New-York tribune., 1874-12-02

Iablet says 10 that no law - 10 oe ooeyeo unleSs
approved by tho Church of Rome. That
is its definition of the duty and cxeeno
OF civil allegiance 1t is very bold. 1t s
nrobablv the precise doctrine Archbishop Man
n,np holds in secret but the hair on the head OF
that astute prelate must stand on end when he dis
covers the fatal indiscreton of his faithful but TOO
jealous advocate.
In The Ueckly Register. the mouthpiece of the new
Roman Catholic University, the whole matter Is
summed up compcndiously. What Mr. Gladstone
saws is no better than 1.-THE exquisite maunderinSs
of some mere crotchety fribble in m5thetics'
Nor ia Mr. Gladstone the only victim whom tne
Ultramontane disciples of the lnquls'tion stre'ch
ON the rack of their rhetoric Lord Acton Is SUD-
iected to worse torments than Mr. Gladstone NM
eelf: Lord Acton's offcnse being that. though
Catholic he is not an Ultramontane Ills response
to Mr.. Gladstone asserting the loyalty OF English
Catholics int,mated that it was possible to remain
within the pale of the Church without believing In
Infalhbility and other doctrines now III fashion AZ
the Vatican. The Dublin Erepino Post thcreupon re-
marks that under the guise OF opposition to Mr.
Gladstone. Lord Acton comes forth with historical
calumnies in support of the late Prime Minister
calumnies that far transcend in mafgnlty
the expostulaton which they sustain" IL
calls for his authorities, which Lord Acton
will probably produce when asked for them civi'y.
He will not be likely to take much notice of writer
who accuses him of "trcachery and baseness' me
Saturday Reiepwhich is very sparing of praise 1or
ANYBODY outside of its own narrow comniunion-
describes Lord Acton as man who knows too
much and thinks too Independently to enjoy the
favor OF the Vatican or the confidence OF the
RomiSh hierarchy in England" and again, as y
scholar of ample learning great candor, and eomprc'
hensivencss # thought" His high character does
not prevent the Dublin papers from making charges
against his honor and good faith SO beons that the
London journals think it prudent not to reprint
them. The same paper, pushing Archbishop Man
nipp's hint little further, has discovered that 9
eonspracy was entered INTO between Mr.. Gladstone
Lord Acton, and Dr. D0linger 1t gives the details
and particulars of this infamous compact, which are
very interesting, and which wonld copy were 1t moi
that The Daily ItLgrdph of this morning ruthleSSlI
extinguishes the story by the following paragraph
With re terence TO certain inference in tho letter IRON
| Archbishop Manning, which we published on tho s'h
ye are authorized to state that the Right l9V DI No
D0incer had not any share or completely Whatever
either Mr Gladsones recent article on Rtuasm OF III
! panpblet on the Vatican DEGREES. DR.. Won D0ihnge
was not aware Of Mr.. oladsones intention to pnohS'
either the one or the other aud had no commune"
cation with Mr. Gladstone either subject Archbishop
Manning therefore have been misinfOr'ned III u
nutinc TO Dr. Won D0lnger any responsibility III n'
matter.
| The fate of Lord Acton has not deferred another
Liberal Catholic from speaking ont even mor'
! plainly Lord Camcys sends to The hmes le'ter 40
| dressed by him to Mr. Gladstone, concurrihg III MT
G,sdstone's view that loyalty to his country an'
| acceDtance of the new doCmas of Rome ar
irreconcileable; and he replies thus 10 Archbishop
! Manning:
In ro,icipe vour REPRESENTATION" the Archbishop o
Westminster in his published letter. said that there is M
change in the opgaioas Of the R'man CahohcS 10 h'
civil mower n Consequence Of IN publication OF th
Vatican p,c-sxs Now, Is this soi IL Is not likely tn
pgvse-s ~ Adop: against seen Victoria tne cours
2ursusd by The then Pope AGAINST Queen Elizabeth bu
there = ~ t-'l1c what etic mtGhi be issued IVY h
author OF the Syllabus. Assuming an edict were now
issued tending to weaken destroy allegiance, what
different position q Roman Catholic would be In nov
from what be would have been in then! 1nfahiohltl
! was not then q matter OF compulsory be1er' ana h
would have been at liberty to refuse compiiance WIN
such an edct but what would be the erect OF MS Dene
IN the personal Infalliby9 He must either withhold
his allegiance on the hand. risk his salvation o
the other; and is not this obigaionf To be com
PEELED to believe under severe penalties now what W
| were at liberty to disbelieve then with impuhity
| surely q new obligation. AS an Independent EhghS
Remau Catholic. 1 consider it my duty 10 make thi
response to your appeal Much may he said OF the ser
Gus difficulties that many members OF the Roman Catht
| lie Church throughout the world will be placed in b
| being compelled to believe in the Vatican DEGREES Fo
myself I will say that history, common sense. and m
early instruction forbid accept the astounding an
novel (uoye at least, in their present promugatios
doctrine Of the personal Inalhty of the Pope thoug
limited as asserted. to the large domain OF faith an
| morals.
Lord Camoys's peerage dates back to 1888, and hi
position is such as to give weight to his declaration
| few more similar letters would go far to prov
that Mr. Gladstone had good reason for his hope tina
his Catholic fellow countrymen would respond
his appeal by asserting in all their civil relation
their complete independence Of foreign dictatioI
Whatever others may be, it is certain that Lon
Acton and Lord Camoys are Englishmen first an
| Catholics afterward. G. W. 5.