« PredošláPokračovať »
oppression of his fellow-countrymen and fellowChristians.
In the Protestant Canton du Vaud, in Switzerland, such is the tyrannical intolerance of the government, that the Catholic clergyman is not permitted, under pain of dismissal, to explain, even in private, the articles of his religion to any one of time a different persuasion, who may apply to him for that purpose. This may, perhaps, well enough the answer the object of insuring a monopoly to Protestantism; but, tyrannical as it is, it is a much 2more charitable scheme than that adopted by Dr. Southey, who, apparently with the same views, has done all in his power to contrive, not that the people of England should be kept in ignorance of le Catholic doctrine, in his acceptation of the term, but that they should learn it only through the misrepresentations and calumnies of his “ Book of the Church.” However easily and triumphantly the calumniator
may be refuted, the poison is diffused through a thousand channels through which the antidote never makes its way; and, like his fellowlabourer in the same vineyard, Dr. Tomline, he has never the justice to retract his errors,
and disabuse his readers of the unworthy prejudices which he has been the means of fostering in their minds against us. But, to speak truth, and to render justice, is not the object of the ascendancy faction; and, in violating both, they are acting
vitze? of the is not
upon the doctrines so falsely imputed to Catholics, of keeping no faith with heretics, and of sanctifying the means by the end, when the defence of their Church is in question.")
Another example of extreme injustice towards his Catholic fellow-countrymen is presented to us by the Bishop of Winchester; that prelate ought certainly to have given himself the trouble of ascertaining that what he asserted was true, or he should have abstained from those assertions altogether. Ignorance, in a case like this, is no
(i) “ The furious men,” says Dr. Doyle," who now agitate this country, seem to know that the sword of the law could not have been drawn, or if drawn, could not have been wielded with such deadly effect against the holy and ancient religion of these islands, if that religion had not first been decried, abused, and maligned, until it appeared to the multitude a very moral monster. From the sole of its foot,' like its founder, 'to the top of its head, there was no soundness in it;' it was buffetted, abused, spit upon ; it was covered with a mantle of derision; it scourged and drenched with vinegar and gall; the waters of afiliction entered into its very soul; and it was when thus disfigured by a clamorous rabble, and seemingly abandoned by God, that the bigots and the fanatics cried out to the agents of the law and of the sword — Away with it, away with it.”--(Reply to Dr. Magee.)
I most earnestly recommend this little work to every dispassionate reader; for argument and eloquence it stands unrivalled.
excuse; no criminal escapes the punishment of the law, upon the ground that he knew not that he was infringing it. The Bishop has been guilty of many gross and unfounded calumnies upon the Catholic world, k) and though he has been long called upon to prove his assertions, or to retract the slanders so detrimental to the happiness and prosperity of so many millions of his fellow-subjects,
-though a Christian bishop, bound by the common laws of morality to repair the injuries which he may
his neighbour in his character
(k) See the Libel contained in Dr. Tomline's “ Life of Mr. Pitt,” stated and refuted in Mr. Butler's “ Book of the Roman Catholic Church," p. 137 ;—a libel which charges us with doctrines subversive of civil government, and hostile to every principle of civilized society and Christian morality;-doctrines which we have over and over again refuted
upon the most authentic evidence, and disclaimed upon oath. Such a libel would entitle any but a proscribed race to redress at law against such slander and defamation.
See also some very just observations on the calumnies of Dr. Tomline, in a note to Dr. Fletcher's “ Comparative View,” p. 15, and where this acute and learned writer is led to remark, “However, be the reason what it may, this fact is certain,—that the Protestant clergy, in their assaults of the Catholic religion, misrepresent it cruelly. It has no generous adversaries. I do not even know one (and I have read the works of multitudes of them) who combats it, either with the charity of the Christian, or with the politeness of the gentleman.”
and reputation,-yet finding that he is unable to accomplish the former, he has neither the charity, the justice, nor the magnanimity to do the latter.()
Controversy should always be conducted with the utmost moderation ; all harsh and offensive expressions should be carefully avoided, and nothing advanced in the way of insolent triumph. But what is the controversy to which these rules apply? a calm discussion of the arguments bearing on the question in debate,-accompanied with a sincere endeavour to elucidate the truth, and to avoid all irritating and irrelevant matter. But how does the controversy of the Ministers of the Church of England with Roman Catholics, partake of this character? Instead of displaying the meek spirit
1" Since the above was written, the bishop has been summoned before the bar of Divine Justice, leaving behind him £200,000 as the fruit of his episcopal labours. What would William of Wykham have thought of this? or even his Protestant predecessor, Dr. Andrews? I do not hereby impute blame to the Bishop of Winchester, but notice the circumstance merely to show the injustice of that system of ecclesiastical discipline, which allows the surplus revenues of the church to be perverted from their true purposes of repairing and embellishing the temples of God, and of satisfying the necessities of the poor; thus imposing a tax upon the people for whose benefit those revenues were originally granted, equal in amount to the revenues so misappropriated.
of Christianity, it is full of rancour and malignity; instead of a calm, sober search after truth, it is a violent exposition of all the atrocious calumnies and falsehoods heaped upon us through three centuries of persecution. It is, in fine, no controversy at all; but a marshalling of all sorts of acrimonious invective, in the face of the strongest historical evidence, and often in absolute contradiction to the principles of those who impugn us. --Can the laws of fair controversy be applicable to such a system, (for a mere system it is become,) which vilifies and calumniates Catholics, in order to preserve the monopoly of political privileges now in possession of Protestants?—In mere matters of opinion in religion, much diversity is permitted, and must necessarily exist: in matters of faith and of fact, much discussion may sometimes be necessary, to dispel the darkness in which obscure and uninformed writers may have involved them, and to remove the difficulties with which prejudice and impiety may have encumbered them:—but to take up accusations which come only from adversaries, to receive every fact with the distortions put upon it by calumny, is to play the character of a partizan who carries on a warfare for the purposes of destruction, and who thereby places himself out of the protection of the law, and is, as it were, only to be repelled by force.
What, I will ask, can be dearer to an Englishman