(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "A reply to the speech of the Hon. Edward Blake against the Orange Incorporation bill; Protestantism first, politics after"

w%Mm& 



The EDITH and LORNE PIERCE 
COLLECTION of CANADI ANA 




Queen's University at Kingston 



I I <o \- V-* > 



o . — 



A REPLY 



Speech of the Hon. Edward Blake 



AGAINST 



The Orange Incorporation Bill 



ANTISELL ALLEN 



Protestantism first ; Politics after. 



KINGSTON 
1884 



LP 



Fs&ilL !<€%* 



k^7 



PREFACE. 

It may seem presumptuous on my part to enter the lists against the Hon. 
Edward Blake, but truth is such a counterpoise to the most splendid abilities 
and strongest reasoning powers, that with it on my side I may dare to en- 
counter the most formidable opponent. Indeed, the argument by which 
Mr. Blake seeks to fortify one main position is a mere rope of sand, which 
crumbles on being touched ; for, as I hope to show, the statements of Catho- 
lic dignitaries, even if they did not contradict each other, which they do, 
carry little, if any, weight of authority, in the final settlement of any ques- 
tion ; whilst his argument against Orangeism comes to little more than this, 
that Orangemen must be a bad lot, because the majority of them in Ontario 
voted persistently against him, and some of them treated him badly ; and that 
the system which embraces within it, as he affirms, so many bad members 
must be inherently vicious ; forgetting that this same argument would be 
disallowed by him if employed with respect to Christianity itself. 

But there are some portions of this pamphlet not so much intended as a reply 
to Mr. Blake, as to show what our Protestant position is, and how impreg- 
nable. But it may be said, look at the great men who uphold Catholicism. But 
who are great men ? Because a man is prompt and energetic and well-educated, 
can speak well, write well, argue well on given premises, is he therefore a 
great man ? On the contrary, he may be essentially a small man. He may 
lack that fundamental of all true intellect — clear common sense. By common 
sense I mean that power of discerning the substantial from the shadowy, the 
true from the false — the power which lays hold, by a kind of moral intuition, 
of the real soul or principle of the thing presented, and which recog- 
nizes the interior, higher, spiritual forces which underlie the material and the 
outward, and which are as the living germ in the kernel to the mere outer 
husk or shell — an insight like that of Christ, which, when confronting the 
stupidity equally of the unlearned disciples and of the learned scribes, en- 
abled him to put his finger on the quick of the matter; which makes the pur- 
ity of the motive the centre round which every thing revolves, and by which 
every action is hallowed; which detects in the widow's mite the largeness of 
the heart ; which sees in the action of the despised Samaritan the real and only 
brotherhood — the brotherhood of the soul, and so puts to flight for ever the 
narrow bigotry of caste ; which perceives that it is not the outward but the 
inward — not what enters into the stomach, but what comes out of the heart — 
that God recognises as of value, or condemns as crime ; that the human spirit 
is God's temple where only worship is done, and that Jerusalem, or Samaria, 
or Lambeth, or Rome has little to do with the true work of the human heart. 

Without this gift of insight — this endowment of common sense — blind as 
owls at noonday, our Newmans and our Mannings go through life, stumbling 
over every stone, and knocking their heads against every post, and missing 
their way at every step, shouting, all the time, that they only know the right 
way ; teaching in the name of Christ the very things that Christ came to de- 
liver us from ; and propounding — in language chaste, and ornate, and, at 
times, most beautiful, I allow, — the most puerile things as though the result of 
the profoundest wisdom. 

And why this? Because they are mere leaners, and lack that first requi- 
site of the thinker, true sense or clear insight — that best foundation of right 



I Q KH ' K -2 



- 4 — 

judgment. This is the fatal flaw which mars their work, and for the lack of 
which no amount of education can ever compensate. A close observer of 
human nature tells us— i don't profess to quote the very words — that educa- 
tion is a good thing to have in the upper stories, if only there be common 
sense in the ground floor. This my intercourse with men leads me to endorse 
wholly. Next to the endowment of a high moral sense, that of true insight 
is the highest gift of nature. 

I beg to say here that I have throughout my pamphlet taken the liberty of 
employing "feeble italics," whether so found in the passages quoted or not. If 
in any place I have spoken warmly, it is because I have felt warmly. Civil and 
religious liberty, the great conquest of Protestantism, is far too dear to me to 
be spoken of in cold terms ; but if anywhere I seem to have spoken too warm- 
ly, I hope I may be pardoned. Everywhere I have aimed at speaking what 
I believed to be the truth in the plain language that truth requires. 

J. A. A. 



A Reply to Mr. Blake's Famous Speech on Orangeism. 



Of no man can it be pronounced with certainty how he will act 
under a complete change of circumstances, and no man has so 
fully sounded the depths of his own nature that he can predict it 
even of himself. We remember who said, in his burst of indignant 
sincerity and outraged self-respect, " Is thy servant a dog that he 
should do this thing," and yet, when the occasion served, he did 
it. We recall Peter, too — his prospective self-confidence, and his 
terrible break down when the trial came. Even high-natured 
men have gone to great extremes in wrong doing, when, under 
pressure, they have once allowed themselves to slide. Indeed, it 
has passed into a proverb that corruptio optimi pessima est. Hence 
I argue that things however seemingly impossible at present or 
in the future, but which were the merest commonplaces in the 
past, may again be repeated ; for history teaches us that we are 
very much the playthings of circumstances, and that no man can 
say with certainty how he, much more how others, will act under 
wholly changed conditions. Have we any guarantee then, that, 
under no possible circumstances, could persecution rear again its 
horrid crest? Are there even no indications that a lack of 
power alone prevents a revival of the old policy? Or have we 
not had sufficient warning, and good grounds for believing, that 
the Arch-enemy of the rights of conscience and of man has not 
only not retracted one ancient claim, but has shown us that, 
while lingering lovingly over the past, he contemplates hopefully 
a revival of it in the future. 

But, it may be replied, men can never be again the brutes they 
once were. And yet I know not what good grounds there are tor 
believing that human nature has undergone any essential change, 
or that we moderns are in inward structure very different from 
those who went before us. Only think what a beautiful dream of 
a noble and gentle soul was the Utopia of Sir Thomas More. 
What generous sentiments breathe throughout it, and what a 
humane spirit was that of its saintly author — peace on earth and 
goodwill towards men — and in the society of his friends, and, in 
the bosom of his refined and charming family, as he talked 
sweetly and smilingly with Erasmus, when the angelic nature 
was uppermost, who could have dreamt what a slumbering 
volcano of bigotry and cruelty and fiery impatience of contradiction 
was there, ready to burst forth into devastating hatred and 
persecution, onl} r coated over with the thin self-deception of a 
zeal for Christ, forgetting that '' The wrath of man worketh not 



-6— 



the righteousness of God." How could, I say, any one who had 
road Ins beautiful picture of an ideal society not be struck with 
the thought of what a gentle and philanthropic spirit tenanted 
such a bosom as his; and yet — for man is a kind of moral Centaur, 
part God and part Devil; in his lowest thoughts, motives, and 
feelings he comes near the liend ; but rouse his highest nature, and 
a God, he battles 'gainst a universe of wrong — this pattern man, 
in the very teeth of the express commands of Christ to the 
contrary, was so dominated by a pseudo-Christianity hardened 
into a concrete of sacerdotalism and tradition, which had 
gradually supplanted the religion of Christ and Paul, that, though 
so capable of higher things, he had become at once a bitter 
persecutor, and the urgent advocate of persecution. Such is the 
warping influence of a false theory of religion, illustrating the 
old adage thai corruptio optimi pessima est. Truly had Christ told 
his disciples, when, in their untutored zeal for his honour, they 
were for calling down fire from heaven to consume those who 
rejected Him, " You know not what manner of spirit you arc of: 
the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives." 

No, my readers; words spoken in the holiday attire of the soul 
when we are at our best; or when we are on our guard; or when 
spoken for the purpose of placaiion, are not to be held to override 
the actions that speak louder than words, especially when those 
action- are accompanied by the cool declarations of the bad, steady 
principles in which the}^ originate. 

And as I know what those actions have been, and what those 
principles ever have been, and now are, not as Mr. Blake knows 
them, from the convenient and ever shifting utterances of 
unauthorised bishops or underlings, how high soever, of the 
church, but from the highest authority, from very infallibility 
itself, so is there a wide gulf which my soul refuses, because 
unable, to pass, that separates the splendid rhetoric of Mr. Blake 
from the inexorable logic of historic fact; and this, too, much and 
often, as 1 say to myself, oh, that 1 could pass to the other side, 
and believe as he would fain persuade me to. For could I but 
believe what Mr. Blake's argument implies to be the very heart 
of Popery towards ue heretics; could I believe that the Pope — 
and the Pope is now Catholicism — has been converted into an 
advocate, or even a convineed non-opponent, of freedom of 
conscience, freedom of speech, and free institutions; that he 
regards persecution as a crime, and toleration of honestly main- 
tained religious opinions as not only a human right, but a solemn 
human duty; that he abhors, as unchristian and demoniacal, 
Inquisitions, and autos dafe, and (he stake, and the rack, and all 
the horrible and revolting enginery of a misguided and pitiless 
past; and had won over to his infallible opinion the cardinals and 
bishops and priests and people of his church ; and would himself 



declare that henceforth men might breathe freely, and face with 
honest minds the problem of the world, my heart would bound 
with a great joy; and whatever and however strange might be 
the religious dogmas of Catholics, however unlike the Christianity 
of the New Testament, however contrary to my reason and 
common sense, yet my soul would be drawn towards him and 
i hem by a boundless sympathy ; and my mind — no longer troubled 
about the future of our poor humanity — I could repose in peace, 
mivexed henceforth by distracting doubt and pity for my kind. 

I have been wont, however, I confess, judging Rome by history 
and her unchanging declarations, to regatd the Papal despotism 
as the most insidious, constant, and dangerous enemy to honest, 
independent thought, free institutions, free speech, and freedom 
of worship; but 1 am informed by Mr. Blake that I was wholly 
mistaken, and that she has become, if she ever was otherwise, 
tolerant and harmless, and, if not the avowed friend, the opponent 
no longer of freedom and political fair play. 

But though I thought in this way in regard to the system of 
Popery, I did not believe that the mass of Catholic people shared 
with their accredited teachers their opinions, or even believed 
that they held them at all; but I feel that, in the event of any 
great opportunity of reviving the old status of the Church of the 
Middle Ages, of any great (to them) favorable crisis in human 
affairs ever occurring, such as, say, some new revocation of the 
Edict of Nantes, accompanied by the power to bend others to their 
will or to break them by it, Catholic laymen would have to choose be- 
tween the tearful alternative of joining in a general crusade against 
all who differed from Eome in opinion, and of using force (and we 
know what that means) to achieve their ends ; or, else, of 
abandoning their church, which, in their opinion, would seem 
almost, if not altogether, equivalent to the abandonment of 
Christianity itself. 

