ROMAItISM IN.LONDON.

A PRIEST'S CONFESSION:

THE SUBSTANCE OF

A CONVERSATION

BETWEEN THE

REV. ,JOHN BONUS,
A ROMISH PRIEST; AND THE

REV. ROBERT MAGUIRE, B.A.,
CLERICAL SECRETARY OF THE ISLINGTON PROTESTANT INSTITUTE.

Reprinted from the" Morning Herald" of Thursday, Oct. 21st, 1852.

" (Pud>lished under the .sanctìon of the H Islington Protestant Institute.")

. IN one of the leading articles of a morning paper
of Tuesday, the 19th of October, the following
occurs :-"We shall not stone them (the -Roman

I

Catholics) as idolaters, though they want but the

power to burn us as heretics."
As a practical illustration of the truth of the

above, may. I be permitted to relate the substance

of a conversation' which I had on Friday, 15th Oct.

with a Roman .Catholic Priest in this city?
.

Our interview was occasioned simply by the

following circumstances :-A young gentleman, a

member of a Protestant family, was some five years

ago induced to become a Roman Catholic. He

w,as much esteemed by the highest' authorities in
his newly-adopted faith ;-was for a time at Oscott;
at the Oratory. iu Birmingham ;" and lately at the

Dominican' College at Woodchester, near Stroud.

In these places he had been preparing for the

LONDON:

J. H. �ACKSON, 21, PATERNOSTER. ROW, AND ISLINGTON GREEN;
SEELEYS, F�EET STREET.

Third Thousand. Price Une Penny, or 6s. per 100.



2

Romish priesthood; yet during the course of his

·

7f€:rL
studies many doubts arose in his mind, all which

,

I'AI�/l¥l
were further confirmed by the fact that consecrated

�"

hosts had been administered in a corrupted and

'mouldy state l That" the real body and blood of

Christ," which God had promised should "-see no

corruption," that it should thus present a corrupted

condition
-,

appeared to him an insuperable diffi­

culty.
'

He consulted his confessor, and, was met

by mere evasions. He then consulted very high

authorities in the Romish Church elsewhere, who

might here be named, and whose letters he re
..

tains, and received from them in reply worse than

evasions. 'I'hese only confirmed his doubts, when

happily be met with a devoted Clergyman in his

own neighbourhood, whose ministry' the young

man's family attended. With him he had many
interviews, which happily ended in his return to

.the truth.

Just then I met with him. "\iVe have since been

very intimate one with the
other. Attempts have

'-been, however, not left untried by his Romish

friends to win him back to Rome. One friend of

his, a Roman Catholic Priest, who had once' been

a Protestant, wrote to my young friend, expressing

his anxiety to see him, and stating that" he' felt

an inward inspiration" in his soul that he would

be made the means of restoring him to the Romish

Church.

Under these circumstances, my advice to the

'young man was; that he should accept the inter­

.view, provided I should be permitted to a.ccompany

him. He wrote �o his friend accordingly,
and re ..

ceived in reply a letter ex�ressing his delight at



3

the prospect of seeing him. His letter' proceeded
thus :-"No objection, my dear fellow, to one

"friend, nor ten, nor fifty; even though they be
"
so many John Cummings. As you allòw me the
" selection of a day, I will come on Friday next,
"the feast of St. Theresa, who, I doubt not, will
"

help me to resolve your doubts. Don't look for­

"ward to our meeting as anything dreadful, but
"

just offer up a little bit of a prayer (anAveMaria ?)
"

Come, you can't object to that."
Hence the interview of which I now write ; and

I must say that so extraordinary was the conver­
sation of the Roman Catholic Priest, or rather, so

clear and unmitigated the Popish sentiments by
him expressed, I told him in plain words, that

although I should not wish to take any undue­

advantage of a private conversation, yet he should
understand that I would take occasion to publish
the remarks which he made during our interview:
to this he assented.

The Roman Catholic priest of whom I now write
is the Rev. John Bonus, late of Greenwich, now of

Moorfields. His letters to my young friend can

be seen; and whatever is here detailed, was ex­

pressed in the presence of this young man, who
will, if required, certify as to the accuracy of my
narration..

