Year: 1874

|
THE OCCASION OF THE TRACT-ROME's POLICY ONH
| OF VIOLENCE AND CHANGE OF FMru-ALLEGf-
ANCE TO THE POPE A SACRIFICE OF MORAL AND
MENTAL FREEDOM AND CIVIL LOYALTY AND DUTY
MODERN THOUGHT AND ANCIENT HISTORY
EQUALLY REPUDIATED IN HER TEACHINGS.
1. THE OCCASION AND SCOPE or THIS TRACT
| In the prosecution of purpose not pOlemicaI
but pacific have been led to employ words which De-


long. less the region Of religious controversy
and which, though they were themselves few, seem 10
require, from the various feelings they have aroused
| that should carefully define, elucidate and defend


them. The task is not Of kind agreeable 10 me but


proceed TO perform IT. Among the which havo
tended 10 disturb and perpex tho public mind In the
consideration OF religious difficulties one has
been certain alarm at the aggressive activity aud i'm
agned growth " the Roman Church IN this country.
All are aware OF our ptblty this side and it


was not think improper for who desires to


everything that can interfere with a calm and judicial
temper, and who believes the alarm groundess
state pointedly though briefly some reasons for that
| belief.


Accordingly did not scrupe to use the 'Ollowing Ian.
guage in paper inserted in the number Of the Oonem
porary Rerieo for the month OF October was speaking
of the question whether handful Of the clergy are or
are not engaged in utterly hopeless and visionary
effort 10 Romanize the Church and people OF England"


At time since the bloody reign Of Mary has such Q


scheme been possible But had possible In Tho
seventeenth or eighteenth centuries, II would still havs
|


substituted for the proud boast Of seBper eddeu policy


OF violence and change in faith when she has refur


fOndly thought to have dsused; wne1 no one can be-


come her convert without renOuncng hts moral aud


at the mercy Of another and when she has equally


pudiated modern thought and ancient history
Had been, whom wrote this passage, as now am.
addressing myself in considerable my Roman
Catholic fellow-countrymen should have striven
avoid the seeming roughness Of Of these express


sOns but the question about their substance.
from which am not in particular disposed TO
cede, any attempt to recast their general form would
probably misead. proceed. then, to deal with them
on their merits.


More than friend OF mine among those who have
been led to join the Roman Catholic communion has
made this passage the subject less OF expotu
laon Now, in my opinion, the assertions which ~
makes are coming from layman who has spent
most and the best years OF his life in the observation
and practice of politics. not aggressive. but defensive


1t is neither the abettors OF the Papa Chair any
one who. however far from being abettor Of the
Papa Chair actually writes from Papal point of view,
that has right TO remonstrate with the world at arge
but the world large the contrary that has the
fullest right to remonstrate first with his Holiness
ondly with those who share his proceedings, thirdly
even with such passively allow and accept them.


l. therefore, OF the world at large. propose to
expostuate in my turn shall strive to show TO such
OF my Roman Catholic fellow-subjects as may kindly
give hearing that, after the singular steps which
the authorities OF their Church have in these last years
thought take the people OF this country who fully
believe in their loyalty, entitled on purely cyu
grounds expect from them some declaration or mani
festaton opinion In reply to that ecclesiastical party


in their Church who have laid down, in their names
principles adverse the purity and integrity OF civil
allegiance.


Undoubtedly my allegations are OF great breadth.
Such broad allegations require broaf ana deep ioun'
dation The first question which they raise Is, Arc
tbo RI them.


their truth might not suffice to show that their puDcr


ton was opportune. The second question, then when
they raise is they, for any practical purpoee ma
terali And there is yet third, though MINOR ques-
tion which arises OF the propositions In connection
with their authorship Were tney suitable 10 20 SO. Iortn
by the present writerf


To these three questions will now set myself rSply.
And the matter OF my reply will, as conceive eonsti.


ute and appeal to the understandings Of my
Roman Catholic feow-countrymen which trust tbSt,
at the least among them may deem not altogether
unworthy OF their consideration


From the language used by OF the OF 2o-
Catholic opinion it is, am afraid, plain that in
some quarters they have given deep ohense Dispess-
ure, indignation, fury, might be said to marx the
Language which in the heat Of the moment has been exc
pressed here and there They have been hastily treated
as an attack upon Roman Catholics generally nav.


s an insult offered them II Is obvious TO reply that OF
Roman Catholics generally they state nothing Together
with a reference converts" OF which shall say
more they constitute generally free and strong ami.
madyerson on the conduct OF the Papal Chair and oi
Its advisers abetors II am told that he who an'
imadverts upon these assa thereby. insults Roman
Catholics at large who do not choose their eceesias
cal rulers and are recognized having any voice IN
the government of their Church. cannot be bonnd oY
or acce ut proposition which seems to me 10 be 80 little
in accordance with reason


BEFORE all things however should desire 1t to be un'
derstood that iu the remarks offered desire to
nlv rplig likewise
logical controversy Indeed, with theology. except IN
its civil bearing with theology "a such, have mere
nothing whatever do But 1t is the peeullaritV OK
Roman theology that by thrusting itself Into the ten'
poral domain It naturally and even necessarily comes
TO be frequent theme political discussion. To quiet
minded Roman Catholics 1t must be subject OF innnlto
ANNOYANCE that their religion Is, this ground moro
than any other the subject OF criticism mora
than any other. the occasion Of conflicts with the state
and of civil disquetude. l feel sincerely how much
hardship their entails But this hardship broughs
upon them altogether by the conduct or the authorities
OF their own Church Why did theology ener so largely
into the debates OF Parliament on Roman Catholic
EnanclpatIoni Certainly not because our statesmen
and debaters Of htty years ago had an alb
stract love of such controversies, but because
it was extensively believed that the Pope
OF Rome had been and was trespasser upon
ground which belonged to the civil authority and that
he affected to determine by spiritual prerogatiye que
tions of the civil sphere TG fact If fact be, and not
the truth or asehooi the reasonahenes or unreasona
beness of any article of purely religious belief IS the
whole and sole cause of the mischief To this ac and
10 this fact alone my language is eferaoe but for this
fact IL would have neither my duty nor my desire
,ouaoit All other Christian bodies are content with
,oodom IN their own religious domain. Orientals, Lu-
tberans Cavinsts. Presbyterians Epscopalans, Nom
couformss one and ALL in the present day. eontentedy
and thankfully accept benefits OF civil order
uretend that the State Is not its MASTER make nc