THE GENTLEMAN'S MAGAZINE. MARCH, 1829. ORIGINAL COMMUNICATIONS. Mr. URBAN, FROM PERSECUTIONS OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. Vicarage, Tavistock, March 17. ROM the patriotic manner in which you have considered that important question now agitating the public mind, I venture to hope that you will readily admit a few observations on a point, that appears to me worthy of some attention at the present crisis. I have remarked that, whenever any of the Protestant advocates for the Constitution have chanced to allude to the savage persecutions of the idolatrous Church of Rome, the Papist advocates invariably exclaim, "Oh, that was the spirit of the times; the Protestants persecuted the Papists just the same when they had the power.' Now, this assertion I utterly deny, and I shall attempt to support my denial both by argument, and by facts drawn from historical record. The assertions of our opponents rest ou the fact, that, in the reigns of Henry VIII. Edward VI. and Elizabeth, certain persons suffered for heresy or schism. I admit this to be true; but I will not, therefore, admit, that it was occasioned by the spirit of the reformed Church being as intolerant as that of Rome, even in its earliest period. In regard to Henry VIII. though he shook off the supremacy of the Pope, and suppressed monasteries, he was scarcely more deserving the name of Protestant of the reformed Church, than was his daughter, the cruel Mary. He had determined to repudiate Catherine, and, the Pope not granting an absolution for that purpose, he annulled the power of the Pope in England. He also determined to keep up his own assumed supremacy, by disarming the power of the Clergy: he destroyed, therefore, the monasteries, and, by distributing their revenues amongst his courtiers and nobles, took the best means in the world to prevent them from ever rising again. Let any one read Henry the Eighth's Six Articles, and then say if he were other than a Roman Catholic, notwithstanding he shook off the power of the Pope. Can we then wonder if we see, in the latter part of his reign, some instances of burning for heresy ? It was the lingering spirit of Popery that lighted the funeral fires. In the reign of Edward VI. I also admit that we find a few, though a very few, instances of persons suffering for what was termed heresy. But whence arose this? Not from any bigoted disposition in that virtuous young Prince; for it was not till after a strong and repeated denial, he could be brought to sign the warrant for the death of the only person who suffered for heresy by royal authority during his reign; and whilst he put his hand to the deed, he wept bitterly. These very acts may be traced to the leaven of the old religion of Rome, not even then completely extirpated. The Reformation of the Church, like all other reformations, was gradual in its progress. It was night indeed when the Church of Rome prevailed. The light of the Reformation broke gently upon the world: there was a dawn before it spread into the full effulgence of its meridian, and the task undertaken by the Reformers was not to be suddenly or easily accomplished. Not only was the judgment of men to be called into play, the reason to be informed, but the most difficult of all tasks, that of eradicating rooted prejudices and violent passions, was to be effected. There was a high-minded intolerance, a non-enduring pride of opposition about the followers of the Roman Church, which was the very last thing conquered: and hence was it, that amongst many who confessed they were in error, when they believed the Pope to be as infallible as God upon earth, who admitted that transubstantiation was a corruption of the sacrament, that image worship was 196 Apology for the early Protestants. abomination, that one Mediator was sufficient, even Christ,-I affirm, that very many persons who allowed all these things, still, for a time, adhered to their old leaven of intolerance, and that they derived it, not from the new light they received from the Reformation, but from the darkness of the old spirit of Rome, that still lingered about them. It was this spirit that made some, who called themselves Protestants and reformers, condemn the Anabaptists as heretics and schismatics. And can we wonder this should be the case? Can we feel sur prised that so great, so total a change in the Church as that produced by the Reformation, should not be brought to perfection in a day? As the doctrine of the reformed Church spread itself abroad, it became daily more studied and better understood, till at length all men who professed it, confessed, that the sword of the Spirit in religious matters, was very different from a sword of steel; and that the fire of the cloven tongues which descended from the Holy Ghost, was no fire to burn the bodies of men for the sake of that spirit. As these doctrines became better understood, I repeat it, all intolerance, as far as regarded bodily punishment, was entirely discountenanced and discontinued. When, I would ask, was this ever known to be the case in the Church of Rome? Let the history of the Inquisition speak the answer, Never. In the reign of that bigot, commonly known by the name of bloody Queen Mary, 282 persons were burnt alive for heresy; twelve thousand clergy were turned adrift to starve as exiles abroad, or to perish at the stake if they remained at home; whilst imprisonments, tortures, fines, confiscations, and oppressions of all kinds and descriptions, were too numerous to be even accurately known: and yet, at this day, certain persons, advocating the cause of the Romish Church, have dared, either wilfully or ignorantly, to assert, that under Elizabeth the Papists suffered as severely as did the Protestants under Mary. The manifold cruelties and oppressions which the