The costume of Mr. Bonus on tbe occasion was

strictly Romish. His manner was as though he
would make short work ofmy friend's doubts, and
at once restore his confidence in Rome. " You

have been scandalised, no doubt," said he, "by
the want of piety and zeal evinced by your former
Homan Catholic friends." <c« By no means," said



4

m� friend; "quite the contrary. 'Tis true I have

witnessed scenes inconsistent with the professions
made, yet I have�not for these reasons abandoned

your Church. I do indeed remember one evening
at Woodchester, when a Dominican preached, and
in his sermon" spoke of the B. V. Mary in terms

which ought to be applied to Christ alone; .and
when I left the chapel after the sermon, one of the

priests told me, in his own private apartment; that
such preaching would do harm to the cause. 'It

may do very well for old women,' he said, 'but 'We

don't believe such things!
,,,

These were unplea­
sant revelations for Mr.' Bonus, and Ile quickly
.led away my friend to "the awful deed which he

had done in leaving-the Holy Church." He dwelt,

specially op. the word "holy." Whereupon I, for the
first time, addressed him, by asking what he would
think of a person who should sanction immorality?
He replied that he would think very badly of him.

And what then, I asked, would you think of a

body of men--a Church-which would sanction

immorality? He gave the same answer. I then

asked, "Have you ever read the Theology of

S�. Alphonsus Liguori?" "I have," said he;
"what of it ?" "Have you read his treatise on

the commandment,-' Thou shalt not steal/­
where he actually 'defines the sum which may .be.
abstracted from a person, and yet no great sin

committed?" Mr. Bonus then turned from me,

stating that I knew nothing at all about these

things, and requested that I would allow him to

speak to his friend without interruption l I,re­
marked that such reply was no answer to my

objection. He had, spoken of his Church being



5

"

!f1"'-

"

Holy,'.' and I insisted on my objection being an­
swered. He replied that, in order that I should

know their DogmaticTheology, I should be ac ..

quainted with the principles thereof; that I should,
be quite made up on such, points, as de actibus

humanis and de conscientia, and so forth; and that'

till then I could not understand their theology.
I said, "Theology was made and intended for all

men; and more than that, God's command is very
explicit.-c-' Thou shalt not steal.'. Why then re­

quire all this preliminary knowledge, especially if'
such knowledge should run directly counter to the

express command of God?" These and .such like

remarks presently induced him again to request
that I would keep silence.

H

Well," said I, "noW'

hearmy friend's reason for leaving your Church;
and we shall then hear your answers.'"

The case of." the corrupted wafers';' was then.
adduced as one reason. 'I'he Priest at once lay
hack in his chair, and proceeded to assure my

young friend that before he himself became a Ro­

manist he had been: an avowed infìdel ; that doubts

overwhelmed him, &c .. ; warned the young' man of

death and judgment, &c." and, thus ", proceeded
until I felt myself again obliged to interfere and

recall him to the real question. This annoyed
him a little, but I thus stated the objection .
" YÒU, as a Roman Catholic, say that the wafer is,

changed into the body and blood of very Christ,
and that Christ is truly and bodily there. Now in
the 16th Psalm it is written, 'Thou wilt not suffer'

thineHoly One to see corruption." The consecrated
wafers now in question did sec' corruption, and

therefore are not, and cannot be Christ ;-tka� is;

�2



my friend's objection. It is for you now to an­

swer it."

,- The priest then commenced his explanation, arid

after reminding the young man that if they were

alone he could tell him many things l he resumed,
'.' You must know," said he, "that in our Church

Sacraments are magic spells." I then remarked,
�c And magic spells require magicians;" to which

hequickly and peevishly replied, "Well, we are

magicians in that sense"! He then entered on a

dissertation relative to "entities," and "quiddi ..

ties," and"essences," and" substances," and"ac­

cidents,"----tIle Monods of Liebnitz and philosophy

in general, almost to no end; and informed us that

he never knew philosophy or metaphysics until by
the permission of the Cardinal he studied in Lou­

vain University; that there he read all these

things, even to Whately's Logic. "Why, my

friend," said - I,
'"

Whately's Logic' is in the In­

dex of prohibited books;"
_cc And so it ought," he

replied. He spoke of the chances to which the

Host is exposed, and said,
ccI suppose you

think if

a cat, or a rat, or a mouse should run away with it,

or if I should throw it out of the window, that it

would be a great indignity to Christ; but I tell

you it would not," he said, and endeavoured to

.prove by philosophy that there' is no bodily pre­
sence at all in the Eucharist, and that if we knew

philosophy we could understand this, I remarked

that the words
-

of the Church of Rome on this

'subject are express and unmistakeable,-Cl the

body and blood, soul and divinity, hones and

sinews,-a whole and perfect Christ,"- as the

'Council of Trent and the Catechism of Trent .ex-



7

'pressly affirm. All this he, however, endeavoured

to explain away.s--epoke of "realities" and "ideas,"
&c. I, however" told him that the Church 01

Rome claims a real true bodily presence, and re­

marked that a body cannot be in more places than
•

one at the same time: to this he replied by say­

ing, "That is just what an ass would say!" I

asked him then, "Could your body,-your bones

and sinews,-be in two places at the same time?"

