The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-01-04 00:00:00

CO RRPSPONDENCI

POPISH SCHOOLS AT PRESCOT,

IR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD,

rho wily artifices of the Church of Rome are set in
this time in our neighbourhood, in an appeal by
2stants for assistance to build schools. The
is from the Rev. John ['olden, Roman Catho-
lic priest of " Portico," a Popish chapel in the immediate
vicinity of this town. The following is an extract from it :
" In the town of Prescot are many hundreds of poor chil-
dren, chie4y of Irish parents, growing up in the most la-
mentable ignorance and depravity of manners, for want of
the blessing of education. To enable the pastor to build
schools, and apply a remedy to this evil, so detrimental to

circular to Prot
" Circular

tion is humbly solicited from his friends and the public g
nerally. Not only Catholics, but Protestants of every d

nomination, ale confidently appealed to ;
blishrnents the end and design shall be.

for in these esta-

generation to be good Christians and good subjects ; and no
compulsion shall be offered in matters of religion. And why
should not the bond of charity, one of the unequivocal marks
of the true disciples of Christ, unite us all in that grand work
of breaking the spiritual bread to little ones, ieho have
asked for bread, and there has been no one to break it to
them ? Will a Christian, whether Protestant or Catholic,
who, having the substance of this world, and seeing his
brother in need,' refuse his contribution, and shut up his
bowels against him,' on the score of a difference in his reli-
gious creed ? God forbid."

_ Mr. Editor, be more jesuitical than the
foregoing appeal from a member of that church, which obliges
Istieal functionaries to profess and teach, aniongs
at the creed of the Council of Trent is till
Amain f

" veram C

extra quarn nemo salvus essc
has deluged the Continent with

ft church which

ainst which church the emphatic language of

Scripture has indelibly written the fearful accusation of -hav-
ing in her " the blood of the prophets and saints, and
of all that were slain on the carth,"—a church which
urged her blind devotees, on the Feast of St. Bartho-
lomew in 1572, to murder in cold blood forty thou-
sand unoffending Protestants, and afterwards rejoiced over
their destruction by a soletnir,procession to St. Peter's at
Rome, chaunting " Te Deum laudumus,"—a church that
further commemorated that sad event, by striking medals
representing the slaughter, and that now, after the lapse of
two centuries, (to spew that she has lost not a particle of
her " charity" towards Protestants,) rakes up the memory
of the • fearful massacre, by recently striking fresh ones,—a
church that holds it lawful to break faith with Protestants,
and to put them to death,—a church whose " charity "
caused the establishment of the Spanish Inquisition, where
thos

lsely culled heretics were consigned to the tender
mercies of the civil power, alias the executioner,--a church
which arrogantly tramples on the laws of the Most High, in
" bowing down to graven images," and " beguiling men of
their reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of
angels,"—a church that most uncharitably denies life eter-
t I nal to all out of her pale, notwithstanding the declaration of

letare that all wh-ose names are not writ.t

n the Lamb's

found i►► her; wi:
Ind yet is most fallible ; which sa

book of life ire

Christ, and yet is the minister of Satan,—a
compels confession, not so much to absolve,

most abject thraldom its mistaken followers; and, under
the pretence of assisting its priesthood in the confessional,
pours into the ears of its fair penitents the " leprous distil-
ment " of Dens's Theology.
Oh, yes ! " The Circular" says that " not only Catholics,
but Protestants are confidently appealed to ;" and no doubt
the appeal is made with no less confidence, from similar ap-
peals having been too frequently responded to by unwary
Protestants elsewhere; for it is a fact, no less authentic than
disgraceful, that considerable sums of money are obtained by
the Roman Catholics in this way, from persons bearing the
name of Protestant.

