The Elk County advocate. [volume] (Ridgway, Pa.) 1868-1883, 1878-01-10

| For the ADVOCATE.
| A Second Review OF the Rev. Mr.. Gil.
ette's Thanksgiving Sermon, and his
Defence thereof, Communicated to
the "Democrat" Of Ridgway, Pa, in
the issue Of January Sd, 1878.
Mr.. EDIToR:--Again Mr.. Gillette
staggeringly figures in the Democrat
in his vain efforts to regain the ground
which he lost by the review of his
Thanksgiving Sermon. and must re.
mind any one of the old adage land
though conquered he will argue still"
In the review referred to called the
Rev. gentleman to account for many
false statements put forth by him in
his locally famous sermon, and it is to
be left to the good sense and impartial
judgment of the reader to decide
whether or not he has defended, nay,
even attempted to uphold them. He
falls back into the old slippery tracks
of all defenders of the so.called REF
ormation" when attacked on. and un-
able to defend one point will drop it
! j
ask more questions than ninety-nine
wise men can answer.n His last COM
munication no more meets the objec
tions brought against his sermon than
do the extremities of the north and
south poles meet. Indeed, it is such
feeble attempt at defence that
should let it pass as unworthy of no.
tlce. were it not that he still continues
lin his last communication) 10 SLAM
der and misrepresent the Catholic
Church. He evidently believes in
Luther's favorite expression, "Cal-
umniare audaciter; semper aliquid
haeret,"-boldly caluminate; there
will always something stick.
There is no Use, Mr. Gillette, In
your jumping on to those stale and
hackneyed accusations, which are
long since refuted so thoroughly that
they are never referred to now a. days,
except by some illiterate and unprin-
cipled gospel-monger, who tries to
pawn them offas genuine in the remote
and somewhat benighted districts
Of the world. Useless it is for you to
try, by such means. to cover up the
false and malicious statements of
your Thanksgiving Sermon. l mean
to hold you to that sermon. and when
| you swallow it-not even allowing
you the savory taste of salt-I shall
review the subjects referred to in your
last communication. Let us finish
one question before going on to
another. Such is always the mode to
be pursued in the defence of any thesis,
such must necessarily be the mode in
order to arrive at any definite conclu-
! sion. To answer a question by ask.
! ing another is too childish for man
of any ability, as Mr.. Gillette does in
his attempt at defending his Thanks
giving Sermon. Ask me not, Mr..
Gillette, to be thus explaining to you
the first principles of logic Ac-
knowledge your errors, do penance
for the false, odious, and uncharitable
light you thought fit to represent by
way of giving thanks to God on our
natural holiday, your Cacholic fellow
citizens, and apologize for the insult
offered to the public intelligence by
your false assertions, then I will talk
with you on the "past crimes and
errors of the Papal Church." as you
modestly put it.
Allow me to recapitulate the blum
ders of his Sermon, which he should
have defended in his last production
in the Democrat, but slides over by
introducing fresh ISLANDERS. First, he
said the Protestant Church was "hin.
dered" in France Is not this false
now, Mr.. Gillette, and did I not prove
1t to you in my review? With COM
Function, now do strike your breast.
and say you were guilty of Il falsehood
by thus representing Catholic France.
Why did you not try to defend it in
your last communication if you could?
call this slander No. l. You also
said Protestant Prussia. in contrast
with Catholic France, "Attempts, to
Protect ALL" proved, in my review,
twas false to say SO. Why net defend
it? Again make an act of contrition
and acknowledge before the public you
were guilty of falsehood by such a
statement. This is slander No. II.
You told your audience that-"Protes-
tant churches, ask no privileges" and
that the Catholic did. 1 proved to you
that you had all theprivilcge, you re-
quired, and needed none-in a word,
that you had everything, why not
contradict my statements proving
yours false? you also told your audi
ence that Protestant countries were
far superior to Catholic Cour tries i'm
intelligence, enterprise and moral
WORTH" and stated that "recent
Papal' writer acknow lodged it.
called on you to give the name of this
'Papal' writer and you did not at
tempt to do it. Furthermore, |
proved to you from the testimony of
Samuel l. ing, Protestant historian
of the highest order, as the Edinburgh
Review remarks, that Catholic
countries were superior in every sense
to Protestant. Why not prove the
contrary and not tell us, a silly bosh
story, about the students of MAMMOTH
College. Since I haya nroyod tba or,