Transcribed from the 1840 John Stacy edition by David Price.





                           REASONS FOR JOINING
                                   THE
                            NORFOLK & NORWICH
                          PROTESTANT ASSOCIATION


                                    IN

                                 A LETTER

                          TO A CLERICAL FRIEND.

                                * * * * *

                        BY THE REV. WILLIAM HULL,
                   MINISTER OF ST. GREGORY’S. NORWICH.

                                * * * * *

                                 NORWICH:
                  PRINTED BY JOHN STACY, OLD HAYMARKET.

                                * * * * *

                                 MDCCCXL.




A LETTER,
&c.


MY DEAR SIR,

You have not stated the nature or the grounds of those _scruples_ which
prevent your immediate adhesion to our recently-formed association;—nor
will I attempt to conjecture what they may be; especially since you avow
your cordial approbation of every well-timed effort in defence of our
Protestant faith and liberties against the malignant aggressions of
Popery.  I am not able to imagine any substantial objection on the part
of a truly Protestant mind.

Believing, as I firmly do believe, that our National Church is founded on
truth, and that the _Protestant ascendancy_ involves the temporal and
spiritual welfare of the people of these realms,—believing also that the
agents and emissaries of Popery have, for a series of years, been
actively employed in embroiling the affairs of this kingdom, with an
ultimate view to the restoration of the popish priesthood, together with
their dark superstitions and inhuman despotism,—believing that new and
unwonted energies must be called into action, in defence of our national
religion, or that, by secret undermining and open assault, “our holy and
beautiful house where our fathers worshipped” will soon be levelled with
the dust, “and all our pleasant things laid waste,”—I hail the formation
of the Protestant Association as a propitious event, and deliberately,
from the religious conviction that I am in the path of duty, enrol my
name as a member.

In stating thus freely my own forcible impressions, I disclaim any
intention of impugning the motives of those who are not, equally with
myself, convinced of the expediency or utility of this association.
Whatever may be the ground of _your_ hesitation, I have entire confidence
in the purity and integrity of your principles.

Nevertheless, allow me to say, with deference, that your indecision, in
this case, does not for a moment cause me to waver in my own convictions,
since I cannot but suspect that your doubts originate in an imperfect
conception of the perils to which our religion and our country are
exposed.  Were these dangers of less appalling magnitude, I also should
have strong scruples against this or any similar association.  They are
justifiable on no other ground than that of absolute necessity.  They
bring with them many incidental evils.—They lead into collision adverse
parties, and produce impassioned controversies; they create evils which
no man can be right in abetting, even indirectly, but with a view to ward
off others which are more injurious to the public welfare.  Besides
which, no man of feeling would rashly hazard the obloquy which will be
cast upon him by his opponents in this age of low-minded invective and
scurrilous defamation.  Nor is it a small evil to lose the favourable
regards of upright and conscientious persons who take an opposite view of
the exigencies and the duties of the times.  For myself, I have no sickly
ambition for this species of martyrdom.  I sacrifice with painful
reluctance the esteem of the wise and the good, from whom it is my
misfortune, at any time, to be separated by conflicting opinions and
irreconcileable interests.  But there are occasions which call for higher
duties than those of conciliation or friendship,—when private affections
must be merged in a holy patriotism, and when the strength of our
principles must be proved, not by the extinction of our finer
sensibilities,—God forbid!—but by their yielding, with whatever
bitterness of grief, to a commanding sense of DUTY.  I am strongly
impressed with the conviction, that such an occasion presents itself in
“this day of _trouble_, and of _rebuke_, and of _blasphemy_.”

Far from having my own apprehensions allayed by the numbers of those who
are insensible to the pressure of great and imminent danger, my fears are
awakened by nothing so much as by that very consideration; by no other
fact am I so deeply convinced of the extreme necessity of supporting the
Protestant Association, as one means, among others, of diffusing
information, and thus arousing in our countrymen a spirit of determined
resistance to Popery, corresponding with the power and the artifice of
that unrelenting adversary.

The policy of the Papists has ever been, to the last degree, subtle,
profound, and unscrupulous,—varying with the changeful phases of society,
and adapting itself with fiend-like sagacity to the peculiar character of
individuals and of nations.  But never did that policy show itself more
triumphantly than in the late rapid march of Popery towards a paramount
dominion in this kingdom; and in the skill, the cunning, the profound
strategy by which it has covered its progress, lulling into false
security the people of this betrayed and devoted country.