And though the best feelings of the Catholic layman and of 
many a priest and bishop of that church, their sense of justice, 
and their human pity would rise up instinctively against it, and 
though the whole spirit and genius of Christianity is opposed to 
it, yea, and the express commands of Christ, yet the church's 
dictum would have, I fear, to be carried into execution, and even 
Edward Blake would have to go or to recant, and many a gentle 
Sir Thomas More to give in his adhesion, spite of all his Utopias. 
For when once the demon of priestcraft has taken possession of a 
man, when he is cock-sure (excuse the vulgarism) that he knows 
intimately the whole counsels of the Deity, his plans and purposes 
in all their details, that he is a Vice-God on earth, the very 
mouthpiece of the Eternal, the foundation is laid broad for bigotry 
and intolerance and cruelty, and when impatience of contradiction 
and an imperious will — veryhuman attributes — are added, persecu- 
tion is almost certain to be the result. Again, look at Sir Thomas 



More among his chosen friends, what a picture does he not 
present of beautiful patriarchal amiability and affection, and how 

instinctively, as we hear his name, do these traits rise up in our 
minds; yet such is the warping effect of this cock-sureness and 
priestly bigotry, that this man could be changed into the bitterest 
and most relentless persecutor of men whose opinions differed 
from his own, and who dared to utter, in behalf of humanity, 
what they believe, and what Mr. Blake believes, to be the most 
precious truths of God. I am afraid, indeed I am sure, Mr. Blake 
would not have escaped skin-whole, and that it would have been 
far better for him to be among Orangemen at such a time. How 
would he like the fate of Sir Thomas Hytton, burnt at the stake 
for uttering honestly his belief, while Sir Thomas More (his 
gentle nature soured and curdled by the acid of priestcraft) could 
even mock at hi* sufferings, crying out, "And this, lo, is Sir 
Thomas Hytton, the Devil's stinking martyr, of whose burning 
Tyndale maketh boast." And when another was burnt to death 
for not holding the views of More, More exclaims — for of 
course he knew exactty everything about it — such is the 
effect of this beautiful coek-surcness — " The poor wretch 
(Tewksbury) lieth now in hell. . .and Tyndale (i.e., the translator 
of the Bible) if he do not amend in time, he is like to find 
him, when they come together, a hot firebrand burning at 
his back, that all the water in the world will not be able to 
quench." Why did not Infallibility, semper eadem, cry out against 
all this monstrous cruelty and pitiless crime. Why did Mr. Blake's 
new friend, the Pope, sit silent by or not silent, while all this was 
going on. Has he or his successor (all infallible; so that what- 
over one has approved of, all approve of to the end of time) ever 
once lifted his voice against Inquisitions and heretic-burnings and 
;ill the frightful wholesale murders of high-souled men and inno- 
cent women and children, when one word from him would have stop- 
ped it all. And remember, the Pope is a continuous personality, 
possessed of the same perpetual and inherent powers and thesame 
infallibility, so that what one utters authoritatively is equally the 
utterance of all that come after him, and equally binding a thou- 
sand years hcn f ;e as it was yesterday. It was a fatal gift — fatal 
to the poor world and to the Pope himself in many ways — this 
shirt of a Dejanira. Hut such is the sure result when poor, feeble, 
finite man thrusts himself into the judgment-soat of the Eternal. 
He believes he knows the wvy heart of God, when he really 
knows less than nothing. As it is written, " 1 kept silence (and), 
thou thoughtest I was altogether (such a one) as thyself." Even 
when fulminating his anathemas and persecuting to the death the 
very heroes of humanity, he is cock-sure that he is doing right. 
Like the poor blundering disciples in their foolish, heated over- 
zeal, he would fain pluck' up 'he tares from among the wheat; 
but is rebuked by the emphatic command of Christ, " let them 



both (tares and wheat) grow up together till the harvest,' 1 " at the 
end of the world," when "God will send his angels, who will sever 
the evil from among the good," and no mistake be possible. Such 
are every where in the New Testament the rebukes of the 
persecuting spirit. But infallibility knew nothing of all this — 
worse than nothing of Christ and Christianity. And yet infalli- 
bility says, 1 am the authoritative mouthpiece of the Most High ; 
and this, too, in spite of all the world-wide misery, throughout 
the ages, they have entailed on humanity. They thought that 
God was altogether such as they were. This translating back- 
wards our thoughts into the thoughts of God, and, so, thinking 
that he is as we are — actuated by our motives, governed by our 
principles — and being cock-sure about the whole system and ends 
of Providence — this infallibility, I say, is the great danger to the 
world. This it is that changes the gentle Sir Thomas Mores of 
human nature into human tigers, this that has turned our fair 
world into one huge Aceldama — a field of blood. 

Cock-sureness, what crimes art thou not responsible for in this 
world of ours. 

It was the resolve to free themselves from many of the effects 
of this cock-sureness descending from the hierarchy down to the 
masses of the world, that Orangeism, in some form or other, is to 
be assigned. Had there never been persecution, Orangeism 
would never have been invented ; but in this, as in so many other 
cases, necessity was the mother of invention. To the determination 
to defend themselves, their wives and their little ones from blood 
and torture, Orangeism owes its birth. To be prepared, a few 
among many, to meet the ibe, they had to band together in self- 
defence. To know on whom they could depend, they had to form 
themselves into a compact union, and, to make their union the 
more binding, they confirmed it by an oath of Loyalty to the 
Government, the Protestant religion, the Protestant succession, 
and to one another (not in aggression but) in self-defence. It was, 
say, a dangerous precedent, a desperate remed3 T , but, then, they 
were dangerous and desperate times. But it may be said, why 
continue the institution? We live in milder days. The school- 
master is abroad, and the foundations of belief are beginning to 
be better understood. Even Catholics are getting to be largely 
imbued with the belief that it is wrong to jDersecute a man for an 
honestly held opinion, and bishops and priests speak, if falteringly 
and guardedly, of a mutual half-recognition of the rights of men 
to their own faith, and, perhaps, if the truth could be fairly got 
at, even the Pope may have caught a glimmer of the truth. For 
is it so, that he must be always less than man. 

But Orangemen think — and surely they are as much entitled to 
their opinions as Mr. Blake is to his — that, so long as the old 
menacing attitude is observed, and the old claims to universal 
obedience pressed with the olden assurance and pertinacity, and 



10 — 

the infallibility of the-one-man-powei* urged on the one hand, and, 
on the other, accepted with a unanimity unheard of in the history 
of the church, the danger is ever present, and the need of their 
organization an ever abiding need. And though, personally, I 
am not in favour ot secret societies, considering them dangerous 
as precedents even at their best, yet this is only my opinion, to 
which 1 am entitled only as much as they are to theirs. Even 
Mr. Blake allows that secret societies may possibly be, under 
special conditions, a necessity. But he believes that there is 
nothing now in the special conditions of society that makes the 
Orange organization any thing but an intolerable nuisance. But 
that is only the private opinion of Mr. Blake, while Orangemen 
take the opposite view. I myself, and I think Orangemen, gener- 
ally, too, would be glad to see all secret societies dissolve them- 
selves, provided that the great secret organization, with its many 
sub-organizations, of the Catholic Church dissolved itself too. But 
they are afraid to expose themselves naked and defenceless, while 
the other, with its secret hosts of Ultramontanes and Jesuits and 
private conclaves of all kinds, with the priest's ear at the confes- 
sional drinking-in the secrets of all hearts, and his tongue there 
to whisper what advice he will, refuses to lay down his arms. 
And are they not entitled to their opinion ? 

I myself prefer what is open and above board. This is, light 
or wrong, my speculative opinion. Far better, I think, instil into 
men's minds, and build them up in, the immutable principles of 
everlasting right, and, so, make them strong in intellect and 
character, that they may be able to stand lirm and undaunted, in 
solid phalanx, in defence of sacred right. When a whole people 
learn these things, when they get imbedded in their moral 
economy, and saturate their daily thinking, then they are invin- 
cible, and need not the aid of secret organizations. But when 
one great overshadowing society, with innumerable minor societies 
at her beck and call, is a vast standing menace, the temptation is 
great to seize the weapon next to hand, and to use it as best they 
can; not as the best thing, but as the best for them, they think, 
under their present conditions. And for thinking so and for 
acting on their principles, avowing no ill-will to any Catholic and 
doing no injury to them or any one, are they to be politically 
ostracised to suit the convenience of Mr. Blake? I lately went to 
see a suffering Jioman Catholic and countryman, and as I sat by 
his bedside, pained at his pain, an Orangeman came in to see him, 
and their greeting was as hearty, and their manner to each other 
as mutually genial and neighbourly, as if they were actuated by 
(he same religious principles; and whyshould it not be so? Why 
should no! men think' differently and vote differently, and yet be 
good friends, and, in times of need, warm one another by their 
sympathy, and help with their means. 1 have a very dear friend, 
a Boman Catholic, J have Roman Catholic relatives, and I think 



— II — 

they would not say that my affection to them or my interest in 
their welfare was lessened, because they were Catholics. J am 
not myself an Orangeman, nor have lever belonged to any secret 
society, but, as I am not seized of all possible wisdom, I allow 
others to act for themselves. I am a free-trader, and may there- 
fore be considered to be on the side of the party with which Mr. 
Blake acts, but I am a free-trader down to my heels, convinced 
and thorough -going, and far different from Mr. Blake, for, when the 
crisis came, he wavered uncertain and did his party great injury, 
but 1 never wavered for an hour. 

I wish to be understood, and must therefore say, I am no more 
afraid of Roman Catholics, if left to themselves, than Mr. Blake is; 
but I am afraid of the system; for should the tocsin ever sound 
thus, "If the Lord be Clod, follow him ; but if Baal, follow him," 
I should tremble for the result, anticipating the feebleness of the 
resistance of the gentle Sir Thomas Mores of such a day, lest, like 
him, they might become the apologists for the new tyranny, and 
seek out, as he did, texts of Scripture to extinguish pity and stifle 
humanity and natural conscience, and so harden themselves to 
their work. 

And heie let me quote for Mr. Blake's consideration, the great 
English Puritan, one of the greatest parliamentarians and consti- 
tutionalists that ever lived, and one of the wisest and most tolerant 
and far-seeing of men, the great John Pym. Speaking in the 
famous parliament of 1640, he uttered these words: " By this 
means a dangerous party is cherished and increased, who are 
ready to close with any opportunity of disturbing the peace and 
safety of the state. Yet he did not desire any new laws against 
Popery, or any rigorous courses in the execution of those already 
in force; he was far from seeking the ruin of their persons or 
estates; only he wished they might be kept in such a condition 
as should restrain them from doing hurt. It may be objected that 
there arc moderate and discreet men amongst them, men of 
estates, such as have an interest in the peace and prosperity of 
the kingdom as well as we. These were not to be considered 
according to their own disposition, but according to the nature of the 
body whereof they are parties. The planets have several and par- 
ticular motions of their own, yet are they i\\l rapt and transported 
into a contrary course by the superior orb which comprehends them 
ally So, he adds, " the Pope's command will move them against 
their own private disposition, yea, against their own reason and 
judgment, to obey him." 