unhappy Protestants endured in the reign of Mary, certainly did create (and how could it be otherwise?) bitter feelings against the Roman Catholics; and in some instances there might be traced a spirit [March, of retaliation; whilst here and there some person, calling himself a member of the reformed Church, but, in fact, still mingling with his principles the leaven of Popery, did persecute an enemy when he had the power to do So. But this was so far from emanating from the spirit of the reformed Church, that Bonner, the vilest wretch that ever lighted the fires of Smithfield, found no other punishment than that of being confined in the Marshalsea prison, where he lived for ten years, and died unmolested. As to the hangings, drawings, and quarterings of the Roman Catholics, with which it has of late become common to charge Elizabeth, those very acts may with truth be referred to Rome itself as the cause, since almost all the persons so suffering (excepting such as were condemned for crimes to this day subject to the penal laws of England) were traitors, Jesuits, recusant priests, and conspirators of all kinds, purposely sent into this kingdom, or encouraged, by Rome itself, to destroy the Person and Government of the great heretical Protestant Queen. So notorious was this fact, that it was commonly said, Cardinal Allen's book (written at Louvain to prove the lawfulness of putting to death, by any means, a heretic Sovereign,) had alone nearly worn out the gallows at Tyburn, so many having undertaken plots for her destruction after reading that book. Nor must it be forgotten, that this precious composition of Cardinal Allen recommending murder was approved by the Pope, who, in order to make the recommendation more stirring, promised immediate admission into Heaven to any person who, having succeeded in the death of Elizabeth, should be taken, and suffer loss of life for the act. Indeed, so numerous and so daring were the plots, year by year, carried on against her life by the Roman Catholics, that it could only have been by the especial interference of Providence that she escaped them all. The plot of Ballard and Babington is the most known, because Mary Queen of Scots was concerned in it; but there were many others quite as desperate, that were happily frustrated. I now come to mention what appears to me the most important of all points to be considered at this crisis, and yet it is that which has been repeatedly held in derision amid the 1829.] Danger of union with the Church of Rome. blindness of these times. I allude to the danger of forming any union with, or giving any political countenance to, the Church of Rome. Let any man in his senses calmly sit down and study the Revelation of St. John. Let him take as a guide, or as a help, the Commentators on it; and, if he can read but for half an hour without being convinced that the Church of Rome is the great Antichrist so fearfully cursed and denounced of God, he is blind past hope of recovery. But if, on the contrary, he is convinced that she is indeed "Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth;" that in her may be found "the blood of prophets and of saints," what, I say, is the madness of that man, who would wish his country (hitherto by God's blessing having been numbered with "the witnesses" who rose up against her and cast her out,) now to invite her in, and, by giving her political power, afford her the very means to spread her fornications (the Scripture term for idolatry) abroad! Surely the individual or the country that does this, becomes as much a participator in her crimes, as that man becomes a participator in the crime of theft, who opens the door of his neighbour's house to admit the robber, even though he should not himself share in the spoil. Search, I say, the Scriptures from beginning to end, under the Law, under the Gospel, in the Prophecies, and you will find that no sin is altogether so abhorrent to God as that of idolatry. And most justly is it so; since every such religion, from that of the sacrifices to Moloch, to those offered by Rome, which substitutes a false worship for a true, (and what is this but idolatry?) encourages almost every other sin that is known to man. " When the kings and the merchants of the earth (who bewail the fall of the mystical Babylon, the Romish Church) rehearse the articles of her guilty trade, they close the catalogue with "slaves, and the souls of men.' Nor can we wonder that of all the idolatries on the face of the globe, that of Rome should be the most fearfully denounced, when we consider its abominations are founded on the sacred name and word of Jesus Christ. God has destined the full measure of his wrath to fall upon that guilty Church; and terrible, though merciful, is the warning given 197 to all men who are still of the number of" the witnesses" that have risen up against her, not to be partakers of her sin or of her fall: "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues, for her sins have reached unto Heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities." Idolatrous and abominable as the Church of Rome is declared to be by the Revelation, yet far be it from the Protestant Church to persecute her as she persecuted us. But very different from a spirit of persecution is that of discouragement, and it is that we are bound to follow. Did the Jews, when they were the chosen people of God, take into their fellowship and into their councils the Heathen, by whom they were surrounded? and if they did so, in defiance of God's warning, did he not make their " pleasant sin" a bitter scourge to them? And even so, I fear, will He do to England, if she pollutes the pure and hitherto sanctified temple of her laws and of her faith, by mingling within its walls the worshippers of Christ and of the