belonged to Peter, how was it that when the dispute arose among them, who should be the greatest, our Saviour did not take Peter instead of a little child, and set him in the midst of them? The disciples could not have understood our Saviour’s declaration. "Tho art Peter," &c., as the Church of Rome interprets it, or that dispute about superiority could never have arisen.

But if Peter were not infallible, why should we think that the Popes are? It might seem unkind, were I to quote from history some of their practices; and sometimes there have been two and even three Popes at one time, each of whom consigned the other to a place worse than Purgatory. But as some of the Roman Catholics say that a man’s doctrine may be infallible, while his practice is imperfect, we will look at some of their infallible doctrines.

Their priests are not allowed to marry—but Peter we know had a wife, and Paul says he had power to take a wife with him in his journeys, like the other apostles; and St. Paul, in laying down the duties of a Christian Bishop, says that he should be the husband of one wife, and he further says that Marriage is honourable in all. He does not except the clergy.

Now really, as it is well known that many of the Popes had families, and made no secret of it, but contracted marriages for their illegitimate children with some of the first families in Italy, I do not think it improbable that many of the Romish priests would copy their Head Bishop’s example. There are some ugly tales told about these things in Catholic countries, which will not bear repeating. But common sense will tell us what must come of a parcel of young men and women taking vows not to marry. I see therefore no sign of infallibility in this doctrine, but just the contrary; for our Bibles tell us that "in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry."

Then again, there is the doctrine of Confession to the priest. Old and young, male and female, are enjoined to tell him their most secret thoughts and emotions, and thus the purest mind is poisoned and corrupted, by being made to think upon and talk about impurity. For to aid in this disgusting work, the priests have the most particular directions, and questions are put which could only occur to the most abandoned of mankind. I know that I would not suffer my wife or daughter to undergo the filthy cross-examination of a set of men, though they had taken vows of chastity. But I do not find that penitents in the Bible were directed to go to the priests with money in their hands and get absolution; David, Hezekiah, Ezra, Daniel, and others, all went direct to God, and found acceptance and pardon. And does not common sense tell us, that when we have offended any one, we should confess our sine to the person we have offended? If a child offends his father, does he go to a third person to acknowledge it, when his father is near at hand; and above all does, he go to a brother who has equally offended? Yet this is Popish doctrine. It sends us to a brother as deep in the offence as we, to confess to him that we have sinned against our father, when that father is near by; and when, moreover, he says, "Come to me!" The Prodigal went straight to his Father, and so did the Publican, and we know how he received them.

But while writing this, I have recollected there is one New Testament example of confessing to priests, and as I like fair play, the Catholics shall have the benefit of it. Judas Iscariot did not go to God with his confession. He went to the chief priests, and it was to them he said, "I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood." Here we must confess is an example of confession to a priest. But it is the only one, I believe, in the Bible, and the example is not an encouraging one. Judas also took money to the priests; so that the Papists have authority (such as it is) for that part of their practice. Let us do them justice, and give them the advantage of every particle of Scripture which really makes in their favour, for I am sure they need it. Poor Judas! He got nothing by going to the priests, and perhaps it was their cruel and contemptuous treatment of him that determined him, in his despair, to go and hang himself. How differently would even Judas have been treated, had he gone with a broken heart to our great High Priest, Jesus! Ah! it would have been better to go to Him whom he had betrayed, than to them to whom he betrayed Him. I think we had better always to go to Him, notwithstanding the example of Judas. David said it was better to fall into the hands of God, even for correction, than into the hands of man.

We have all heard of the doctrine of Purgatory, which all Romanists are required to believe. The Bible we know speaks of two places beyond the grave, but we find nothing about a third; we are taught that sin is washed out by blood—not burned out in fire. "The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from ALL sin." What is then left for fire to do? The spirits of the just made perfect ascribe no part of their salvation to fire. No, their ascription is, "Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood"—Revelation 1: 5. What a horrible idea, that after Christ’s blood has been applied to the believing penitent, the expiation is not complete till the soul has been subjected to an intense flame, for no one knows how long! The Penitent Thief did not go there, and yet if any one needed Purgatory, surely he did, for he had no time to do penance. I can find nothing about it in the Bible; and yet we are told a good deal about believers. Hark! here is a voice from heaven; now we shall know how it is: "I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth; yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours." They that die in the Lord, rest, you see. Then certainly they are not in Purgatory. I do not know what you think about this but it would be poor comfort to me, when on a sick and dying bed, to think of resting in flames for an uncertain time.

