Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

14 articles on this Page

FROM THE LONDON GAZETTES.…

\ MERTHYR TYDVIL, AND BRECON,

[No title]

NEW CHURCHES.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE GAZETTE…

News
Cite
Share

TO THE EDITOR OF THE GAZETTE AND GUARDIAN Sin,-Tite following letter, taken from the Conservative Journal, of Saturday last, puts the intrusive and usurping character of the Romish Church in such a striking and true light, that, if you can find a space for it in your columns, I feel assured it will be very acceptable to most of your readers; ard perhaps it may meet the eye of some whose 'ery erroneous notions with respect to the tenire of the property of the Church of England often lead them to assert (how truly it is for tlem to shew) that that pro- perty once of right lelonged, if it does not now belong to the Rormn Catholics-if indeed, a term so self-contradctory as that of the Roman Catholics may be used to describe them, I am, Mr. Editor, very truly yours, PHILALETHES. Basselleg, Oct. 15,1839. TO MR o'CONNELL. Siit,-r think sotre reply necessary to your Address to the Peope of England, and assure you no insult is inteufed to you or any Papist. I call you Papists, because it seems your appro- priate title. Roman Catholics mig-ht include all dwellers in Rome, whether followers of the Pope or not. Catho.ics you are not. There needs no argument to prove, to a learned man like you, that Catholic, meaning universal, can neverapply to any church planted by man. The sevei churches in Asia, might each as well call themselves Catholic; they were certainly as oH as the church planted at Rome, by St.Peter-Catl)olic, even that church never has been since the division between the Eastern Greek Chuich under the Patriarch, at Constantinople, frorc the Latin Western Church, under the Pope, at Rome, A.D. 397. A Christian Church was planted in this king- dom by St. Paul, nearly, if not quite as early as St. Peter planted one at Rome and in this light I answer, That the Papist branch of the Church of Rome, intruded on the Christian Church of St. Paul, in this kingdom, in A.D. 596, when Austin the Papist, usurped an authority. That this usurpation, continued till the reign of Henry VIII. That this usurpation, you, as a zealous Papist, endeavour again to intrude. Hence, I would beseech you to excuse my saying that the Bjfhops and Priests of the Latin Western Popish Church, who exercise their functions in the British dominions, act schismatically, de- riving no succession from the ancient British, Irish, Scottish, or Anglo Saxon Churches planted by St. Paul. Their authority is from Rome. Whatever degree of apostolical succes- sion and ecclesiastical power you may claim for the Latin Western Church and Pope at Rome, and in Italy, I claim for the Angciican Church and Archbishop of Canterbury, in London and the British Dominion. You must allow me to say of Austin, just what you would say of any British priest who had intruded into Rome and usurped power; nay, 1 atn ready to treat you Papists now just as you would treat any Lu- theran, or Calvanist, or English Protestant, who should issue in the Pope's dominions such a letter as you have issued in her Britannic Majesty's. My answer is, that without usurpation no Papist can exercise Ecclesiastical authority in the British dominions. Can they exercise secular authority ? I think not honestly. As long as our Sovereign is head of the Church, so long a Papist must be a dan- gerous subject; the more honest the more dan- gerous. The conduct of the Bishop of Malta is as decisive as it is honourable to the Christian prelate. He doubted whether he could take the I oath of allegiance to our Sovereign, which was framed when PapIsts were admitted to a share in the legislation f°r these British dominions; he submitted his doubts to the Pope who de- cided that he could not take it. Hence I answer, that the better, i.e. the more conscientious a Papist is, the more impossible it is to be a faithful and true subject of the Sovereign of Britain.. Your Ecclesiastics, then, I contend, can have no more authority here than ours can have in the Papal territories. Your Laymen can only pay a divided allegiance to our Sovereign, in which division the Pope must always have the lion's share. ,r- I hope I have said nothing offensive, but suffi- cient to convince my Protestant fellow subjects, that Popery ever was, is, and must be, an intru- sive usurpation in the British dominions, hostile to the Church, and dangerous to the State, in proportion to the conscientiousness of the Papist. I have the honour to be your conscientious op- ponent, A GLOUCESTERSHIRE VICAR. Vicarage, Sept. 28, 1839.

[No title]

I INSOLVENT DEBTORS. —SPRING…

HER MAJESTY'S APPROACHING…

IRELAND

(Blamorgaugirtr^

--------------------REGISTRATION…

Advertising

TO CORRESPONDENTS. 0

[No title]