He .said that they could!
HWhat!" said I, "do

. you mean to say that that body of yours which I

.
now see, may 3.11 this time be inMoorfields also?"

To which he replied that" it might for aught he

knew!" To which I replied, that the most cha­

ritable view I could take of .the matter was, that

.his body must really be in Moorfields at the time,

and that it must be only his ghost to which I was

then speaking ! Each remark of mine drew forth

some angry epithet from the priest; so much so

that my young friend, in whose house we met, re­

marked to the priest,
cc You may call names to

-Mr. Maguire, but surely you cannot imagineto
convince me by such answers."

The Priest then endeavoured to draw us off to

mesmerism and clairvoyance, and thence to support
his tottering cause. He invited my friend to come

with him to see a newly-invented machine, by which

the state of his conscience would be laid before

him, and all the process exposed by which he was

'led to abandon the Church of Rome.-c-that a friend

of his had such to exhibit. All this, of course,

was very, very far removed from our subject. 'I'he

young man's objection was.. as yet anything but

.ansioered•.. ·The Priest changed from. threats to



8

.exhortations, then to warning, then perchance to

Philosophy, as he called it, but kept very far off

from Scriptural argument.
At length he stood up and addressed to my

'friend a rebuke for returning to the Church of

England. Whereupon I stood up and asked him

what fault he had to find with our Church.e=what

prayer, whatform, what one particular could he

instance as being objectionable? "Your 'orders,'''
he replied. "Well," said I, "point out any flaw in

�my own ordination." (I instanced my own as a

'case whereon to try his objection.) His reply was

that he had no objection to urge in my case.
"WeU now," I replied, "may I in return ask you
are you a priest at all? Have you any certainty
that the bishop who ordained you had the inten­

tion of ordaining you?" He frankly acknowledged
that he was 'not morally certain as to whether he

was ordained or not, and admitted that if he be

not a priest, every priestly function that he dis-

.charges is but a sacrilege! The expression "mo­

rally certain" he afterwards corrected for"mathe­

matically certain.'" I reminded him of the awful

consequences in which he involved his people,-he
.leads them to believe that he can pardon their

sins, and yet he is not certain whether he be even

a priest, and thus he usurps authority to which he'

possesses no certain title! Again, that after he­

has, as is thought, consecrated' the host,-yet if

he be not a priest, those who worship that host as-·

God, when it is still professedly unchanged, are

guilty of idolatry. 'I'his he admitted, but limited

it 'to, "material idolatry," which, however, I re
.....

minded him is. the
.. very worst kind. of "creature



·9

worship." This he denied; whereupon my frie.nd,

taking a book off the table, asked the priest,
" If I

worship that book as God, do you mean to say

that such worship is not idolatry?" His reply

was, that it would not be so!
Such is the certainty

which on the avowal of a Roman Catholic priest

attaches to Rome even in her most solemn sacra
..

merits, and such the theology inculcated by her

acknowledged teachers!

The Priest endeavoured to leave the subject and

my friend's objection, by entering on "the Rule
of

Faith." Before he had gone faryhowever, (still it

was all philosophy,) I laid down the Holy Scrip
...

tures beside him as my "rule of faith," and de­

manded of him to lay down his, side by side with

mine. He of course could not, but said that .his

"l"ule" is "the Authority of his Church." "That

is just what I want," I said, and. inquired" How

or where can I consult such a 'Rule ?'" He then

replied, "I am the rule of faith!" "Do you moon

yourself?" said 1.
"

Yes," he replied,
"

Well,"
. said I; "that you should be a proper' rule of faith'

you ought to be infallible." "And so I am l" he

said.
"Whatever I teach," he remarked, "is the

infallible doctrine of the Church, but this-only in

the archdiocese ofWestminster: here I have juris­

diction; but in' Southwark my teaching would be

only the expression of an opinion I" I thereupon

asked the priest, "Is not truth invariable? How,

then, can that which is sterling truth on this side

of London Bridge, become merely an opinion be­

yond it?"