There is another curious doctrine which Papists hold to be infallible. Supererogation they call it, a long word they have coined on purpose, the meaning of which is, that when good people have done enough for their own salvation, all they do over and above, goes into a common treasury of the Church, who can sell this surplus stock to rich sinners who fall short. Now we are commanded to love God with all our heart, and mind, and soul, and strength, and till we have done this, we have not done enough; and it was because we could never do this, and must have perished, that Christ suffered, the just for the unjust. I do not think the wise virgins were Papists, for when they were asked for oil, they said, "Not so, lest there be not enough for us and you."

That the poor should like Popery when they know what it is, I can’t imagine, for it is not a poor man’s Church. Christ, according to them, does not open heaven till mass has been had and paid for, so that either our Saviour was wrong when he says, "How hardly shall they that have riches enter the kingdom of God," or else Popery is wrong, for they are the very men who can enter most easily, having the wherewith to purchase indulgences and masses.

The poor must serve their time out in Purgatory, while the rich can buy themselves out. ‘Tis true there is a service once a year, on the second of November, (they call it All-Souls’ day,) when mass is said for all Catholic souls in Purgatory. Now a poor Catholic must feel very disconsolate who is taken with mortal sickness soon after, with the prospect of burning in the flames at the very least till the next All-Soul’s day. But I am afraid, as it takes so much money and time to get a rich Catholic out, that the benefit is not much when it comes to be divided among so many as die every year; and so it would appear is their own opinion, for to help themselves, in most Catholic countries they have Benefit Clubs, to which they subscribe weekly, and a member on his death is entitled to a mass to give him a lift out of Purgatory—provided his subscription be duly paid up. Ah, this is the rub! Here are the very words. I have copied them from Rue 7 of a Dublin Purgatory Club: —"Every subscriber shall be entitled, without distinction, to the benefit of One Mass each, provided that such Member or Subscriber shall be six Months a Subscriber to the Institution, and be clear of all dues at the time of the departure!" I wonder what Peter would have thought of these Spiritual Benefit Clubs!

In another of them to catch honorary members, from "Those respectable persons who wish to contribute largely to this truly meritorious and charitable association for relieving the distressed poor, who may allow at the rate of 7½d, or 10d, or 1s. per week, paid quarterly in advance, which grand subscriptions will be faithfully "registered and transmitted from our books to the books of Eternal Life." "There will also be some Masses immediately celebrated, ACCORDING TO THE SUBSCRIPTION."

Peter says, that, "we are not redeemed with such corruptible things as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ," but his infallible successors seem of a very different opinion. But I think Peter is the better authority of the two, and should be very unwilling to have years or ages of torture depending on the Subscription.

Now if good Catholics have to endure all this burning in Purgatory, no wonder they think so little of burning the bodies of Protestant heretics. And as that which is infallible cannot change, we will not forget the hundreds of fires that were once kindled in every part of this country. But as Bishop Latimer said to Bishop Ridley when about to perish in the flames, "Brother Ridley, we shall this day light a candle in England, which by God’s grace shall never be put out," so shall the lamp of God’s Word continue to be a light unto our feet, to conduct us onward to temporal and eternal happiness; although the other day a Romish priest in Birmingham did take a person’s Bible and burnt it. For my part, I am afraid that a man that hates God’s blessed Word so much as to burn it, would not scruple to burn those who love it, if he had but the power.