Now this was the deliberate judgment of one of the coolest 
brains in England — of a student of history and of man, who, 
looking at his subject on all sides of it, and weighing well every 
fact in its every aspect, drew the only conclusion he thought war- 
ranted by the tacts. And if this subtle and powerful athlete can 
find no means of escaping the toils of the retiarius, is it to be 



— 12 — 

wondered at if a few uninstructed Orangemem feel sometimes 
impatient and inclined to snap their fingers at it all. But then, 
Nemo mortaUum omnibus horis sapit, even, possibly, Mr. Blake. 

Was this conclusion of the great Pym the result of ancient pre- 
judice? We shall see presently. Mr. Gladstone lately published 
a pamphlet with the object mainly of proving that the late 
Vatican decree of infallibility, and of the obligation of passive 
submission in all things to the will of the Pontiff on the part of 
every Catholic, had changed the whole aspect of Catholicism 
towards the civil rulers of every country; and that " the world at 
large. . .are entitled on purely civil grounds to expect from Roman 
Catholics some declaration or manifestation of opinion, in reply 
to that ecclesiastical party in their church, who have laid down, 
in their name, principles adverse to the purity and integrity of 
civil government." He also showed that at the period when a 
generous public wished to grant Catholic Emancipation, and when 
some Protestants, talcing these views of Mr. Pym, got alarmed, 
"the eminent and able Bishop Doyle did not scruple to write as 
follows:" u We are taunted with the proceedings of Popes. 
What, my Lord, have we Catholics to do with the proceedings of 
Popes, or why should ice be made accountable for them ?" Now 
this might seem to lead to the inference that British Protestants 
were by these representations deceived, or misled, and many of 
them were, so, misled as to what the doctrines of Catholicism 
really were. But argues Lord Acton, a Catholic nobleman— this 
you will see a little further on — the} 7 ought not to have been 
misled by any private Bishop of the Catholic Church, ibr that 
these were no new doctrines, and that the late Vatican Decrees 
had not really altered the aspect of Catholicism towards the 
world, [they had only brought out in bolcer relief and emphasised 
the old doctrine] and that, therefore, Mr. Gladstone (and we add, 
Mr. Blake) ought to have been more deeply read in the true 
history of the views and aims of the church and of the Popes, and 
that, so, neither he nor indeed any rightly educated Protestant 
ought to have been so easily imposed on by the private opinions 
of Catholic prelates, or of any one else, when the whole full tides 
of Catholicism ran the other way. 

Now the question which Lord Acton had to answer was, as 
adopted and expressed in his own letter, the following: " How 
shall we persuade the Protestants that we are not acting in 
defiance of honour and, good faith if, having declared that infalli- 
bility was not an article of our faith, while we were contending 
for our rights, we should, now that we have got what ire wanted, 
withdraw from our public declaration, and affirm the contrary." 

Lord Acton writes : 

" Dear Mr. Gladstone the doctrines against which you arc 

contending did not begin with the Vatican Council. At the time 
when the Catholic oath was repealed, the Pope had the same right 



—13— 

and power to excommunicate those who denied his authority to 
depose princes that he possesses now. The writers most esteemed 
at Eome held that doctrine as an article of faith ; a modern 
Pontiff has affirmed that it cannot be abandoned without taint of 
heresy, and that those who questioned and restricted his authority 
in temporal matters, were worse than those that rejected it in 
spirituals, and accordingly men suffered death for this cause as 

others did for blasphemy and atheism 1 will explain my 

meaning by an example. A Pope who lived in Catholic times, 
and who is famous in history as the author of the first crusade, 
decided that it is no murder to kill excommunicated persons. 
This rule was incorporated in the Canon Law .. .It appears in 
every reprint of the " Corpus Juris." It has been for 700 years, 
and continues to be, part of the Ecclesiastical law. Far from 
having been a dead letter, it obtained a new application in the days 
of the Inquisition Pius V., the only Pope who had been pro- 
claimed a saint for many centuries, having deprived Elizabeth, 
commissioned an assassin to take her life ; and his next successor, 
on learning that the Protestants were being massacred in France, 
pronounced the action glorious and holy, but comparatively barren 
of results; and implored the king, during two months, by his 
nuncio and his legate, to cany the work on to the bitter end, 
until* every Huguenot had recanted or perished." In short, he 
argues that Protestants ought not to have been misled by Bishop 
Doyle or any one else. 

But why quote more, and worse, of what is utterly sickening, 
and which degrades Christianity into literal Thugism. If this 
had been written by an Orangeman, half the world would cry 
'shame,' and would feel bound to protest against it as an insult 
and most disgraceful caricature. 

* But Lord Acton thinks (and I think) that " there has been, and I believe 
there still is, some exaggeration in the idea men form of the agreement in 
thought and deed which authority can accomplish. As far as decrees, 
censures, and persecution could commit the Court of Rome, it was com- 
mitted to the denial of the Copernican system." Such is his statemeut. It 
is, indeed, true, as this Catholic nobleman shows, that such is the inconsistency 
or inconsequence of the human mind, that there is always a wide difference 
between the theory men dare avow and the deeds they dare not practise ; 
or, to use his own words, " some exaggeration in the idea men form of the 
agreement in thought and deed which authority can accomplish." Still, as 
so much has been accomplished in the past, we prefer not to depend for our 
safety on the inconsequence of the human mind, which might fail us at an 
awkward moment ; but to look rather to the general prevalence of a whole- 
some public opinion, and to the consistency of a mind, which, knowing some- 
thing of the laws which govern mind, believes and openly avows, that all 
persecution for opinion-sake is unchristian, irrational, and inhuman. Incon- 
sistency seems such a poor staff for men to lean on for their lives, yet it is the 
best that Lord Acton has to offer. How easy for the Pope to decree us a 
higher assurance, if only he would ! If not, we have these still to look to — 
the poor human inconsequence that half-way halts between thought and 
action, and our own resolve to take and enjoy what of right is ours, whether 
conceded to us or not. 



— 1 4 — 

But if Mr. Gladstone has been justly rebuked for his want of 
historic knowledge of the old patent facts of Popery, what are we 
to think of Mr. Blake, who quotes the utterances of some bishops 
and others, when the voice of the church was emphatic to the 
contrary. When inconvenient to them the modern Dr. Doyles, 
like the old, will be held cheap enough, and as easily pushed to 
the wall. Yet the statement is not mine, nor that of any Protestant, 
but the statement of an able and well-read Catholic nobleman. 

Now, what, compared with this, is our little Orange affair, even 
(.say) with its ascendancy, and colours, and regalia? Is there 
not in it much to justify the utmost extravagance imputed to the 
most extreme Orangeman in his most excited moments? But I 
believe there are millions of Catholic people who repudiate these 
doctrines of ecclesiastics, and I cannot help hoping that the 
enlightenment which is gaining ground, the advanced statesman- 
ship of the age, the pity of the human heart, the sense of justice 
that is born with us, the growing knowledge of the foundations of 
belief, the principles of toleration inculcated by Christ and by all 
the good and wise of every age, and the public conscience of 
Christendom, will present such a moral inertia of insistence to 
this mad fever-movement of Ecclesiasticism, as will save the world 
from the worst evil that can befall it — a government of priests. 
Do they imagine at Rome that the world is a toy for them to play 
with? Do ecclesiastics forget that for evoking such a spirit the 
world would hold them responsible ? that they would not be those 
who would suffer least or last ? that reprisals and fearful venge- 
ance would take the place of law and peace? and that society 
itself must cease to exist, were their theories to be reduced to 
naked practice? 

Are we to believe that God has handed over mankind, tied hand 
and foot, absolutely, unreservedly, for their belief and their 
conduct, their political institutions, and social and domestic 
arrangements, for their literature and their science — for it comes 
to that — to one man of a succession of men, some of whom were, 
acknowledgedly, foolish men, some indifferently good, and some 
bad men. 

Certainly, Mr. Blake, 1 cannot help thinking that the Orange 
society is as well entitled to incorporation and to be allowed to 
hold property, as the bishops and priests of a society holding the 
dogmas and governed by the principles unblushingly avowed, as 
above. Do you yet say, No? 

1 am not in favour of Orangemen playing party and offensive 
tunes. I consider them not only in bad taste, but wholly Wrong; 
but these and such things are only accidentals and not essentials 
of the organization, and will, I hope, be discontinued: but when 
they celebrate among themselves ' the Battle of the Boyne;' when 
they talk of the brave deeds, and enduring fortitude, and 
resolute courage, and unflinching faith of the men, often their 



mis- 
direct forefathers, who fought for their principles in that 
bloody fight, it is not in human nature for them not to feel 
the elation of the hour. It was a conflict pregnant with big con- 
sequences to them and to the world. But here I must go back a 
little. 

The wars of religion (really of theology) in France and 
Germany, the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, the Marian persecu- 
tion in England, the wholesale slaughter paying off old scores, 
not a few in Ireland, had led Protestants to believe that public 
security was compatible only with Catholic disability to hurt. 
Catholics, on the other hand, suffering in various ways, believed 
that their only hope lay in victory and James; while the Pro- 
testants looked to William of Orange for relief from the despotism 
and cruelty of James and Jeffreys. Hearts and hopes beat high 
J on both sides; while, shrouded in the darkness of the uncertain 
future, arose before the perturbed spirit many a spectre of possible 
despair. And when the battle was won — a battle which, had it 
gone against us, might possibly have reversed the whole course 
of English history and the very currents of the world — is it any 
wonder that the memory of it should have burnt itself into the 
hearts and brains of the descendants of those who had risked life 
and all things on the issue of that tight? INo : it is one of those 
things that men never can, and never ought to, be expected to 
forget. 

And with what results to Catholics to-day 1 We have flung our 
fears to the wind, stripped ourselves of every special safeguard of 
the constitution, and ventured all on the open ocean of peril and 
the future, for the sake of putting every Catholic on a full footing 
of equality with ourselves. The seed sown then has grown into 
a tree of liberty for all, flowering and fruiting for Protestant and 
Catholic alike. So that, as an outcome of the whole, Catholics 
may listen, without much discomposure, to the victory of the 
Boyne: and Orangemen, without being what Mr. Blake's rhetoric 
represents them to be, may be allowed their thankfulness and 
their triumph. Still their triumph will, I hope, be tempered with 
that modesty of demeanor which sits so well on the truly manful 
soul. 

