sion, which the legislature thought an adequate punishment for the crimes of this infidel, this recreant, this traitor, but which it did not inflict on his successors in the peerage, as it does on the Catholics, successors of Catholic peers :-This exclusion, this very exclusion, is the actual doom of the noble, the honourable, and the honoured Catholic peers of this realm; -men never mentioned without reverence and regard; is inflicted on all their Catholic successors, and cheered by You. 66 7. You tell me, (page 297), that "I vehemently object to the epithets, 'idolatrous and "' superstitious,' which the oath applies to tran substantiation and the invocation of the saints, " and that I attempt to prove that no Protestant " is justified in making this assertion." In my eighteenth letter to Dr. Southey, I suggest that the immense number of Christians who believe in transubstantiation; the large proportion of Protestants, who believe in consubstantism; and the opinions of many distinguished Protestants, who, without believing in either, think there is idolatry in neither, showed that the alledged idolatry of the belief in transubstantiation, was problematical. I then proceed to observe, that "the sacredness " of an oath, which never should be taken, if that " which is sworn to admit of reasonable doubt; " that "good sense, which is shocked by the lan 66 guage of the declaration;" that "the terms of 1 66 66 66 amity which subsist between the United Kingdom " and many Catholic states, and which render the declaration an uncivil state paper; the littleness of wounding unnecessarily the feelings of that proportion of the community which is Catholic, (for a Protestant is not more hurt at a Turk's calling him a Christian dog, than a Catholic is at calling him an Idolater); -the impolicy of keeping any thing in existence, which unneces 66 66 66 sarily insults and irritates;-the acknowledged " wisdom and expediency of every legislature and " ministerial measure which promotes a reciprocity " of good-will and conciliation, and above all THE MERITS, -I confidently said, and say, -THE MERITS OF THE CATHOLICs, seem to point out "the necessity of repealing the objectionable and " inofficious declaration." 66 Upon these suggestions, You express yourself, (page 297), in the following terms : 8.-" With respect to transubstantiation,-We " have no other words to express our opinion of 16 him, who kneels down to a thin bread-cake, after "the priest has blessed it, believing that the pal 66 pable substance is the very and material blood " and bones of him who is in heaven. If we had 66 more expressive terms than these, we would use "them to describe our opinion of him 'who taketh flour, and with part thereof he maketh bread, "he eateth, and is satisfied; with part thereof " he maketh a God; he falleth down, yea, he 66 66 worshippeth it.' What shall we say? We may not assert that all this is idolatrous and super"stitious. O! no! we must repel the thought, " as blasphemy! Kneel on then, and cry aloud, " for it is a God; for the flour was good-and "the water was good and the priest was rightly " ordained-and the worshipper believeth not his senses-nor his understanding-nor his reason, " nor the Scripture." The language in which You express yourself in this passage, -I leave to the taste, the feeling and reflection of every gentleman in the world. I wished to say nothing further upon it: but I feel it calls on me to declare, that it is a great misrepresentation of the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. The Roman Catholic church does not believe that " the priest maketh a God:" she believes it to be heresy, to be folly, to be impiety to say this. She believeth, that, when the priest pronounces the words of consecration, God, by his omnipotence, works the mysterious change. Roman Catholics " do not fall down before the "bread; do not worship it." They fall down before Jesus Christ, whom they believe to be present under the form and the appearance of the bread: Him, alone, they worship. Your representation of our doctrine contains other inaccuracies. 9.-You then, (p 298), mention Oates's plot, but without a single word of condemnation of the actors in it: You coolly tell us, that, " if the gunpowder plot had not been planned, Oates's plot "would never have been believed." - This shows the enormous guilt of those, who, without any evidence, fabricated the calumny that the gunpowder plot was planned by the Roman Catholics. In this enormous guilt, all participate who perpetuate this slander of them. Even,-if the gunpowder plot had been planned in the very manner asserted by these calumniators, it would not have justified the legal murders perpetrated during the period of Oates's plot. But the gunpowder plot was not so planned: the body of the Roman Catholics had no concern in it: they reprobated it at the time, they reprobate now, as much as Protestants. 10.-We reach, (page 298), the reign of James II:-It contains your last charge, and last misrepresentation. " What credit," You exclaim, "can be given " to the advocates of your communion, when they "read in the pages of the most candid and "accomplished of their number, the declara“tion of his opinion, that 'the measures of James 66 may be denominated a project for effecting a " general religious toleration." My language is as follows:-" In my Histo"rical Memoirs of the English, Irish, and Scottish " Catholics, I have expressed my sentiments upon 0 "the conduct of James II. My opinion is, that in theory, his project for effecting a general reli"gious toleration, was entitled to praise; but as "the public mind was not disposed to receive it favourably, it was unwise, and the measures " which he adopted for carrying it into execution, " were unconstitutional." In the exposition which you give of this passage, there are both great misrepresentation and great concealment. 1st.-You make me say, that " the measures of "James might be denominated a project for ef"fecting a general religious toleration." I neither say, nor believe that they may be so denominated. One, of James's projects was to effect a general religious toleration; but he had other projects in contemplation, particularly the introduction of arbitrary power. To describe them all by the words you cite, would be great inaccuracy, and I have not been guilty of it. I have only mentioned his "project for effecting a general religious tole" ration." and said nothing of the others. 2dly. In this passage, You-(although you had inserted them in the preceding page)-omit altogether the important words, " in theory." 3dly.--You wholly conceal my explicit assertion of the folly and unconstitutionality of James's measures. 4thly.-In my "Historical Memoirs," * I have * Vol. IV. |