This discovery, however, of" the Rule of Faith"

in the Roman Catholic Church reminds me of an



10

.offer which still is repeated in Ireland, of £40,000,
for the Roman Catholic rule or faith! Now that
I have actually found it, I may myself lay claim
to the "Reward!

)J

I am, however, by this incident mot'€ and more"
confirmed in my belief, that no Roman Catholic

possesses any rule of faith beyond the dictum of
his priest.
I asked this priest of Moorfìelds W:J1Y he did not

in his letter rather seek the aid of the Holy Spirit
than that of St. Theresa. To- this he ironically
replied, "That is Eoanqelical;"

"

Well,' said I,
"to ask for the guidance of God's Holy Spirit is

.

'Evangelical,' but then, I presume, to ask the aid
of St. Theresa is' Romanism 17) If so, give me
'rather that which is "Evangelical" than that which
is Romish 1 The one seeks help from GOD,-the
other, human aid 1:

But the last of' all is the worst of all. ThÌS'

priest, who has thus studied philosophy, gave us a
'little more of unmitigated Popery. He told me,
in presence of my friend, that if he should find
me among his Roman Catholic people he would
advise them, not just now- to kill me, but to roll
me wen in pitch and tar, and, il they had the

power, then to burn me,-that nothing but the

punishment of death would ever do for heretics.
" I assure you," said he, "I wo.uld not burn you
now because it would be just now inexpedient to
do so, and would do much harm to our cause; but

if we had tbe power "-and he gloated over the

possibility-" I w'ish that I had the power-I
would kill every Protestant! This worked well

while the Inquisitionworked." These sanguinary ex-



11

pressions he again and again used before we parted.
'What a fearful, awful, and persecuting Church is

this, which now seeks" io govern England 1"

I asked this Priest how he could explain the

fact of the Cardinal having denied that he sub.
scribed the persecuting clause in the Roman Ca­
tholic Bishops" oath? The priest said that the

Cardinal had never denied any such thing. We
assured him that the matter was as patent as'
could be" and that the Cardinal had purposely'
erased the clause from the oath, leaving the same

oath, however, untouched in another part of the
"

Pontifìcale." "Well," said this Priest, "the
Cardinal assuredly did swear to that clause, for
every bishop must take it J

"

"Then, why did he
erase it ?" I asked. I forbear to say how

.
h� ac-..

'

counted for this; his remark might injure him at

head-quarters, and this I seek not. I ask not to

injure his worldly prospects. May God change
his heart, and enable him by His grace to forsake
this" refuge of lies."

Many may say, on reading this, that I have
been dealing with either a madman or one who is
far too honest for Rome. I accept neither alter­

native. The Priest of whom I have been writing,
has been formally appointed to his work by' the
Cardinal himself; has had, as he himself says,
some success in his labours; and since the above
interview, l have seen (in the. Tablet newspaper
of last Saturday, Oct. 16) that the Roman Catho ..

Iics of Greenwich have within the last few days
presented this very priest with a golden chalice, as
a mark of their esteem, on his' departure .frem

amongst them !



12

� Your readers must also bear in mind the object
of our interview-namely, the restoration of a

lapsed member to the Romish Church. On such'

an" 'occasion, ùndoubtedly, he would put forward

his best 'arguments, and such as would best tend

--at least in his own opinion-to re-establish his

friend.

� I intend to forward to the Rev. Mr. BONUS a

copy of your paper in which this letter is inserted,
and both my young friend and myself challenge
contradiction.

, This accredited Priest of Rome, then-this ac­

knowledged servant of the Cardinal-this Louvain­

taught man- this man, the honoured of G�eBn ..

wich�he has openly avowed, himself a persecutor

--.-has acknowledged' that which is in deed and in

truth'the very genius of Popery; but which, with

all our warnings and with all the telling pages of

.history, Englishmen treat as but an idle tale. Yet

the dread reality may one day come upon them!

I have told this tale in all 'simplicity and truth,

and use it as a warning to our great and noble

nation to :BEWARE OF ROME!

ROBT. MAGUIRE, B.A., Clerical Secretary
to the'

"

Islington Protestant Institute.
",

\2, Lonsdale Sguare, Islington, Opt. 19, 1892.

.: r feel much pleasure in bearing my testimony'
to the accuracy of the above statement

of our in­

terview with Mr. BONus-an interview which

tended greatly to establish me in the Scriptural

truth of our Protesting Church.

(Signed) HENRY BRAMAH .

.. 1, ,GMildford .Street, Russell Square, Oct. 20,
1852.

J. H. JACKSON', 21, Paternoster Row, and Islington Green.