Antichrist. It is an act that cannot, that will not come to good; and, though it is a misfortune to be thus excluded, yet great is the guilt of that man or of that country, by whom the followers of idolatry shall be adopted. To speak thus boldly I know, at the present time, will be offensive to many; but when the Prophet has thus openly denounced the Church of Rome, 66 as a woman sitting upon a scarletcoloured beast, full of names of blasphemy," I know not why modern liberality should close our lips upon her real name and nature; and, though God has hitherto permitted her to have her reign, till the fulness of time fixed by Him for her punishment shall be arrived, yet we cannot for a moment imagine that the blessing of God has gone with her. Wanting that blessing, (which has enabled the true Church to rise again, notwithstanding all the persecutions she has undergone,) the Church of Rome has been compelled to uphold itself on fraud, worldly force, and consummate hypocrisy; and every one of these things being employed in her support is clearly pointed out in the Revelation of St. John. To that sacred book, and to those wise, learned, and good men, who have so ably commented upon it, I would refer all 200 Rectorial and Vicarial Tithes discriminated. however, at length becoming predominant, these powerful patrons were induced to make a laudable restitution of the perpetual advowson of many benefices so seised, to some particular individual, or to some collective ecclesiastical body. This restitution is supposed completely to have taken place prior to the reformation. In the monasteries, for some time, was almost entirely invested the cure of souls. Distant and sequestered districts were supplied with officiating clergy from the parent society. These actually serving monks took the ecclesiastical duties upon themselves in turn, either by rotation, or to satisfy some penitential order which had been imposed upon them by their superiors. At length, however, such changes, intermissions, and scandalous abuses in the pastoral care had crept into the church, that they began to attract the serious attention of the respective diocesans to which they belonged. The bishops, in order to maintain their own respectability, were constrained by degrees to restrain the monks from the personal cure of souls, and compel them to retain sufficient and able inen, (capellans, vicars, or curales, for all these are nearly the same office,) with a competent salary, and altogether independent of the monastery, to supply the vacant offices of parish priests in the distant churches and chapels belonging to them, and to confine the monks entirely to the cloister. Hence, perhaps, the first distinction and separate division of tithes originally appropriated to the rector and vicar. In the first instance, both rectors and vicars were necessarily ecclesiastics, or religious foundations. Prior to the time of Henry VIII. lay impropriations were altogether unacknowledged, either by law or reason. Such tenures, however, by various arts and machinations of sacred-trafficing individuals and corporate bodies, (for such existed even in those early times,) rapidly increased. In a short period of time, (such is generally the swift advance of evil,) we find favours of this kind procured by paying a certain compensation at Rome, for secular colleges, for chantries, for lay hospitals, for guilds and other aggregate bodies, for military orders, nay, for nunneries, thus constituting even women rectors of parishes. The example extended itself to individuals, [March, to parish priests, who in populous and rich districts procured a vicar to be endowed, upon whom they devolved the cure of souls, while they continued to have the more lucrative rectory settled upon themselves and their heirs, as a sine-cure for ever. From this account of the first nature of ecclesiastical endowments, it may be observed in what manner rectorial and vicarial tithes have, in the present day, become so much perplexed and confounded. Whenever the small oblations, &c. were found inadequate to the support of the vicar, the patron or rector was held bound, from the rectorial revenue, to supply the deficiency: and if at any time the vicarial tithes were superabundant for this purpose, then a part of them again reverted into the hands of the patron for the uses of hospitality and benevolence. Hay, for instance, and agistment is occasionally a rectorial or vicarial right. The rectorial claim seems to apply to every production of nature; the vicarial merely to that part of them which was originally granted by their endowments, or afterwards paid by subsequent usage. Hence the answer to the question of your correspondent, at first alluded to, seems to be clear. Every henefice is held by a rector, who may be a layman, a corporate body, or an ecclesiastic, to whom the great tithes of right belong; and an endowed vicar, to whom, by equal right, the smaller dues, whatever they may be, are appended. These may, through various contracts, civil and religious, be mutually interchanged. A vicarage may become a rectory by the adjunction of all the primitive rights of the original founder and patron, in whom alone they seem to be united, to the existing vicar; and a rectory may be changed into a vicarage by the same conveyance, by the patron retaining the prædial, and coutinuing only the smaller emoluments to his delegated substitute. In the case mentioned by Z. A. all the rectorial as well vicarial rights being vested by will in the then incumbent, the vicarage becomes necessarily a rectory. It may, however, be suggested, that the same power which was able to unite, may be inherent in the present possessor or patron, if such should still exist, with the approbation of his diocesan, again to disjoin them. Yours, &c. OMICRON. |