The Pope, like Mr. Blake, has no liking for Orangemen, and 
for the same reason, that Orangemen oppose them both; and the 
Pope to-day is as anxious and troubled about free-masons, as Mr. 
Blake is about Orangemen. The Pope is, indeed, opposed to all 
secret societies and, therefore, institutes the greatest the world 
has ever known — the new "'Universal Catholic League," which is 
to "absorb all existing associations, such as Catholic clubs, Militia 
of Jesus Christ and the like," with " its centre in Rome," and its 
lingers in eveiy man's affairs. Were this league, however, to be 
dissolved to-morrow, or even to be non-exi stent, my reasoning, on 
grounds wholly independent of this, would not be in the least 



— 16— 

degree shaken. But in the presence of this vivid, gigantic, all 
ramifying secret society, how pales and dwarfs this little associa- 
tion of Orangemen. 

To give some idea of the objects of the League and of the 
scheme of its organization, I shall present the reader with some 
extracts respecting it from the London (England) Daily Neu;&: 

1. " The centre ot the League shall be at Eome. 

2. The general presidence of the League shall reside in the 
Vatican, and, with it, the personnel of a general sectarial board. 

5. The office of a general presidence shall have seven directions, 
each with a head division, and with secretaries. 

Division first — Union of Catholic jurists; second, Catholic 
workingmen's societies; third, central committees; fourth, Catholic 
regions; fifth, diocesan functionaries; sixth, general depot; 
seventh, academic committee for the union of the learned in the 
scientific efforts of Catholicism. 

The League shall have for its objects: 

1. The defence of right and freedom in face of the laws restrict- 
ing the church and the Pope. The restoration of the temporal 
power, of which the Pope has been despoiled in violation of the 
rights of the Holy see and Christianity — a restoration to be 
effected in the sight of justice, human and divine. 

2. To expound and demonstrate the dangers of liberty falsely 
so-called. 

3. To combat individualism. 

6. To countermine the press. 

9. To re-unite all the forces of civilized society, its intelligence 
and its material resources, for the benefit of the holy cause. 

10. To institue a central press for the reception and distribution 
of communications to all Catholic journalism. 

11. To institute popular schools for technical instruction; to 
institute Catholic libraries, banks for the immediate advance of 
money, mixed clubs of the noblesse and bourgeoisie, directing 
clubs for the active agents of the League, workman's aid 
societies. 

13. To effect the coalition of the noblesse and the clergy in the 
grand struggle for the freedom and ultimate empire of the church ; 
to consolidate the union of the clergy with the bishops, and of the 
bishops with the Pope, "All for One and One for All." 

14. Pecuniary largess and formation of the bonds of fellowship 
between the several cities, communes, boroughs, and persons, for 
the maintenance of the directing missionary priests, and for pro- 
moting harmony of (he means of action. 

15. Establishment of telegraphic bureaus in the great centres 
in correspondence with the central one at the Vatican, for the con- 
currence of all the Catholic forces in union." 

The real objects, however, may be reduced t<> (he one of Article 
3 — « to combat individualism.' Yes, that it is against which has 



—17— 

been directed from the infancy of the world, the enginery of all 
the despots, political and religious, the world has ever seen — to 
grind down, in their mill, the man; to fuse him into the mass; 
not indeed to destroy his thinking powers, but to index the 
direction they are to take, the groove they are to run in ; to comb 
him down and sleekly discipline him to the service of ecclesiasti 
cism ; to rob him of the brain that nature has given him, and to 
give him one clipped and pared to the pleasure of the Pope; and, 
by stinting and stunting, to reduce the stalwart limbs, ana so force 
some grand Copernicus into the breeches of a dwarf. And poor 
Galileo 1 This man, of a free, bold intellect, had embraced the 
doctrine of a central sun and a rotatory world. This was then a 
frightful heresy. Summoned to Home, and the terrors of the In- 
quisition brought to bear on him — and he knew well what they 
meant — the poor, territied soul of him, humbled and broken, 
uttered this shameful lie: 'With a sincere heart and unfeigned 
faith, I abjure, curse, and detest the said errors and heresies.' Had 
he not learned with a vengeance what 'combating individualism' 
meant? And is it to be wondered at, if Orangemen have some 
repugnance to this system of de-individualization ? 

Article 13 simply means that, in this crusade against the 
liberties of mankind, ' the noblesse and the clergy,' the Aristocrats 
and Ecclesiastics the world over, are to unite their forces— a new 
nineteenth century oligarchy of the two great castes of the world 
to bend their efforts to achieve for the new age what they had 
effected so happily for the old ; to issue, as it did before, in the 
darkness of a night of centuries, in priestcraft and indulgences, in 
inquisitions and autos-da-fe; to react again in the volcanic terrors 
of French .Revolutions — the final outcome of the outraged feelings, 
the inhuman miseries, and the insulted rights of mankind. No; 
we want no little Ohurchies with their fingers in our .British pie. 
Stand off, gentlemen, your meddling has never been for good to 
us — or to any. 

And for this 'holy cause' (Art. 9) is invoked the union of all 
the forces of civilized society, its intelligence, and its 'material 
resources.' Forewarned is forearmed — said to be. Material 
resources, mark ! Yes, that sounds like business, and has a new- 
old ugly look about it, and summons up no very pleasant pictures 
of the past — of Albigenses, and Waldenses, and St. Dominies, and 
Philips of Spain, and Dukes of Alva, and dark deeds of horror 
which ring through history with a wailing and a warning sound. 
And if Orangemen read ot these things, and put two and two 
together, is it any wonder if they are not, at all times, very calm. 
They are men, what wonder if only men. And men cannot 
always be as impassive as — to make a dash at it — as other men 
may require them to be. 

I have ever shewn myself the friend of Catholics ; but of 
Catholicism I am no friend, I consider it a religion in clear and 



\ 



definite opposition alike to the teaching of Christ and to the reason 
of man ; but I can feel for and with the honest Catholic. I can 
look at things from his standpoint, feel the rockings of his emo- 
tions, the tremblings of his heart. How could I be intolerent or 
unfeeling toward him. I say to myself, and Orangemen think 
the same, he was born to his creed like most of us; moulded and 
kneaded in soft childhood to a tixed mental cast, which became 
indurated with manhood and advancing years, till the twist of 
culture became the set of brain. 

Protestants and Catholics are alike men, and that they differ in 
opinion can scarcely be a reason why they should murder or 
injure or hate one another. "The wrath of man worketh not the 
righteousness of God," while the command, " be pitiful," is too often 
overlooked. Yet controversies ought to go on. How can I, if 
there be any good in me, see my neighbour possessed of an 
opinion injurious to himself or to society, without trying to instil 
a better. I am ' my brother's keeper,' and he is mine. And I 
honour Catholics and Protestants and all, who, believing that 
they possess an ennobling i'Jea, are zealous to propagate it. And 
I never met an Orangeman who withheld his sympathy from such 
a view. I am not angry with the Pope or his subordinates for 
their U. C. League. Knowing, as they do, no better, they give 
us the best they can. Thinking that the enthralment of the 
intellect is for good of the soul, they give us the decrees of Trent, 
with the anathemas affixed to alarm us; and, hall or whole-con- 
vinced that they alone know all things, feel themselves quite com- 
petent to undertake the education of the world. 

This we Protestants dispute. We do not think them competent- 
We think that in the past they have shewn themselves to be 
failures; that they have retrograded in religion from the Chris- 
tianity of Christ; that their philosophy, tethered to theology, 
rendered the darkness darker still; that their discipline was not 
such as to make us long for its recurrence; and that in science 
they made an awful mess of it. 

In the programme, of the future, too, so far as the system is con- 
cerned, we discover few indications of amendment. Roma semper 
eadem seems .shining through every line and ringing in every 
sentence. What individual Orangemen may think I am not in a 
position to learn; but I do know that as a body — and glowingly 
loo — they do not wish to injure in person or estate, or to curtail the 
rights of, any Catholic. But Orangemen do, 1 think, fear, not that 
Catholics would injuie them, but that the doctrines of the church 
are such, that, if a time should come when it would be no longer 
unsafe or inexpedient or startling to the general mind to avow it, 
the leaders of Catholicism might revert to the old policy of perse- 
cution, with a view to force Protestants within the fold, and thus 
render the world once; again a field of b'ood. They hope, they 
hope ardently, that this day may never come; but they wish, so 



—19— 

far as their little organization is concerned, to meet it not wholly 
unprepared ; and, with all their faults and infirmities (and they 
have been and are many. Mr. Blake seems to think them of 
faults and vic«s all compact), they are men of stout heart and 
steady resolution, who, like Cromwell's immortal Ironsides, would 
never disappoint the general that led them to the fray, and who 
might, in any crisis, become the nucleus round which could rally, 
in defence of civil and religious liberty, the hosts, not of Protes- 
tantism, only, but even of protesting Catholics — for there arc 
millions of such — Catholics who would tell the ecclesiastics that 
before they were Catholics they were men; that liberty was a 
boon too precious to be parted with for theoretic considerations; 
and that no man ought to be forced to lie to his conscience, or say 
that what he believed not, he believed. 

But while we learn that a great, organized corporation, with its 
headquarters in the Vatican, and its ramifications throughout the 
civilized world ; with its devoted missionaries in every city and 
town and village of the land, and of every land ; with its keen 
and disciplined spirits to direct its movements to the one common 
end of putting everything at the feet ot Borne — our religion, our 
institutions, our civilization, our liberties, and our laws, and of 
planing down all the diversities of intellect, sentiment, and aspi- 
ration to the one dead level of uniformity, to the destruction of all 
thought not in harmony with the thought of one man in Borne — 
one man who, sitting in the central office of the world, sends his 
mandates through a thousand wires to tell us what to do and how 
to think; — is Protestantism to sit by with folded arms waiting to 
be devoured f This is the question, I suppose, that Orangemen 
ask themselves. And how can they avoid this feeling of uneasi- 
ness ? In one way only, — by an authoritative declaration of a 
complete reversal of the whole secular policy of Borne! His 
Holiness is at liberty to call us schismatics, heretics, disturbers of 
the peace of the church, ' the tares' of Christendom, and the ene- 
mies of religion ; he may assail our common Protestantism by 
eveiy weapon in the armory of the Vatican, wielded by all the 
ablest and most practised officers of his church, if he will only 
pronounce it ex Cathedra as a principle, that no man ought to enforce 
religion by physical penalties, and that all persecution of every 
kind for theological opinions is immoral and inhuman. Then only 
will there exist any solid ground for peace. 

But, to return. A principal object contemplated by this ' U.C. 
League ' is * the restoration of the temporal power ' of the Pope 
(Art 1). That is, he is to be forced by the bayonets of foreigners, 
by whom he is little known, upon the people of Borne, who know 
him well — who know him so well that they don't want him; 
indeed, want anything rather than Mm. Would this be just or 
patriotic ? How should we in Canada like to have a government 
forced on us by foreigners ? The people of Borne are Catholics. 



— 20 

Borne for a thousand years has been the very focus and head- 
quarters of Catholicism ; and yet the whole combined teaching of 
Pope, an<l Priests, and Jesuits, has not been able to reconcile the 
Romans to the government of the Pope. Has this no lesson for 
Catholics] Whereas Garibaldi, without ancient prestige, with 
nothing to recommend him but his brave naked soul, his disinter- 
estedness, and his truth, is a name of magic, loved and ail-but 
worshipped there. And he lives to-day the friend of man; 
while Pome, in the ecclesiastical sense, is the moral solecism of 
this nineteenth century, and a standing menace to the world. 