I lay comparatively little stress on the number of converts openly
professing themselves to be proselytes to Popery: the report may be
exaggerated or it may not.  I am not startled, as some are, by the
increase of popish chapels, monasteries, and colleges.  I fear nothing
from the open teachers of popish doctrine, nor would I enter into a
_fiddle faddle_ controversy with a Jesuitical priesthood, who are not
bound by the laws of honourable warfare, and who, when defeated in
argument, always take refuge in their insolent assumption of
_infallibility_.  The naked dogmas of Popery carry with them their own
refutation.  They originated in the dark ages of barbarian ignorance and
public confusion, when the Roman empire had been swept by the northern
hordes, and savage warfare left no leisure, no disposition, to cultivate
those departments of knowledge which expand and invigorate the human
mind.  Popery can never make converts in an enlightened nation like
England, but from among the most feeble in intellect or sordid in
character, the uninstructed vulgar, nervous women, or intellectual
profligates.  True, she has advocates both subtle and learned; but they
are men who were cradled in her errors, and whose early discipline and
youthful associations—designed for the suppression of the manly mind—have
combined, with the interested motives of after-life, to fix them in her
faith.  I give no credit to the more notorious of popish agitators for
sincerity in their _religious_ attachment to the cause they serve.
Popery is their stepping-stone to distinction and power.  They laugh in
their sleeve at that lucrative fable while they derive power, as
political incendiaries, from the distresses and _superstitions_ of an
abject people.

But while naked Popery is simply despicable for its absurdities or
detestable for its intolerance, I fear every thing from the unwearied and
versatile genius of _Romish policy_, which, without having proselyted to
the popish faith Protestant England, has contrived, by a series of
manœuvres, so to dislocate the frame of British society, that instead of
combining to crush, as they might easily do, the common foe, Protestant
is arrayed against Protestant, while the only party really to be dreaded
by all, is looked upon without suspicion and without fear.  If the
present course of events is suffered to proceed,—while one class of
Protestants is tamely looking on, and another section is actively and
zealously employed in seconding the designs of the papacy,—I see no
impossibility that is to prevent the entire power of the State from
falling, at no distant period, into the hands of the popish faction.  And
what use they will make of that power is not a matter of difficult
conjecture.  History is _not_ “an old almanack,” unless to fools and
desperadoes; and history denounces papal intolerance in characters of
horror and of blood.

Allow me to repeat it,—for this is the very gist of the argument,—from
naked and avowed Popery little was to be feared; but from Popery carrying
on its wily projects through the means of _Protestant agency_, or, under
Protestant colours, conducting a piratical warfare, every thing is to be
dreaded.  And this is exactly the way in which we are now assailed.

If you look to the STATE, you behold the ministers of a Protestant Queen,
who are sworn to uphold the Protestant religion, bound hand and foot by
popish demagogues and traitorous agitators, and impotent to carry any
great measure against the assent of their masters, who can on any day
effect their dismissal from office.  Their policy is entirely popish.
The Privy Council is thrown open to popish intrigue; the army is largely
recruited from the popish peasantry of Ireland; popish bishops are
appointed and salaried by government in the colonies; the popish faction
holds the balance of parties in the Commons house of Parliament.

The aspect of the CHURCH is scarcely less alarming.  The “Oxford Tracts”
are said to represent the sentiments of a considerable number of our
devout clergy and laity.  Of these very remarkable productions, enforcing
the practices of a superstitious devotion, and denouncing, with a
papistical jealousy of free enquiry, every manly exercise of the human
mind, when religion is the subject of investigation, it is sufficient to
say that they have been read with grief and astonishment by many of the
most sound divines of the Anglican Church, and hailed by papists with a
sneer of triumph.  For the principles of the Protestant faith, they are
by far

                      “Too ceremonious and traditional.”

And, if the spirit of servile superstition which some of these tracts
breathe,—if the gloomy intolerance they sanction,—can be shown to
harmonize with the doctrines and usages of our Church, _dissent_ needs no
better vindication.  Happily these noxious principles are the growth of
another soil; but they who embrace them are not far from the worst dogmas
of Popery.  They are already in the vestibule—a few more steps will carry
them to the altar of that desecrated temple.  It has been suggested, and
the suggestion is not at variance with Christian courtesy and candour,
that these Tracts have originated in a Jesuitical conspiracy to pollute
the stream of orthodox truth at the fountain head.  Looking only at the
_internal_ evidence, the suspicion is fully justified.  At any rate, they
prepare the way in a manner most satisfactory to the Papists, for a close
alliance with the apostate church, whose spirit and whose errors they so
nearly resemble.  They are indefensible as the productions of Protestant
divines.

