THE PAPAL AGGRESSION. LETTER FROM THE BISHOP OF DURHAM.

New Zealander, Volume 7, Issue 536, 4 June 1851, Page 4

THE PAPAL AGGRESSION. LETTER FROM THE BISHOP OF DURHAM.

The following aniwer has been returned by the Rishop ot Durham to an address from the Archdearo.l of Undisfarne and the Clergy of his Archdeaconry, on the subject of the measures which may he considered as called for to meet tue Papal Hggression :—: — Dear Mr. Archdeacon — la acknowledging the receipt of an a-idross fioiu your»et( and the eleryy of your Archde/ionry, I have the pleasms? task ot renewing the as=mance of my entire concurrence in the feeling, almost umvei sally expressed, of attachment to the real principles of our happy Reformation, ana of loyalty to our Protestant Sovereign. "lv my leplics to various other addresses, I have endeavoured to avoid repetition of the same topics : and my present aim is to supply omissions and to remove objections It has been asserted, (hen, that the resistance to Papal aggression is a selfish and bigoted movement on the part of the clergy. Now, I believe that the question at issue partakes more of a civil than a religious nature. That the step taken by Rome is intended as a preliminary to the undoing of all that our ancestors achieved at the Reformation, and is to pave the way for imposing both upon the cleigy and laity of thii country the yoke of acoiruptand tyrannical -religion, I fit nily believe ; but the form in which it has presented it.selt is that of invasion upon the rights of the Cicwu and the independence of our national institution^. Our clergy would no doubt be scandalised and annoyed by a perpetual collision of bishop with bishop imd priest with priest ; such as the restless domineering spun of Popery would not fail to seize every oppoitunity of producing. Otherwise, the clergy are