In the famous Syllabus and Encyclicals of the late Popes, all 
are condemned ' who maintain the liberty of the press, 1 ' of con- 
science, 1 l of worship,' ' of speech,' . . . .or ' that the church may not 
employ force,'. . . .or that the Roman Pontiff ought to come to 
terms with. . .modern civilization,' .... or that in 'countries 
called Catholic the free exercise of their (Protestants) religions 
may laudably be allowed' (see Mr. Gladstone's ' Expostulation '). 
Now, it these doctrines of the Popedom are to come into practice 
— and the Pope seemsterribly in earnest — we have come to this pass, 
that either civil government will be brought to a dead-lock, or 
that the sword will have to bedrawnin detenceot human liberties 
and rights. Does he want, or does he not want, a return of the 
happy times; when a Pop? of Rome may put the Kingdom of 
England, the Republic of the United States, and the Empire of 
Russia under the terrors ami confusion of an Interdict ? — a return 
to times when men's sense of right — for you may educate or de- 
educate a man to almost anything — will be so perverted that the 
most appaling crimes, if committed by the clergy and tried by the 
ordinary tribunals of law and justice, will horrify the mind 
ecclesiastical? — a return to the times of Becket ? 'Then' — 1 
quote from the historian Froude — ' then,' say Becket's despairing 
biographers^ ' was seen the mournful spectacle of priests and 
deacons, who had committed murder, manslaughter, theft, robbery, 
and other crimes, carried in carts before the King's commissioners 
and punished as if they had been ordinary men ! ' To us this 
reads as if they had been enjoying the drollery of the thing! but 
no. this was their solemn belief. As if they had been ordinary men! 
Truly may it be said that man is the creature of his circumstances, 
when that featherlcss biped can be reduced to think like this ! 
Yd to us it seems a climax of perverti bility hardly reachable by 
any mortal. But not so; the church man-mind is not governed by 
ordinary rules. He has a little world and an ideal of his own; and he 
dwells and dreams apart; and he docs some wonderful feats of thinking; 
and he looks at this, his microcosm, 80 long and so lovingly, and it is so 
near to him, and the big world of ld'e and reality and other men so far 
away, that the one looms up before him bigger and bigger as he looks, 
and the other fades into the far off, until the mighty S.rius, in the dis- 
tance, is no lugger than a speck. And what cares he for your argu- 



— 21 — 

ments, and science, and facts ? They do not belong to his world. 
Besides, he has a faith-menstruum of his own — a universal celestial 
solvent — by which he can melt down the hardest facts in the universe, 
and thus mould and shape them to fit any theory he adopts. And this 
practice of mental legerdemain keeps growing into a habit of universal 
perversion, until, at last, the world becomes so topsy-turvied that things 
stand in reversed order to his mind ; and hence he thinks, without a 
consciousness of its absurdity, how ' mournful a spectacle ' it is, that 
judges should punish ecclesiastics for crimes ' as if they were ordinary 
men.' No : we should have an imperium in imperio for our murder- 
committing saints — an exceptional rule for the demigods of humanity, 
in whose veins forever courses the ichor of the gods. But what stupid 
louts our Orangemen, that they cannot recognize this beauty of the 
coming age ! Why, Sir, such men see little to be grateful for in the 
goings on of Pope's Legates in the good old times, when a minister of 
Rome could say (King John, Act v., scene I.) : 

' It was my breath that blew this tempest up, 
Upon your stubborn usage of the Pope : 
But, since you are a gentle convertite, 
My tongue shall hush again this storm of war, 
And make fair weather in your blustering land.' 

And so they blew the tempest up or made fair weather, to suit the 
whim or interest of Rome, and make or mar the welfare of the world. 
Speak I thus to wound ? Nothing can be further from my thoughts, 
But 1 wish to warn, where I think the danger demands it. There are 
so many Catholics — many of them old friends — whom willingly I 
would not offend. But, if there be any manhood in me, T must speak 
out freely what I think (what they do not believe), that their great 
leaders hold these views, and are pushing things to all extremities. 
Catholic laymen and the better-informed and more liberal of their 
teachers ought to make themselves heard belbre it is too late. But, 
happen what will, a good dose of truth is good for all men; and, if 
what I write be false, no one will be more pleased than I shall be to 
see it proved so. If true, they can come over to my side. They are 
not bound to this Catholicism as to a profession or trade which they 
have learned and cannot give up to take another. If I have any tiling 
to impart, I am bound to impart it ; emasculated thought is no proper 
thought at all. I know that Catholics do not realize the consequences to 
mankind of the theories of Rome. They accept things as they are, 
without thinking very much about them in a questioning way. It is 
the religion of their parents and their grandparents, and their earliest 
and strongest and gentlest sentiments of awe and reverence twine 
themselves round it. 

But they read little of church history, and know not that widespread 
ignorance, and superstition, and ambition, and intrigue, and false doc- 
trine, and a foolishness and childishness unimaginable of teachers and 
of taught, stamp nearly every chapter of the history of the church. 

It is true that, in past uncivilized times, when emerging slowly out 



—22— 

of the daikness and misconceptions of the ages, Protestants persecuted 
Catholics, and Catholics Protestants. But now, wherever the English 
language is spoken, Protestants have proclaimed all persecution for 
religion's sake, in practice and in principle, immoral and irreligious. 
To force a man to profess what he does not believe, we regard as gro- 
tesque and horrible. This is of the very essence of our mode of 
thinking-— aw integral portion of our Protestant faith and of our 
Protestant selves. Whatever differences among us may exist, there is 
no difference here. To this we have grown irreversibly under the 
tuition of a common Protestantism. Through the study of the New 
Testament and of the laws of mind t Christianity is now better under- 
stood. 

But can the same be said of Catholicism ? Has this, too, been 
rising out of the slough of the past ? Has the teaching of the Ages 
impressed the same lesson on the Church of Rome? Now, that that 
lesson has never been learned there, is what fills the minds of Pro- 
testants with a feeling of insecurity ; and this feeling the late decree 
re-investing infallibility in one man, the making absolute submission 
to the official utterances of the Pope the duty of all Catholics, and the 
existence of a new ' Universal Catholic League ' (though that is of less 
consequence), having for its end the annihilation of all individualism 
and of the free play of the human faculties, have tended largely to 
augment. 

Is the Protestant mind, as Mr. Blake thinks, alarming itself need- 
lessly ? When in Spain, an archbishop commands the people to vote for 
no one who tolerates the heretical doctrine of liberty of speech or liberty 
of worship, and this (he says) because the Pope commands it ; and when 
he and his subordinates try to gag the press and so strangle in its cradle 
this Hercules of our liberties, what are we to infer ? And then compare 
the men of that magnificent country, now plunged in half-anarchy and 
whole ignorance, with the same country under its Moorish rulers, 
holding up the beacon-lights of learning and science to a dark and dis- 
tracted age. 

And the horrible delusion that, by destroying Cod's creatures men 
were honouring God, is all the more strange, when it is considered that 
the author of Christianity had not only rebuked all persecution, but 
had laid down the broadest principles of universal toleration. This, is 
the creed of every genuine Orangeman, I never met one who did not 
think so. Indeed even the common-sense proverb. u offensa Diis Deorum 
cura^ offences against the Gods are the Gods' affair, (which may 
be paraphrased thus : crimes against man are man's concern ; the Gods 
are competent to guard the rights of Gods), might have taught us 
better here. But the currents ran strong the other way, and Christi- 
anity was overborne in the sweep and rush of other things. 

Mr. Blake is a distinguished orator and able special-pleader. This 
power I do not desire to undervalue. Give him his data and his cause 
to argue — let him hold his brief, and no man can do his work with 
greater zeal and iorensic ability. But much as I value this his great 



—23— 

and beautiful gift of speech and logic — few value it more — yet I prize 
as far higher the mind that can select his data for himself — who can 
say, because of his possession of strong common-sense and clear insight, 
this is the cause of truth and right, and who is thereby enabled to pick 
his steps in life through the embarrassments which beset the path of the 
mere casuist and logician. It is the most valuable of all gifts — the 
possession of that moral magnetism that, in spite of all seeming- 
casuistry, keeps the mind pointing ever in the true direction, so that 
we can turn the helm accordingly, and, so, navigate the sea of life with 
safety to ourselves and others. It is that to which Christ appeals 
when he says, "Why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right." 
(See also Matth. xv. 10 to 20.) : " Ye have eyes but ye see not." 
'• My sheep hear my voice." " But they know not the voice of 
strangers." It is this gift of the sifting ear, of the seeing eye, that is 
the highest possession of a human caeature, and not the powe.1 of argu- 
ment in support of any dogma or cause backed by the power of speech 
to make wrong, perhaps, appear the better reason. This grand power 
of speech and of the pen is a mighty engine for good, but may become 
also an equally potent engine for evil. But it is only an. engine. The 
clear insight of the pure soul and true mind is the power that works 
the engine for good ; and, in comparison with it, all the rest " mere 
leather and prunella." 

Still I have not been wont to impute to Mr. Blake a want of discern- 
ment when allowing his mind to act with its own spontaneity ; and yet 
I cannot help the thought, that, throughout his whole speech, other 
feelings and interests than those born of reason and unbiased judgment 
have swayed the great magician, and — though I dare not affirm what 
I do not know — that •' passion's host that never brooked control ;" per- 
sonal ambition, and the consequent uatural repugnance to the Orange 
society, an overwhelming majority of whom (at least in Ontario) 
always sided with the Conservative party against him, have blinded him 
so far, and so governed him in his decision, that he became incapable 
of looking at the question fairly as between Orangemen and the 
Catholic party ; and that his speech was therefore largely that of an 
advocate and special pleader rather than of the judge holding the 
balance equally between them. Indeed, his speech, in its general drift 
and spirit, was a pro-Catholic, as much as it was an anti-Orange, one ; 
and, though I dare not affirm positively that it is so, yet it certainly 
looks very like a bid for the Catholic vote. How otherwise can I 
explain the fact that Mr. Blake, who has ever been the advocate of free 
thought, free speech, and free institutions, should have so virulently 
attacked a party whose avowed opinions are these, in favour of 
Catholicism whose avowed opinions are the contrary. Why, otherwise, 
adopt and endorse the rhetorical and passionate language of Sir Francis 
Hincks, so wholly one-sided and unhistorical — uuhistorical, I say, as 
leading to the inference that the treatment of the Irish Catholics was 
anomalous aud exceptional, and Orangemen a specially bigoted and 
barbarous crew, whereas the treatment of Catholics in Ireland was only 



—2 4 — 

one chapter of the great volume of the European history of the age, 
which is full of similar chapters of penal laws and persecutions of Pro- 
testants by Catholics on a fearful scale, and accompanied with terrible 
suffering. The lesson of persecution, learned by long training in the 
school of Rome, took some time to be tin-learned, but at last the voices of 
reason and the words of Christ have prevailed in Protestant England. 
With respect to persecutions and penal laws in Ireland the iact is 
this, that cruelty was, as it so often is, largely the offspring of fear. 
Protestants there were lew in number among many Catholics. Tn a 
great rising of the latter, Protestants had been massacred by thousands 
without mercy, and they lived in fear of similar sufferings in the event 
of the Catholics rising again, and as a regard for their own safety 
(coupled with an overmastering, ever-present fear) prompted, they 
deemed that the surest way of safety was to cripple their adversaries .-o 
far as to prevent them from injuring them as they had done, and, so 
prevent a repetition of the past with all its frightful horrors. They 
knew, too, that the Power before which Catholics bowed had never 
withdrawn from its old position — semper eadem et ublque its boast — and 
that free conscience was a thing not to be tolerated or thought of, and 
that the fagot and the stake — her ready answer to all argument, her 
old engine against heresy and doubting science — had never been repu- 
diated by her, but the contrary. 