Many of us have thought that it was an old-fashioned prejudice that fancied any danger from Popery in these enlightened days but let us look at Rome. Not long ago we read in the papers that the Roman people were so sick and tired of the Pope and his Government, that they rose against them; and that he sneaked away, behind a Protestant nobleman’s carriage, disguised as s livery servant. A pretty convincing proof this, that those who know him best like him the least. "Well," thought I, as I read it, "this does not look much like God’s Vicar on earth; but ‘the hireling fleeth because he is an hireling.’ Servants in livery may be very respectable and good sort of people, but we should not seek among them for an Infallible Pope, and a successor of St. Peter. His poor deluded followers in other countries will surely now have their eyes opened to his blasphemous pretensions!"

Directly the Pope’s back was turned, the Inquisition was abolished; orders came for thousands of Bibles from the Roman people; and printing-presses were set to work in Rome itself, for it seemed impossible to supply the demand for the Scriptures. No sooner, however, did he return, than the Inquisition was restored; the gentleman (Dr. Achilli) who had been most active in Bible distribution was clapped into it, the printing-presses stopped, and the people everywhere commanded to deliver up their Bibles to be destroyed. Depend upon it, the Bible is as much hated by Romish priests in England as in Rome, and the Bible-burning in Birmingham is but a sample of what we should have everywhere in this country. Popery changed, indeed! its tyranny, its Bible-hating, and its superstitious mummeries can never change, or it would no longer be Popery. Why, the present Pope, since his return, has proclaimed a new miracle—that an image of the Virgin Mary has been miraculously winking its eyes, "to the great advantage of the faithful;" and I don’t know what honours are being paid to it. Just fancy what English Roman Catholics of plain common sense must think of such impostures as this, warranted by one who is styled an Infallible Head of the Church. Who can wonder that infidelity is general in Popish countries among the better informed of the people.

Had the Pope been left to himself, we should have heard very little of a Sovereign Pontiff. But we read in our Bibles that the kings of the earth shall give their power unto the Beast; and so foreign armies were sent to force the Pope and his authority upon an unwilling people. And those armies are obliged to be kept there, or he would again be driven out. And though at present he may speak great swelling words, we know where it is written of the apostate Church of which he is the head, "For God hath put it in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their power unto the Beast, UNTIL THE WORDS OF GOD SHALL BE FULFILLED." And again, "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues," for "she shall be utterly burned with fire."

There are many other things on which I should like to say a few words, but a handful of corn is as sufficient to show the quality as the whole sack; and I hope that the few samples I have given will put us all thinking, and reading our Bibles, and praying too, for God’s Holy Spirit to guide us in the way of truth; and then we shall have reason to bless him for this impudent meddling of the Pope.

But we have also something else to do besides thinking, and reading, and praying, —for God works by means. Protestantism should be a religion of protesting, but many of us have nearly forgotten what were the sins of Popery which led our forefathers to protest against, and to abandon it. Our CIVIL LIBERTIES are in as much danger as our spiritual privileges. Papists boast that as Popery is infallible, it never changes, and cannot change. Let us take them at their word, and act accordingly, uniting in addressing the Parliament and the Throne, and telling them that though Popery claims infallibility, we do not, and that we fear we have made a mistake in seeming to allow by some of our concessions to what we thought full religious liberty for our fellow-subjects, the intermeddling of a foreign power; that we are now convinced by experience that Popery is, and ever must be, the enemy of our country and of mankind, and that it should not be allowed unlimited license in this Protestant kingdom; that British females should not be allowed to be inveigled into taking vows of celibacy; that convents and monasteries should not again be suffered to pollute the soil from which our forefathers uprooted them; and that we will have no Jesuits (who have been for their crimes expelled in turn from every Roman Catholic country) allowed to interfere in our families, and undermine their principles.

That while we would have no persecution of our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, we would have such additions to our statutes as may be necessary to have them, equally with ourselves, protected from the aggressive and deadly machinations of a foreign priesthood, which has ever been the bitterest enemy of our country. And that we will, at all hazards, and at any cost, preserve those scriptural privileges which our forefathers purchased with their lives, and which, under God, are the only safeguards of our individual happiness and our national prosperity.

* * *