And why cannot Protestants, consistently with the prin-
ciples of their religion, give money towards the erection of
Popish Schools ? For this plain reason, because the very
name of Protestant means one who protests against the errors
of Popery; which errors will assuredly be propagated by the
Jesuits in those schools, when they are teaching the scholars,
as " The Circular" has it, to be " good Christians."
Another reason why Protestants cannot give, is, that Po-

is an idolatrous religion ; therefore Protestants, in
fg such schools, share in the guilt of idolatry, and are
aiding Popish children to be confirmed in their errors,
assisting to turn to Popery the children of .unwary Pro-
fits also. And besides all this, the peculiar tenets of the

Romish faith

penance, extreme

brought in by that

church, we, as Protestants, renounce and

nd surely

we cannot be deemed illiberal because we scruple to promote
the interests of that religion which w•e professedly protest

But would it not be an act of Christian charity to give to
To give to the poor Romanist who should be iu need

them T
of foot]

to assist him in poisoning with false doctrine, not only his
own soul, but in offering the deadly draught to all around
him. Moreover, if Protestants are anxious to support an
undertaking of this sort, and Protestant in its nature, there
are numbers of children, now neglected and uninstructed,
who have surely a claim upon their generosity, in preference
to schools whose principles are to be professedly Papistical.
If the Romanists desire to make the experiment, it should
be at their own expense ; for Protestants may rest assured,
they cannot promote God's glory by advancing the cause of
an erroneous faith ; and if they have money to give, it would
certainly be much better laid out on a truly Scriptural School,
than bestowed on schools in which it may be. presumed, al-
though there is to be "no compulsion," they would not per-
mit a Protestant boy to read his bible ! Away, then, with
the notion. that in contributing to the building of Popish
Schools. Protestants would be doing a charitable act.
" Charity rejoiceth in the truth", not in Popery ; and we are
especially reminded that :' whatsoever a man soweth that

shall he also reap

But why cannot Protestant parents, consistently with the
principles of their religion, send their children to Popish
Schools? Because Papists still both hold and teach the in-
tolerant decree, that the children of Protestants, dying here-
tics, cannot be saved ; that is, that all who die Protestants
are everlastingly damned. But their saying this gives them
no advantage over us ; it only proves their own presumption
and uncharitableness.

But there is another reason why Protestant parents cannot
consistently send their children there ; viz., because, as has
been before remarked, " The Circular" states that the end
and design of their teaching shall be to make the scholars
good Christian, which, according to Popish interpretation,
signifies rank Papists. Let Protestants, so unfortunately
inclined, (if any such there be,) open their Bibles and read in
the Ist Timothy, Gth chapter, 3d and sth verses, where the
word of God says, " If any man TEACH oTnEßwtse, and
consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to god-
liness :—from such withdraw thyself." Nothing can be
plainer than this passage of Scripture, as applying both to
Protestant parents and to those individuals who have received
circulars ; and it is to he hoped they will act accordingly.

Yours, &c.
A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
Prescot, 3d January, 18-12.

CORN LAWS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD,

SlR,—Some of the provincial papers, which have been
good enough to attach some importance to my letter to Sir
Robert Peel on the corn-laws, have yet hinted that a part of
the plan contained in it was borrowed from Mr. Christo-
pher, or some other source. In reply, it is only necessary to
state that the original of the printed letter was sent to Sir
Robert Peel ou the 13th of November, and answered by him
on the 19th of that month. Mr. Christopher's speech pro-
pounding his scheme was addressed to his constituents on
the 17th of December. lam not aware that any portion of
the plan referred to had been by any one suggested or enter-
tained previously.•
I shall feel obliged by your inserting this in your next
paper, and •
1 am, Sir, your most obedient servant,
E. W. JACKSON.
Liverpool, 3d January, 1842.