But while this fear, the parent of cruelty, forms an apology not 
feigned, but very real, for much of the miseries suffered by Irish 
Catholics; yet in the Catholic countries of Europe, where Catholics 
were so overwhelmingly more numerous than Protestants, the excuse of 
fear was wholly out of the question, and yet what wholesale brutal 
murders and miseries and spoliation took place. And why? Because 
men would not profess to believe what the stiffness of their convictions 
rendered it simply impossible that they could believe — for men cannot 
believe and disbelieve at pleasure — and yet, after a terrible treason 
towards them and bad faith, by murders deliberately planned in cold 
blood, and executed in one night, what do we learn ? That a medal 
was struck by the Pope to commemorate this most shameful, cruel and 
dastardly event. 

It answers, Mr. Blake, no end of good to cover up from view the 
great events of the past or the claims of the present by a veneer of the 
rosewood of sentimentalism, or to try to make things, in a new gush of 
thought and painted words, different from what they are ; or to pile up 
on the poor Orangemen every opprobrium, whereas, apart from what 
is incidental to all organizations, owing to the weakness of human 
nature, he lias been the steady friend of freedom : yea, one of the 
strongest and most reliable pillars of the social fabric ; while with the 
rosewaler of impassioned oratory you try, in your new found zeal, to 
make the bad principles of Catholicism, smell sweetly to the world, by 
representing, however uneonsciously, those principles to be what they 
are not. 



—25— 

Now though I have been wont to esteem Mr. Blake very highly for 
some things, and would not dare to accuse him of clear, felt insincerity, 
or charge wholly to self-interest his new whitewashing of the Catholic 
Hierarchy, and blackening of Orangemen, yet I know enough of human 
nature to distrust it and its arguments, where, as in this instance, (for I 
had best come to the point at once) when he cannot get the votes of the 
Orangemen, the votes of the Catholics would prove so convenient. 

To burke his plain convictions, to do a pointblank act of treason to his 
conscience, to advocate what he knew to be absolutely wrong, to blacken 
men's characters by malice aforethought, to whitewash an utterly bad 
cause where he felt that God and conscience knew it bad, is what I 
for one would not attribute, even for any consideration of self-interest, 
to Mr. Blake. But knowing how curiously we are compounded, and 
what we are made of, the devil of evil does not fling hi rr self foolishly 
against a stone wall, or tempt the mainly-true man to such naked wrong- 
doing. Evil, like a cunning engineer, approaches the fortress of our 
integrity by zigzag lines, or by undermining skill, stealthily, taking us at 
unawares. 

We know our real powers and we wish that others should know them 
too. We may even think ourselves, by measuring ourselves with others, 
entitled to the highest place in the country, and we may eagerly, long- 
ingly court it; and, accordingly, opinions and things in the line of our 
interests are very agreeable to us. This is so, naturally. And men and 
things adverse to those interests are not so agreeable. Now if those 
opposing us continue, as seems to us, unreason ingly adverse, and finally 
refuse to be charmed by the most skilful piping, the natural tendency 
of the mind, even if not vividly presenting itself to the consciousness of 
its owner as wrong, is to attribute their obstinacy to unworthy motives, 
and so cover them over with the slime of our own (say, unconscious) 
self-love. Some persons do not know that they are doing this ; and 
some do not care, whether they know it or not. Wny should, we argue, 
those persons, our inferiors in intellect and knowledge, be able to thwart 
us by their obstinacy and ignorance. Why, if they will not help us, 
not stand out of our way, and let us pass on and up. But they will 
not. Poor fools, led by designing masters, they will not. They must 
be bad. Let me think how bad. Some of them maligned me in my 
absence, and, when challenged to repeat to my face their charges, did 
not dare to show themselves. What a bad lot they must be ; and yet, 
very possibly, Mr. Blake, they believed or half-believed - -most men 
half-believe nearly everything said of an opponent whose general prin- 
ciples they dislike, and repeat it as if full belief — what they said. But 
it is vain for me to appeal to them — those bad, obetinate, old fossil 
Orangemen. 

And now comes the other side of the question ; if they will ever un- 
reasoningly oppose me, and if I am resolved to climb to the chief place 
of power, and to upset the bad men who hold the reins and govern so 
unworthily, to the ruin of the country and her institutions — though in- 
deed I hardly know what my own policy is to be, having, by my wavering 



—26— 

on one main point, at a critical time, been accused of having inflicted a 
deep wound on my party — had I not better now see what can be done 
with the Frenchmen and Irish Catholics. 

It is true that the strong, high wall of religious prejudices stands 
against me, but it may, must somehow, be overleaped. True, too, the 
native build of my own mind ; the strong, sturdy Blake and Hume- 
Blake independence of character ; the clearness and distinctness of my 
view of primitive Christianity as stamped on and stereotyped in the 
pages of the New Testament; my opposition to sacerdotalism and 
mental slavery of all kinds ; to a theology of traditions, not the religion 
taught by Christ — a theology calling itself Christianity, but as unlike 
it as modern Buddhism is unlike the religion of its founder : baptised 
into those views by the baptism of a lifetime, and inarched as they are 
into my mental and moral economy by long familiarity with the clear 
and characteristic teaching of Christ and Paul ; it seems, indeed, no 
easy task I set myself. And to us, indeed, it seems a bitter pill for 
him to have had to swallow — to have to stand up and whitewash the 
most pronounced, accredited teachers of Catholicism, and hold up for 
approval, as if the canonical judgment of the church, the statements at 
second hand of private bishops of no binding authority at all, instead of 
giving at first hand the ipsissima verba of Infallibility itself, which, in 
the letter and in the spirit, contradict the utterances of these men. Did 
not Bishop Boyle, at the time when the Emancipation question was 
being discussed in Ireland, with a view to relieve the uneasiness of the 
Protestant mind regarding the unrepealed despotic claims to temporal 
universal dominion of the Popes, write, ''We are taunted with the pro- 
ceedings of Popes. What, my Lord, have we Catholics to do with the 
proceedings of Popes ; or why should we be made accountable for them"? 
And did not the Roman Hierarchy, in its pastoral address "to the Clergy 
and Laity of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland'' (in 1826) "de- 
clare on oath their belief that it is not an article of the Catholic Faith, 
neither are they thereby required to believe, that the Pope is infallible." 
Now with respect to the former of these quotations, which, whether in- 
tended to do it or not, threw dust in the eyes of Protestants and helped 
to the removal of Catholic disabilities, and when Catholics were charged 
with this as artful dodging unworthy of honest men, what is, in suit- 
stance, the reply of Lord Acton, Protestants ought not to have been so 
misledhy such unauthorized statements of private men, be they priests 
or bishops or what not, when the whole history of the Church, its decrees, 
and declarations, and acts, and canon law told the very contrary. And so 
we say to Mr. Blake . The fact is this that the English people as a people 
were so largebearted and generous that they caught readily at any decla- 
ration, as the drowning man at a straw, that gave any ground for hope, 
that it might be aSc they were told. But what a reply ! Why were you 
fools enough to believe this when you might have known, ought to have 
known, the contrary. Now, however, the Pope is Catholicism, and we 
know it. His decision and declaration only is binding and from his judg- 
ment there is no appeal : "neque cuiquam de ejus licere judicare judicio/ ' 



—27— 

and this "not simply in matters that pertain to faith and morals but to the 
discipline" —and some have known too well what that means — "and govern- 
ment of the church throughout the whole world" — "non solum in rebus, 
quae ad fidem et mores, sed etiam in iis quae ad disciplinam et regimen 
Ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent." From that discipline and 
that government — the worst government the world has ever seen, the 
government of Priests — may the good God deliver us. Mr. Gladstone 
puts it thus : "the Pope demands for him.se f the right to determine the 
province of his own rights. " His words may, indeed, be turned to any 
account as the occasion and his own will demand. " When it can command 
the scales of political power," says Mr. Gladstone, "an organized and de- 
voted party," it is counted on, '-will promote interference ; and, when it is 
in a minority, will work for securing neutrality" and will make dupes of 
such men as Mr. Blake to work their ends, and then turn ab >ut and say, 
what a fool he was. I once asked a very able man on good terms with 
Catholics, what was to be the end ; how the world, in this perplexing 
deadlock of things, was to be delivered. His reply was, I can see my way 
out of it only in the hope, that, in the general diffusion of an enlightened 
public opinion theCatholic may gradually become emancipated from these 
antisocial and slavish doctrines, and, so, insensibly melt into the citizen. I 
don't mean to say, that these were his very words ; but, in the form of my 
question and his answer, this was the substance of them. 

But when the Pope's Syllabus and Encyclicals refuse us in (as Mr. 
Gladstone writes) " fearfully energetic epithets," " liberty of speech" "of 
conscience" "of worship 1 and use those terrible words against all 
those "who say that the church may not employ force" or that " the 
Roman Pontiff ought to come to terms with. ..modern civilization, "I fear 
that happy day is far off in the future . 

