The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1847-09-14 00:00:00

TO A WRITER IN THE MERCURY, SIGNING
" A CATHOLIC."
SlR,—Few men, perhaps, sit unmoved, whilst the truth
of their favourite doctrines is being questioned, and the
articles of their belief impeached. They feel themselves
identified with the doctrines they profess, and are apt to
apply to themselves the imputations directed to those
only. Perhaps, then, it is no wonder that you should
burn to defend when your Church is attacked, and to
vindicate yourself from the imputation of crediting "fables"
and being captivated by " deceits." And yet I know not
thatis the whatprprofession
s sDi
oine
what has been said, the novelty of which could have
i‘lNi surprised
has or
beenaroused
called to You
reiterate knew
uponyou.
of -all good Church of England men, and is a standing
record in the articles of their church. You knew the
l
state of the controversy, and the grounds of mutual
opposition between us, and that it was because we be-
lieved those novel doctrines imposed on the faithful by
the Council of Trent to be ' blasphemous fables and
from her, and returned in penitence to her " first love."
dangerous deceits," that the Anglican Church cast them
You knew that we must hold ourselves to be innovators
instead of reformers, mutilators instead of pruners, unless
wo e
r so believe,
open unless we are prepared so to denounce
I would fain ask, has brought you
through the columns of a newspaper,
themf forth
towhat
ta hn
ee
nw. ,
the old controversy, upon which you throw no new light,
and to which you bring no new weapon, to say what has
been said a thousand times before, and, I believe, a
thousand times refuted. But still, since you were as-
suming the management of such a subject through a
newspaper, it might have been expected that in its con-
sideration you would have been actuated singly by a
resolution to vindicate what you believed to be truth, and
a sincerity of purposewhich would have been-content to
have cast away all those arts by which you 'attempt to
vilify and slander an-opponent, instead of only attacking
his position, and to reflect upon his motives instead of
refuting his arguments. But, sir, if from your letter we
subtract all its vapunring without argument, and all its
assertions without proof, all its empty sound without the
solidity that truth imparts, and all itsompous asseve-
ration written only to catch the ear, all the inference
which enmity alone could draw, and the blind charges '
which a manly neind could never have advanced, all, in
fact, which malice dictated, and rage 'impelled, little
indeed would -be ',left for you to boast-of or for me to
notice, little that a wise man should have written or a
good man could wish to retain.
For your pity, doubtless, Dr. 111`Neile will be grateful,
but while ma:mending the tenderness of your nature,
permit me to' advise you to reserve it till he shall need it,
and you be nitre fit to evince it ; for, believe me, mistaken
pity, whilatiNeaves its object as high and as dignified
before, makes the exercise of it supremely ridiculous.
For once, however, we will confess you have belied the
nature Of our church, and allow youremiability to outstep
your jedgmeht, and what is still more beautiful, to stifle
your enmity Itself. But you have; read Dr. M'Neilets
letter with disgust at its presumption, and the assumed
air of infallibility with which it deals damnation round
the land-;`your disgust may, perhaps, be easily accounted
for, but surely such an extremely 11. y remark could not
have proceeded but from disappointed rage, which blinds
the perceptions. while it inflames the feelings. 'Dr.
M`Neile is-called upon to state the grounds of his -ob-
jection AO 'the Maynooth endowments, he does so • by
1 declaring- thet he believes with the Church of England,
1 that many doctrines taught at that institution are ' bias-
phemousfables, and dangerous deceits ;" can anything be
more reasonable, anything more-natural, anything more
,inevitable ? You know that Dr. M`Neile believed this,
1 whatthen- elicited your disgustehis belief of it, .oe-lrie-
prolession-of that belief; if his belief, perhaps there is
no wonder you should be disgusted at that of which you
have employed the whole column-of a newspaper in evine-
ire; your inability to disprove -the truth, and indeed in
. noconsciondly demonstrating its strength. If his pro-
fession,Zl -have shown that nothine is more natural, that
he was abieintely called upon to make it, that he veduld
Imre-shirked the question if he -had not done so. But if
this mere profession of his belief with the Church of
'Elsa:land, . that those peculiar doctrines are blasphe-
mous -fables and dangerous deceits is an assu niption
of infallibility, your whole-letter is open to the- idle
and -ehildish charge. for in it you profess your belief
in certaindistinctive doctrines, and condemn, as error and
-heresy; the belief of others. And do I bring any accusa-
tion agaitsteseou for this ? Surely not ; such is your-be-
lief, arid you are justified in professing it as you maintain
its truth ; but, Sir, you havedeae more ; you have pre-
sumed to dive into motives.; e you have uncovered' the
heart; you have traduced Dr. lv.i.`Neile in his oharacter. as
-a :reanof truth and sincerityl you have dared to denounce
him as the utterer of that which he knows to he false, and
-as the- taker of an oath against:-conviction. Who, then; I
demand,-has snatched the attribute which belongs to,iii-
ainity alone ewho has assumed-infallibility; who has dis-
played intolerant and unprovoked presumption? He who
;ratienally and perspicuously stated the grounds of his op-
position to. tkspish endowments. to be his belief, and -his
'belief to be,-With the Church -of England, that the distinc-
stiveadoctrines-of Popery are "-fables and deceits," or he
-who traduces motives which he cannot ascertainsand ques-
tions the sincerity of that -intention which is hid from
Unimr.n eye ? You denounce Dr..lll'Neile as dealing dam-
nation round- the land, bemuse he professes his bdief to be
that these -doctrines are "blasphemous fables and dan-
gerous deceits:" What then:? ;:Is he to heliellis faith be-
cause the world is full of Papists ; because Popes and
priests, and fioaks innumerable,have professedtheir belief
in these doctrines, is he to believe them also ? You, Sir,
may:regulate your belief, notbythe light of truth, but by
a consideration of the numbers-or the weight of the parties
believing. :You, sir, may believe, with Bellannine, that
vice: is Tirtuaandwirtue vice, if a certain man wills it, but
we leave not yet arrived at such -a pitch of indifferency;
we cannot yet .boast such a-perversity of judgment. But
if, when Dr.--M`Neile calls these doctrines fables and de-
ceits, -he deals damnation round :the land, I would fain
know what your church dispenses-when it prone:laces all
impugners.of the -twelve inventions which the Council of
Trent presumed- to add to the Catholic Faith occurred ?