ROMISH CONTROVERSY

REPLY TO THE

REV. W. HENDERSOM

SlR,—When you addressed a letter to me I had hoped that
it would have been confined to the great question of the truth
or falsehood of Romish principles, and that you would not
have thought it right to slander an opponent in order to
neutralise his testimony to truth. I regret to find myself
disappointed. Having failed in argument, you endeavour to
damage my character with your poor deluded people by
asserting, that 1 "go about from house to house, persuading
masters and mistresses to turn off their [Roman] Catholic
servants." Such a charge, Sir, is utterly untrue : no per-
sons are better aware of my kindness of feeling towards
Romanists than the destitute members of your congregation.
It gives me unfeigned pleasure to feed them in want, and to
visit them in sickness ; and many amongst them can bear
witness that my own hands have ministered to the necessities
of my bitterest opponents.
Having now disposed of your personality, I proceed to
examine vour statement respecting the confessional. You
assert, that my •‘ remarks regarding the sacred tribunal of
confessional are a blasphemous calumny." Ah ! Sir, have
you no fear of Him who has said, " He that telleth lies shall
not tarry in my sight." Full well you know that it is no
calumny. I can produce a Romish prayer-book teaching,
that to conceal from a confessor, " THROUGH MODESTY," a
"certain lonely sin," is to be guilty of sacrilege!
I can prods ce, from a volume of Romish theology, 70
closely printed paps of most. OBSCENE QUESTIONS TO nu
PUT TO FEMALES IN CONFESSION. I can prove, from
Romish took; of devotion, that every priest is bound to put
those questions, ESPECIALLY TO YOUNG WOMEN OF GOOD
more ; I have obt

EDUCATION

ledgment of various Romauists, that priests do put such
questions to young women. It is, Sir, a horrifying truth,
that Romanism constrains young women, constrains wives,
daughters, and sisters to be shut up alone with an unmarried
priest, and to converse unreservedly with him in a manner
that could not be exceeded by the most infamous den of
pollution.
This, Sir, is strong language. I write strongly because I
feel strongly. I am thoroughly persuaded, that if your
church's authorised works on confession were printed in plain
English, and read by the Romish laity, that they would look
upon a Romish priest with abhorrence, as hound by his vows
to pollute the imagination and the morals of the female
members of their families.

I do not charge you with being guilty of all this ; but this
I am prepared to prove, that if a Rornish priest be consistent
with his religious principles, he is the corrupter of female
purity, and that a Rornish female has no alternative between
violating her religion'or surrendering her modesty.
The matter may be easily put to the test. Questions
which are put in private to females are surely fit to be read
in public before men. I make, then, this offer. If you

assemble in your school-room 100 Roman Catholic fathers,
brothers, and husbands, I undertake to produce your stan-
dard theologians who have written upon confession. Would
you venture to read in plain English the passages which I
am prepared to produce? No, Sir, you would not. Full
well you know, that the execration of an indignant and too-
confiding people would be the result. I must again say, I
make no personal charge. For your own sake, as well as for
society's, I hope you do not obey the abominable commands
of your church.

So
S much for " the sacred (!) tribunal of the confessional."
- - - - - -

Your next charge is rather a singular one :—Mr. Bavlee is
a " man who can one day challenge to disputation a doctor
of divinity, and another enter into disputation with a poor
gingerbread vender on the pier-head in Liverpool." Tu that
charge I plead guilty. I ant in the habit of endeavouring to
enlighten the minds, and remove the errors, of the poor as
well as the rich. Whether the opportunity be afforded me
" on the pier-head of Liverpool" or in the sumptuous dwell-
ing, I hope I shall always be ready to direct perishing sinners
to the Saviour, and to warn them that rings and cords, con-
fessionals and absolutions, and such like, cannot save the
soul, but must utterly ruin those who trust in them.
But, sir, have you ever read the New Testament ? Have
you ever read that our blessed Saviour was one day disputing
with the chief priests, and another, beside a public well, dis-
puting about spiritual religion with a poor woman of alum_
doned character? May his heavenly grace teach you to go
and do likewise!
I now, sir, come to your promise, which I earnestly hope
you will not retract. You say, " For my part, I shall Pro-
bably give a course of lectures next Lent, when those who
aOdfd to
•please may learn the ground upon which every dogmtoa the
[Roman) Catholic faith is founded." Permit me
that a promise from me :—lf it please God to spare me health