But why should Mr. Blake try to blacken with the thickest colours of 
the tar brush men who are at one with him in so many things equally dear 
to them both, and so many of whom try to think as honestly and to act as 
maniy and Christian apart in life as he does or any man. But few 
changes of opinion — were they changes? — are wholly sudden. Lit- 
tle by little w T e drift into new modes of thought. He converses as 
he has often conversed with Irish and French Catholics. In gen- 
eral conversation he found them as other men. They manifested to 
the full, in presence of a Protestant — often possibly more than to 
the full, — all they felt of liberality of sentiment and freedom from 
religious bigotry. Protestants hold their own opinions and they 
hold theirs. Why, then, quarrel on such grounds. In past times 
they persecuted, but Protestants persecuted too. These were days 
of ignorance, when human rights were little understood, when con- 
science was overborne by power; and free, honest thought, and free 
speech were denied to all; but that now men knew better, that 
people and priests and the princes of the Church — I doubt if they 
went so far as to say, the Pope, too — had become, as became the 
age and our civilization, more enlightened, and that the old days 
could never now return, that they believed in a Church while Pro- 



—28— 

testants believed in a book; then why should they quarrel and wear 
out their souls in indignation by attributing opinions to one another 
which, they no longer hold, and by suspecting one another instead 
of uniting for the common good, as broad-minded men of the world 
holding different dogmatic opinions indeed, but holding in common 
great essential truths. Now let it be borne in mind that those shal- 
low, though plausible, arguments assail him at a time when he is 
mfust the state of exasperated feeling to let them have at least their 
fall weight with him. The Orangemen— I look at the matter from 
the Blake standpoint— have doggedly, determinedly, and unreason- 
ingly shut the door against him. They maltreat and slander him 
behind his back. He uses arguments so plain, and sound, and con- 
vincing, that none but a tool or one wilfully perverted could resist 
them ; but they do resist them, and will have none of them or of 
him; and, so, disgusted and provoked at being spurned by such 
small folk, what has he left him but to turn his eyes in another and 
wholly different direction, and, so, the Catholic arguments fall on 
prepared ground ; and they show him the statements of men high in 
the church, the accredited organs of Catholicism — statements whol- 
ly at variance with those supposed by Orangemen to represent the 
real interior opinions of the Church — at which he catches gladly. To 
be brief; He is just in the frameof mind to accept them thankfully, 
and he makes a speech at the opportune moment — self interest and 
his dislike of Orangemen giving, of course, no (the slightest) col- 
ouring at all to his calm thoughts and unimpassioned words — and 
the House rings with plaudits at his noble liberality of sentiment 
and freedom from bigotry, which only the highest natures can 
wholly rise above, and trample on, and he is the hero of the hour 
and the darling of Catholics, and the star of Blake is clearly in the 
ascendant, and the poor Orangeman, utterly crushed and ruined, is 
despised as well. 

Poor Orangemen ! Still, ''the conies though a feeble folk, yet 
build their houses in the rocks," (Prov. xxx : 28) and so abide till 
the storm of words has spent itself, and the great orator, whirled 
along by the torrents of his own eloquence, is half or wholly per- 
suaded by himself; for as Paloy, [ think, says, though some men 
believe in the direction of their fears, others believe in the direc- 
tion ot'their hopes. Still the effect of that speech has been probably 
to make the position of Mr. Blake in the politics of Canada what 
it never was before, and so far it has been a great success. But 
though a masterly effort of an eloquent and able speaker, yet was 
it, like the leaning tower of Pisa, wholly one-sided, and, therefore, 
was untrue and misleading. It merely skimmed the surface of things 
and was therefore superficial. It never hit the heart of the matter, 
the bull's eye in the target; and it was not profound. He never 
went to the head office, for his information ; but, good, easy man, 
was content to gel it from unauthorised clerks and underlings, who 
amiably gave him what he sought for (and that possibly without 



—2 9 — 
the conscious feeling of wrong, while at the same time it helped 
the cause) and which tilled him with content. 

But if the Orangemen had been as lovingly constant to him as to 
his great opponent ; in other words, if he had held a brief on the 
other side (as a lawyer he has been in the habit of taking retainers 
and of pleading accordingly for his client, no matter whom, the 
best he could) with his noble eloquence and great forensic ability, 
what a case could he not have made out, and how he would have 
turned the tables on his and their enemies; thus : 

'Gentlemen of the Jury, a handful of Orangemen, whose principles, 
written in their " Constitution " open and to be read of all men, 
are sound to the very core on the great question of civil and 
religious liberty, placed in the midst of many Catholics, well 
enough in their individual characters — we have little fault to find 
with them here — but dominated by a power to whom they are 
faith-bound and conscience-bound, whose principles are despotic 
and anti-social, and who if he would repent of those bad principles 
and, so, change them, must cease to be a power at all (for he is so 
anchored to the unrepealable past, that he cannot snap his cable 
without letting himself adrift and going to wreck and ruin wholly, 
so that he has to let things be or to make the confusion worse con- 
founded) whose principles, hence, are their principles. 

Gentlemen of the Jury, to change my figure, a great 
bombshell charged with dynamite is left in the camp of these few 
Orangemen to burst or not at any hour, as the exigencies of the 
moment make it desirable or not. It is true, gentlemen, that some 
of these Orangemen are not all that they should be, and that the 
most stupid and obstinate among them do sometimes give lo 
Catholics unnecessary offence; but, then, they recall the terrible 
past and brood over it till their feelings get excited, and knowing 
the power and avowed principles of the Grand Lama of the religion 
who rules supreme, they are afraid that at any moment the match 
may be lighted and the ruin burst, and so are to be pardoned, if 
sometimes they find it hard not to say sharp things, and if they 
vote on the side by which (in their folly) they think their interests 
best served. But, gentlemen, if the mistakes and faults and way- 
wardnesses of Christians are deemed no valid argument against 
Christianity, when it never encourages, but, on the contrary, re- 
probates such conduct, as laid down and enforced in the Book of its 
Constitution, why should Orangeism be held responsible for the 
actions of individual members who do things utterly condemned in 
the Book of their Constitution. Gentlemen, let us be reasonable, 
and deal out the same impartial judgment in the one case as in the 
other. Christians are not always reasonable. To the fag end of 
every party will hang-on unworthy members, whose conduct is not 
in harmony with the high principles of the bo ly to which they 
belong. And now, Gentlemen of the Jury, i beg your close atten- 
tion while i read to you from a pricate document, not intended for 
the public eye, but morally binding on every Orangeman, a few 



—30— 

extracts. It is named the "General Declaration." I may tell you 
that, though refused to me at first as not being an Orangeman, I 
was at length permitted to peruse it. This " Declaration " informs 
us that ,k the Loyal Orange Association is formed of persons 
desirous of supporting, to the utmost of their power, the principles 
and practice of the Christian religion, to maintain the laws and 

constitution of the country and the supremacy of law, order, 

and constitutional freedom "... .and they " hope. . . .to emulate 
the virtues" "of that Immortal Prince," "William III.", "by 
maintaining Religion without persecution or trenching on the rights of 
any" . . ."The Orange society lays no claim to exclusive loyalty or 
exclusive Protestantism, ... .Disclaiming an intolerant spirit, the 
society demands as an indispensable qualification, without which 
the greatest and the wealthiest may seek admission in vain, that 
the candidate shall be deemed incapable of persecuting or injuring any 
one on account of his religious opinions; the duty of every Orangeman 
being to aid and defend all loyal subjects of eoery religious persua- 
sion, in the enjoyment of their constitutional rights." Then among 
the " Qualifications essential for Membership," I read, " An appli- 
cant for admission should have a hatred of cursing and 

swearing, and of taking the name of God in vain, he should use all 
opportunities of discouraging them among his brethren, and shun 
the society of all persons addicted to those shameful practices. 
Prudence should guide all his actions, temperance, sobriety and 
honesty direct his conduct, and the laudable objects of the Associa- 
tion be the motives of his endeavours,"and soon, gentlemen, through- 
out the " Declaration and Constitution," from the first page to the 
last. 

Now, Gentlemen of the Jury, I need not insult your understand- 
ings by asking you, if these are noxious principles ? Are they not 
rather the very highest principles by which men can be actuated ; 
principles that strike at the root of all bigotry and intolerance. Are 
they not indeed the very pillars of the social fabric ? Do they not 
cherish in us the noblest feelings of citizenship, and inculcate the 
necessity of being as tender of the freedom of others as of our own. 
I might dwell long on this seductive theme, but, in presence of 
twelve intelligent men, I say with the Poet, u ut multutnnil moror" 
and leave the rest to the play of your own imaginations, to the 
soundness of your judgment, and to the goodness of your hearts; 
and I feel confident that you will not only acquit my clients, but 
affix the seal of your high approval of principles so just and noble 
and humane. Hut 1 cannot close without saying how gloriously 
these great principles compare and contrast with those utterances 
of the late mouthpiece of Catholicism, Pope Pius IX, breathing, as 
they do, the most slavish, intolerant, antisocial and fearful senti- 
ments, and which a cultivated and able Catholic Nobleman has told 
us, have been those that have always governed the Great Infallibles 
of his church. Was there ever a greater contrast between the noble 



—3i— 

principles of my clients and those odious principles to which they 
are opposed. Gentlemen, I shall now close my case with feelings 
of the utmost confidence in the verdict you will render in a case so 
plain.' 

But, oh, my Eeader, had Mr. Blake, and not I, the cause of the 
Orangemen to plead ; had he held a brief on that side; with his 
inexorable logic, and ringing voice, and persuasive eloquence, what 
a case for them would he not have made out ; and how exultantly 
would he not have trampled under foot, or held up with withering 
scorn before the eyes of a wondering world, the principles of the 
other party — principles incompatible, he would have said, with the 
very existence of society, and, which, if generally acted on, would 
make society itself impossible. But he has not done so; and if the 
cause of humanity, for it is that, has not been pleaded with the force 
of logic and adequate presentation that belongs to il, and yet if a 
good case has been made out, only judge what it would have been, 
had the tongue of eloquence been enlisted on that side. 

But we have in Canada a man with a brilliant and a trenchant 
pen, and a grand and stately style, with a force of logic equal to, 
and a far deeper and truer insight than, Mr. Blake's, whose know- 
ledge of history, read to some purpose, is wide and his memory a 
very storehouse of facts, on which to draw for his own guidance and 
for that of others; an exact scholar and a severe thinker, fearless 
and outspoken on every subject of hnraan thought, and who cannot 
keep silent when any subject pregnant with grave issues is being 
discussed, for "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speak- 
eth," who has spoken on this subject with earnestness and power, 
and, I trust, will do so again and often. To this man, a very «v«c 
avdfjwv among writers, I look for special help in the cause I have 
falteringly undertaken to advocate. He may not agree with me in 
some things, and I even venture to differ from him occasionally. 
But 1 place him second to no man in Canada as a writer and think- 
er. Let him be wholly on our side and I care little who is against 
us. To him I look for efficient help in this the greatest cause, 
viewed in all its bearings, that ever engaged the attention of hu- 
manity. 

For myself I desire to be a political weathercock, and not tic 
myself down so stringently to any party, as to have to force myself 
to go with them, save as my own judgment, in each particular case, 
decides me, but to be as the poet says, 

" Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri" 
and so govern myself and change from side to side, as the actions 
and measures of politicians are in reference to what I am persuaded 
is right and true: my motto being 

"Quomecunque rapit tempestas deferror hospei," 
and, so, allowing myself to drift. 