not more interested than the laity in protesting against this usurpation f uor am I aware that they have exerted themselves in any degree more, even if so much as their lay brethren, in making a firm, but temperate, remonstrance against it. The whole nation felt the insult at once ; they have risen, as one man, to express their indignation, upon the plain and intelligible ground occupied by our forefathers at tlie Refor« mation. This sense of wrong inflicted upon the national dignity, disposes at once of the charge of intolerance or fanaticism. In any censure which it may have been my duty to pass upon Roman Catholics. I hope that my censure lias been feen to direct itself against the system, not a^inst individuals. Moreover, 1 have always felt that a marked distinction is to be made between Knavish Roman Catholics and others of that perauation. The English Roman Catholics have ever shown themselves loyal and tranquil subjects, kind and l.bcral neighbours ; and if any suspicion Ins been awakened nt nny time, it should be dispelled by fhe noble and manly part taken by the Duke of Norfolk and Lord Beaumont and Camoys. These noblemen throw no doubt upon the peculiar doctrines of their Church ; nor do they dispute the really spiri val claims of its Head; but they cannot become parties to tint improper interference with the privileges of their own Soveieign, without forfeiting that allegiance which they owe in common with all their fellow-subjects. They therefore stand in a far more honourable positionj as Christians, than their Ultramontane | brethren, and all such as act upon Ultramontane , pimeiples. It Ims often appeared to me surprising that any person of ordinary understanding, and to whom the Sciiplures are opiu, should be induced to wander in ! the darkness of Romanism, when he might enjoy the i pure light of oar Reformation. Nevertheless, when I ha>e considered the influence exerted upon the human mind by early habits and associations, and the firm hold which religious opinions maintain upon more advanced periods ot life, »he surprise has been greatly abated in respect of such as have imbibed the doctrines of the Romi-ih Church from their birth. But I cannot lefrain from expressing the greatest wonder that any, who have been nurtured in the brightness and freedom of Protestantism, should condescend to accept the restrictions put upon the will and understanding of conscience, and accommodate themselves to the palpable errors, the gross absurdities, and the mischievous practices of Rome. That I may not be supposed to speak without some iuquiry and reflection, or to indulge in a spirit appioaching to intolerance, I will shortly specify some of the points which I have ever considered most objectionable, and I will call the attention of our own clergy to them, when they find it their duty to instruct their people upon the discriminating doctrines and relative merits of Popeiy and Protestantism. 1. I first mention the claim of the Pope to Universal Empiie over the Church of Christ. That such a claim is not supported, in the smallest dpgree, by the text usually brought forward (Matt. xvi. JB, 19,) I have endeavoured to prove in the last two sermons of a volume published in 1522. Other doctrines, practice*, and claims equally destitute of authority from Holy Writ, are— 2. Tran»ub->tantiation, ani the refusal of the cup in the Holy Communion to the laity. 3. Divine honours paid to the Virgin Mary, the In* ; vocation of Saints, and the Worship ot Images. , 4. The doctrine of Purgatory, and power of a Priest to procure relief from its penalties. 5. The grant of Indulgences. 6. Restraint upon the use of the Holy Scriptures, amounting to prohibition. 7. The unnatural ext.nt to which celibacy is enforced. 8. The pretence that miracles that evpn now performed in the Church of Rome. It may well be doubted if theie be any authentic record of any miracle since the destruction of Jerusalem, unless the foiling of Julian's purpose to rebuild it be an exception. 9. The offering up of public p rayers ia a foreign tongue, little understood ; with a disposition to discourage all education except on a moit narrow and exclusive principle. 10. To this catalogue of speculative error and actual miichief must be added the most dangerous of ail. The Confessional has always appeared to me * system pregnant with evil, moral and civil, social and domestic ; and too surely calculated to enslave and corrupt, more especially the young and female mind. As I am not aware that any more appeals will be made to me upon this occasion, I have entered more fully upon the topics which it suggests, in the hope that the obiervationi I have made here and elsewhere may be of use to our younger bretinen. But I shall now conclude with adverting to one other misapprehension, if misapprehension there be, on the part of our aggressors. Some of them have expressed alarm, and raised an outcry, as if there were any iuteation to have recourse to vindictive meabUtes and re-eoact the penal laws. It does sound somewhat strangely, that a Roman Catholic should plead earnestly for religious liberty, and utter piteous complaints against persecution and against uny violations of the rights of conscience :■— Quite tulent Gracchos de seditione querentes ? I believe and sincerely hope, they have nothing; to fear in this lespect. I am persuaded that no wish exists generally for any measure but what self defence lequires. An outrageous attack has been made upon us , but I trust adequate means may be devned for owirscuiity, wi houi.disiuibing She fiee exercise of religion by others, or infringing tieir rights ot consciencr. It surely Cinnot be necessary to the maintenance of these great ends, tint a foreign potentate shi>uid be permitted to insult a great nation, trample upon the lights of the Soveieign as secured by Jaw, anddibturo the j.eace and good order of the Estubli-hed Church. In order to prevent such evils it may be necessary to provide souls restrictions upon the introduction and circulation, of Papal bulls in this island ; and to pro- j hibit the assumption ot episcopal titles confened by Rome, aud deriving the name from any place in this country. It may al&o be desirable to forbid the existence of monastic institutions, binctly so ca'led ; nor can the residence of any Jesuits appear otherwise than injurious among Scotch and English protestants. That order is well known to have shown i'self bo dangerous that it was suppressed by Clement XIV. in 1773, with the approbation of all wise and good men. What species or amount of merit may have brought them again into favour at Rome I profess myself unable to determine ; but I am sure yoa will agree with me, that a body of men whose principles and conduct ! have been so justly reprobated iti Cuthoiic countries, cannot be looked upon as desirable neighbours among Protestants like ourselves. To some Buoh measures as 1 have thus poiuted out it may in all probability be found necessary to resort; and they may not improperly be referred to in petitions presented to Parliament in the ensuing session. No one, indeed, but Ministers themselves can know what steps are to be considered most effectual for the security of our Protestant faith and National independence ; but it ia our duty to pray the Almighty Ruler of the

Universe, that the counsels of our Sovereign and kcr advisers may be directed from on high, so as to become instrumental to the progress of " pare and undefiled religion ;" so that whatsoever it may be found necessary to do, may be done in a spirit of charity ; and that the final result, if we may not hope for a complete agreement among 1 all Christians, yet may be a nearer approach to such agreement, with a wider diffusion of peace and happiness among al/ the creatures of God. I am, dear Mr. Archdeacon, Your affectionate friend and brother fn Christ, (Signed) E. Dunelm, Auckland Castle, Jan. (», 1851.