In this denunciation you conjoin ; you are compelled by
the commands of your church to join ; and you, alas I be-
lieve that we Anglicans are heretics, and that for us, as
such, there is no salvation.. Yethow shocked, howoffended
is your charity, :who can denounce men to domnation,
when doctrines only which you profess are by us declared
blasphemous. 'We presume not to decide on the fate or
condition sit Papists, -whilst we do, and, by God's grace,
always will, denouncethe doctrines-of Popery ; but you
and your church pour out your cienunciations on us, and
consign us, ;by your standing decrees, to the stake and the
faggot in this life,, and -to everlasting destruction in the
next.
When you lunwarily say that Dr. M'Neile utters a foul
calumny by professitigbis belief that the adoration of the
sacramental bread is idolatry, you mean, I presume, that
it is a foul calumny to say that Rornanists do adore the
sacramental bread. To prove which-, you assume that the
bread is changed,, before .it is worshipped, into the body,
blood, soul, and alivinity-ef Jesus Christ. When did a
Romanist bungle through an argument without the help
-of a sophism ?—hese is -as glaring an instance of "petitio
principii" as ever Romanist casuistry could possibly
evince : you assume; he whole question, and then boast as
if you had proved it. Dr. ArNeile affirms that Papists
worship a piece, of bread :,you deny this—for the bread,
you say, is changed into the: body and soul of Christ : but
this is questioned,—aad Dr..M'Neile.believes the bread
-to be still bread, when it is worshipped; and, as heesel IS a
creature, it must be idolatrous-to woesbee it. Believing
so, then, how utters he .ca1.....y in affirming such to be
his-belief? But yea astart•that, -even if the_svorshipper
eub.v:ernin:
yed/
unnecessary
el-sir-..apsest ac:
species
trfoonofr
eisupposingjxdieopaliantitnreynaed.::::eoe..bx:repon aiiromsddhiiett
tpoietdjb. eebsCyt:
fshdreti
Ihsute4d Christe ,
thin,
alone.
Such Such a pretence is so flimsy and so -vain that it is almost
justify -the worship of the bread, does it not also justify
or condemned in the Word of God ? We are told by St,
Austin of some " who said Christ was the sun, and there-
fore worshipped the sun,"—were they idolaters?- The
apostate Israel had their golden calfand their Baal,—were
they idolaters ? The heathens had their images of woad,
their "stoche and stones,"—the Greeas and Romans their
Jupiter and se on, were they idolaters ? Divines, sir, in
your own church have been ashamed t.*) resortto so pitiful
an evasion; and have declared that " if the doctrine of
transubstantiation be not true, the idolatry of the heathens
in worshipping some golden or silver statue, or any images
of their gods; or the Laplanders worshipping a red cloth,
or the Egyptians an animal, is more excusable than of '
Christians, who -worship a bit of bread." And then "if
there be nothing but bread in the eucbarist they are all
idolaters." You hint that if transubstantiation be false,
Christ came on earth to speak riddles that would lead
millions of his creatures astray. Sir, think you it is
dealing faithfully with the merciful author and finisher of
the faith—that when he has committed to the keeping of
the church a doctrine so well understood, that for twelve
centuries it was preserved in its original purity and inten-
tion—your church of Rome should impiously dip to cor-
rupt that doctrine, contrary to the Catholic Mith of all
antiquity ; and then set up ignorance as an excuse for pre-
sumption ? Talk about riddles, and being led astray from
the truth—Jesus, if I mistake not, once called himself a
vine; another time bread : once he called his salvation
water; another time to be born again. Was he under-
stood ? Did lie not speak metaphorically ? The Jews,
indeed, understood him not ; nor did he undeceive them.
Let them who have distorted his known meaning—who
have corrupted the Catholic faith, which was open to the
comprehension and knowledge of all—take heed lest they
should arrive at this awful pitch of judicial blindness—l
beg to commend you for your steady belief of Christ's
promise that the gates of Bell shall never prevail against
his church ; but if I concede your application of it to the
visible church on earth, I must deny its application, as
you would claim it, until you prove that the church of ,
Rome is th'e Catholic church. But now your charges I
_grow in virulence, and in proportion increase in emptiness
and absurdity. The Church of England is but of yester-
' day, and her members are modern schisniatics ! The
' Church of England, on the contrary, history informs
us, was founded seventeen centuries ago; and very
probably by St. Paul himself. We are modern schism-
atics, and yet we arc dutiful children of this ancient
and apostolical church; whilst you are separated from her.
How one line wipes out all your charges ! bow the irre-
sistible force of truth bears down all four bold and high-
=Wins falsehoods ; What becomes of the fables about '