Perhaps you will pronounce this opinion arrogant and harsh, considering
who are the writers.  But in a case such as the present the public have a
right _to judge the work itself_, _independently of the __writers_, of
whose individual characters few readers can be supposed to know any
thing.  I judge as one of the public,—I look at the “Tracts” apart from
their authors, and my conviction is, that no personal worth, no amiable
qualities, no piety, no erudition can vindicate the estimable authors of
these “Tracts” from having done, with whatever purity of intention, great
injury to the Protestant cause.  Here is Popery, indirectly at least,
promoted by the professors of a university, whose name has hitherto been
regarded as the symbol of pure orthodoxy.  The times are fearful when the
whisper goes forth, even among the most devoted friends of the
church—“_Popery at Oxford_!”  From another section of churchmen, scarcely
less danger is to be apprehended: they are smoothing the way for popish
ascendancy.  I mean those whose _ultra-liberalism_ embraces every
interest but that of their own communion—whose latitudinarian candour
regards with complacency every erroneous form of doctrine or worship, as
if, all that we tolerate we were bound in duty to approve,—who look with
special favour on every deviation from the sound orthodoxy of the
church,—who hail _every irregularity_ as a commendable exercise of
freedom,—and who reserve their censures and their frowns for those who
conscientiously adhere to “_the good old way_.”  By this anomalous order
of churchmen—the growth of modern days—all the assailants of the sacred
cause are held in honour for their presumed freedom from prejudice,—all
its defenders are condemned as mercenaries or bigots.  Of this
description of persons, it may be presumed, many are prepared to sit
down, quite at ease, under the _mild_ sovereignty of the papacy.  Their
special predilection for that _persecuted_ race of patriots and
Christians, who are agitating for an Italian despot and the Holy
Inquisition, is only preparatory to their own sworn allegiance to Rome,
the moment that haughty power obtains dominion and can command
submission.  They are waiting for the flood-tide.  To say the least, the
men whose liberalism can rejoice in Popery, can have no motives for
becoming martyrs to Protestant truth and liberty.

And now let us look at THE COUNTRY AT LARGE.  Judging from the tone of
our popular literature, and from the spirit of the public press, which
can only subsist by responding to the sentiments of the day, I cannot but
think that infidelity and profligacy abound to an alarming extent among
the reading classes.  The Protestant church, it is plain, can have no
hold on the disciples of Voltaire, of Hume, of Gibbon, of Paine, of
Byron.  She will never compromise her pure morality.  In the bosom of the
Mother of Harlots they may revel with impunity: _confession_, and
_absolution_, and _extreme unction_, will reconcile them to her
ascendancy.  Among the paradoxes of the human mind, none is more common
than the junction of profane scepticism with credulous superstition,—the
impious reviler of the Bible making his last peace with heaven by taking
his _viaticum_ from a popish priest.  Popery is the religion for all men
who would indulge the hope of heaven, after doing their utmost to convert
the present world into a hell of impiety and crime.  Already they are in
political alliance with the man of sin.

But there are others of less discreditable character than these, from
whom the Protestant cause derives no aid in this day of trial.  I mean
that large class of easy, worthy, unsuspecting persons who have imbibed
unguardedly the sentiments of modern liberalism, without its malignity,
and in ignorance of its designs.  They see Popery only in the mild and
subdued form which it puts on while restrained by the usages and the laws
of a Protestant community.  They find nothing in their popish neighbours
but what is humane and social, and, perhaps, intelligent, honourable, and
devout; and, reasoning from what they see and hear themselves, they give
credit to the idle tale that POPERY is REGENERATED,—that the lion is
become a lamb, and the serpent a dove,—and that, under the future reign
of the Papacy, no longer perfidious, intolerant, sanguinary, no materials
will be supplied for another “Book of Martyrs”—let it therefore take its
unmolested course!

Add to these, many persons of aristocratic rank and fortune, whose
principles are wavering, and who, on supposition that the Church of
England must fall a prey to the motley gang of modern revolutionists, are
prepared rather to side with Popery, which is essentially aristocratical
and monarchical, than with Protestant dissent, which is plebeian,
levelling and democratical.  They know that the pretended liberalism of
Popery means nothing more than that “_she stoops to conquer_;” and they
will prefer her custody of their titles and estates, to that of a
national convention of chartists or roundheads.

And now, my dear Sir, if this is not a mistaken view of things, we are
led to an appalling conclusion.  If the popish faction, ever vigilant
while others sleep, should succeed, by a _coup d’état_, in grasping the
power of the Executive government, they have so stealthily and
successfully prepared for the event, that a large mass of the professedly
Protestant community would hail their accession to power; other important
bodies would be so far neutralized as to offer no resistance; while the
portion of our church and nation who remain “faithful among the
faithless” will have to maintain a conflict for truth and righteousness,
under circumstances of fearful inequality.  I need not suggest what the
power of the state _can do_, when wielded by men of unscrupulous
principles, and devoted to their cause with the zeal of a morbid
superstition.

I do not say that this catastrophe is inevitable; but it is not
impossible.  The mine is prepared although it may not be sprung: but if
the match should be applied, the explosion will be far more tremendous,
and the desolation more complete, than even the “Gunpowder Treason” would
have caused, if Providence had not detected that most foul conspiracy.
The authors of that crime would have fallen, at once, victims to popular
indignation; but the conspirators of the present day will have secured
themselves from instant destruction by previously tampering with the
public mind, and corrupting its principles.  They have already carried
Popish objects by Protestant agents; and when the real combat is at
length to be fought, _pro aris et focis_, the dupes of their insidious
policy will find themselves unarmed or in confusion on the field of
battle.

We may smile at popish miracles—the chapel at Loretto—the blood of St.
Januarius—the healing art of the Abbé Paris—and all the low trumpery by
which the pretended vicar of Jesus Christ stoops to deceive and destroy:
but here is a master-stroke of policy, all but really miraculous,
displaying not less of satanic skill than malice, and at sight of which
the stoutest of British hearts may for a moment quail.  The events of
these times will supply our posterity with the most humiliating page in
the history of their country—Great Britain, invincible in arms,
disorganized and convulsed by the infernal arts of the Jesuits!

These dangers must be met by extraordinary measures of defence.  If the
government did its duty, not a Jesuitical institute would be suffered to
pollute the land: these agents and subjects of a foreign power would not
be allowed to tamper with the peace and the liberties of England.  But,
deserted by the government, itself enslaved by an ignoble faction, and
powerful only for mischief, we must look to our own resources, and, among
others, to the _Protestant Association_.  I see nothing in its
constitution or principles to justify the fear, that it may not hopefully
look for the blessing of Almighty God upon its exertions.  It has not
been instituted by a section or party in the church.  It overlooks minor
distinctions, and enrols among its members persons of every shade of
sentiment or opinion, who are willing to make a common cause on behalf of
our venerable church and our holy religion.  The moment it is made the
instrument of party, let it fall!  The name of the Noble Lord who is its
president, is a pledge that its objects are truly British; and the clergy
and laity who are its members, can have _united_ for no purposes less
holy than the preservation of that sacred light which Popery had
extinguished—which the reformers re-kindled—and which, by God’s grace,
shall never again be put out in England.

In looking at the aspect of the times, I am not sanguine in my hopes, nor
do I yield to despondency.  It is ours to do our duty, and leave the
consequences with the Great Arbiter of human destinies.  If we are
disappointed in our efforts to save our country, we shall have the
consolation of having made a stand under circumstances which required
some degree of moral courage, and a lively faith in the God of Truth,
whose servants we are, and in whose cause it will be no dishonour to
fall.

In the mean time, it is a reflection not to be evaded, however painful to
indulge, that great national guilt could alone have reduced us to the
embarrassments and perplexities of these times—times of degeneracy so
rapid and infatuation so blind, that to this tormented kingdom may be
applied the fearful description of the historian of the Roman empire:—

    “Labente deinde paullatim disciplinâ, velut desidentes primo mores
    sequatur animo; deinde ut magis magisque lapsi sint; tum ire cœperint
    præcipites:—donec ad hæc tempora, quibus _nec vitia nostra_, _nec
    remedia pati possumus_, perventum est.”

And now, my dear sir, I have acted upon my own convictions of duty in
thus plainly stating my motives for upholding the Protestant Association:
judge them as severely as you please.  They have at least this claim to
calm consideration: they are the reasons of an individual whose personal
interests and prospects would have dictated another course of action, but
who deems it his greatest happiness to have his fortunes blended, “for
better or for worse,” with that hallowed cause in which Latimer and
Ridley and Hooper and Cranmer died.

                            Yours faithfully,

                                                             WILLIAM HULL.

_Eaton_, _Dec._ 10, 1839.

                                * * * * *

                                 THE END.

                                * * * * *

            NORWICH:
Printed by John Stacy, Gentlemen’s
      Walk, Old Haymarket.