Now if there was anyone among the members of the late or pre- 
sent Ministry whom I would have selected as specially sound on the 



—32— 

history and designs of the Papacy, and who could not be misled by 
the ignesfatvi of the unauthorised statements made by Bishops of 
the Church, whether believed, or only half-believed and half-hoped 
by them, to be true or not, when the Syllabus and the Encyclicals of 
the Pope himself were before him, as well as his unvarying declara- 
tions, and when the Bull u XJnam Sanetam," and many Bulls besides, 
backed by the Canon Law and all the past history of Infallibility, 
pointed in one direction only, and as steady to that direction as the 
needle to the pole — that man was the Hon. Edward Blake. The 
Pope is Catholicism, and no one else is so. The opinions of Priests 
and Bishops and interpreters and apologists go for simply nothing. 
When we want to understand Popery really, we must go to the Pope. 
A Bishop, as Dr. Doyle did, may say, at the convenient moment, 
what he wishes to impress us with as true. "What, my Lord, have 
we Catholics to do with the proceedings of Popes, or why should 
we be made accountable for them." Very convenient doctrine when 
Catholic emancipation was the subject of debate. And again (as I 
before quoted for} T ou) the Romish hierarchy in Ireland, at the same 
juncture "declare on oath their belief that it is not an article of the 
Catholic faith, neither are they thereby required to believe that the 
Pope is infallible," and yet Pope Pius IX himself tells us that 'the 
whole Church had always taught the unconditional infallibility of 
the Pope' (Gladstone). But, "quo nodo hunc Protea" "tempora mutan- 
tur et nos." Yes, "What have we Catholics to do with the proceedings 
of Popes." But Cardinal Manning — the Pope's 'animae dimidium 
mefe" — writes, "the Catholic Church cannot... cease to preach... the 
doctrines of Sovereignty both spiritual and temporal of the Holy See ;" 
and Pope Pius informs us that there are "many errors regarding the In- 
fallibility, but the most malicious ot all is that which includes in that 
dogma the right of deposing sovereigns and declaring people not bound 
by the obligation of fidelity. This right has now and again, in critical 
circumstances, been exercised by the Pontiff's ; but it has nothing to do 
with Papal Infallibility. Its origin was not Infallibility, but the autho- 
rity of the Pope.-.f/w supreme judge of the Christian Commonwealth. 
This authority. . .extended so far as to pass judgment even in civil affairs 
on the acts of Princes and nations." Now mark, the right to depose 
princes is not denied, equivoked, or withdrawn : far from it ; but only 
the supposed foundation of the right it is that is questioned. The right 
exists; but the foundation or source of the right is not the infallibilit}', 
but "the authority" of the Pope. But whether it has its ground in in- 
fallibility or authority is to us a matter of moo ishine ; but it is a mat- 
ter of everlasting moment, unless we be true to ourselves and to human- 
ity, that such a mediaeval claim should hang over us to-day. We need 
not be surprised then, that, in his Syllabus and Encyclicals and every- 
where, all those who affirm that "Papal judgments and decrees may, 
without sin, be disobeyed or differed from, except where they treat of 
the dogmas of faith and morals" [that is when they extend beyond these 
limits], or "who assign to the state the power of defining the rights and 



—33— 

Province of the Church," or "who hold that the lioman Pontiffs [in the 
past] and ^Ecumenical Councils exceeded the limits of their power 
[when they put kingdoms under Interdicts, deposed kings, and embroil- 
ed states] and [by so doing] usurped the rights of Princes" i.e., what 
they did was no usurpation, even, as Pope Pius explains it, where it "ex- 
tended so far as to pass judgment, even in civil affairs, on the acts of 
Princes and of nations;" or "that the church has not (non habet) the 
right to employ force" What, then, was Mr. Blake, an acute Lawyer, 
used to sifting evidence, and to get at the bottom- truth of things — a 
man not to be entrapped by semblances — when he tells us his little tale 
at second hand of what these men tell him. Would he, in a court of 
law, be content with a copy of an original document, much less with a 
copy of a copy, and still less with a wholly-pseudo copy, when it was in 
his power to compare the original and read from it in open court. Catch 
him, so well versed in such matters, so astute and able, blundering and 
mooning in such wise. And yet, in this most grave and open matter, 
has he not blundered egregiously ; or has he blundered at all ? Has he 
consciously or unconsciously, or half-consciously and half-unconsciously, 
been partly misled and partly seduced ? I am in a dilemma ! I find 
it so hard to excuse his heart wholly, at the expense of his intellect, or 
intellect wholly, at the expense of his heart. As the pendulum oscillated 
to and fro, did it come to rest at last on the side of his interests? Who 
can say ? Were he some poor unskilled dialectician, some unversed 
man of the world, some hot, impulsive empty pate ; were he a man like 
Newman, nursed on the pap of authority, and dropping lower and ever 
lower in the scale of erect manhood, till he sank at last, in passive 
feebleness and intellectual lethargy, into the lap of Rome — the last au- 
thority of all — his legitimate extreme, there might be some excuse for 
him ; but he is not such as these, but a man of the world, a reader of 
men and things, a practised logician, and a shrewd and able lawyer, 
and trained in a school of principle and principles — hence my difficulty. 
But as I dare not affirm positively whether his was an error of the 
judgment or of the heart, or a compound of them both, so do 1 not 
affirm that his Episcopal informants knowingly misstated the case. 
We are curiously compounded creatures all of us, and the ecclesiastic 
mind the most curiously compounded of all, and when very earnest in 
pressing home on another a belief which we deem true — as, say, the gen- 
eral belief in Catholicism — we are not always over-scrupulous in the 
arguments we employ, or the thickness of the colouring we lay on, when 
longing to gain over an opponent to our side ; and as this doctrine 
of the Pope's right of interference in our civil affairs, and of playing 
the mischief with our constitutional liberties — read by the light of the 
terrible past — was known to be, in the eyes of Protestants, a fearful 
difficulty and offence, there was a proportionately great temptation to 
smooth down and attenuate it, and even to throw discredit on it alto- 
gether, as Bishop Doyle had done. But Lord Acton is fiankly out- 
spoken. 'Gentlemen,' says he to them in effect, 'this is all nonsense. 
We must not falsify history and pervert patent fact. The Popes did 



—34— 

these things, and the Pope, in the interests of Catholicism, has the right, 
never withdrawn, to do them again.' Forwarned, forearmed ! and so I 
say to all. trust no one absolutely, be he Priest, or Bishop, or Mr. 
Blake, or anyone, when their arguments lie in the same line as their 
interests ; for their interests are almost sure, consciously or uncon- 
sciously on their part, to warp and colour their minds. Be governed 
by the evidence only. 

Think, you, my reader, that when delivering his great speech Mr. 
Blake kept steadily before his mind, that eternal vigilence is the price 
of liberty. I do not. But why all these exorbitant claims of the 
Popes and Catholicism. There is in the words of Christ or of Paul or 
Peter or of any one else in the whole New Testament, not a syllable 
to say that to any successor of Peter, whether by natural or spiritual 
descent, was such power or anything resembling it ever given. So far 
as this special assertion is concerned it is simply manufactured out of 
whole cloth. And what is so strange is this, that, as an undeniable 
matter of fact Peter was not the Apostle of the Roman Church at all 
{that Paul was), but was, by speeial commission, the Apostle of the 
Jews. This all is stated clearly and emphatically in Paul's Epistle to 
the (lalatian Church, and accordingly while Peter's first Epistle is 
directed to " the strangers of the dispersion " (nyc deaaitopao)^ i.e.: 
the Jews scattered among the Gentile nations of the world, Paul it 
was who addressed his Epistle to the Roman Church (Peter never) 
and in this Epistle he tells the Roman Church "not to be highminded 
but fear, for that if (rod spared not the natural branches " (the Jews), 
they should " take heed lest he spare not them also " (Rom. xi : 20.21). 
And though Christ promised to be with His Church to the end of the 
world, yet that promise was not unconditional, but saddled with the 
condition of their obeying His commands; thus, "go ye and teach all 
nations. . .teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have com- 
manded; and, lo, I am with you always to the end of the world." If 
doing this, I shall be with you to assist you throughout all time. 
" Otherwise," as Paul wrote to the Roman and whole (i entile 
Church — " otherwise thou also shalt be cut off" (Rom. xi : 22) 
Christ's promise is to stand by an obedient, not a disobedient people. 
The whole matter is plain as day ; there is no mystery at all about it. 
We are warned, too, in Scripture, that a great " apostacy " would take 
place in the Christian Church in the future, and there is no place in 
the world from which whatever emanates should be received with 
greater mistrust than what emanates from Rome, for up to the period 
of her utter destruction, no good is told of her, but Christians are 
warned against her as the very seat and headquarters of superabounding 
evil. 

I return to Mr. Blake, who, in denouncing all intolerance, utters these 
true and very memorable words ; 

"I believe, if you commit to any church absolute power and control over 
faith and morals, and if, at the sain.' time, you commit to that church abso- 
lute power to determine what is comprised within faith and morals, you con- 



—35— 

cede necessarily to that church absolute power altogether ; and I believe, 
therefore, that it is quite necessary to consider that there may be a point at 
which we may be called on to consider what the tenets of the church in that 
particular point of view are." 

But I have shown my readers that this is emphatically what the 
church does claim mid much besides. In the third chapter of the Con- 
stitution de Ecclesia we read these words, " The pastors and the faithful 
are bound, as well each of them singly as all of them together, by the 
obligations of a veritable obedience not only in matters which appertain 
to faith and morals, but also [this goes even beyond Mr. Blake's case] in 
those things which belong to the discipline and government of the church 
scattered throughout the whole world. . . .this is the doctrine of the 
Catholic verity from which no one can deviate save at the peril of his 
faith and salvation. . . .we also teach and declare that he (the Pope) is 
the supreme judge of all the faithful. . . .and that his decision can be 
upset by no one, and that it is not permitted to any one to judge concern- 
ing his judgment." The words in Latin of chief importance are, 
" obstringunter nou solum in rebus, quae ad fidem et mores, sed etiam 
in iis, quae ad disciplinam et regimen ecclesiae. . . .Neque cuicam de 
ejus licere judicare judicio." On this the comment of Mr. Gladstone 
is, " Absolute obedience, it is boldly declared, is due to the Pope, at 
the peril of salvation, not alone in faith and morals, but in all things 
which concern the discipline [and we have had no blessed experience 
of that discipline] and government of the church. Thus are swept into 
the Papal net whole multitudes of facts, whole systems of government 
prevailing, though in different degrees, in every country in the world 
... .On all matters respecting which any Pope may think' proper to 
declare that they concern either faith or morals, or the government or 
discipline of the church, he claims. . . .absolute obedience. . . .and this 
claim " is made by "a Pontiff who has condemned free speech, free 
writing, a free press, toleration of nonconformity, liberty of conscience, 
the study of civil and philosophical matters in independence of ecclesi- 
astical authority, marriage unless sacrauieu tally contracted, and the 
definition by the state of the civil rights (jura) of the church; who 
has demanded for the church, therefore, the title to define its own civil 
rights, together with a divine right to civil immunities, and a right to 
use physical force, and who has also proudly asserted that the Popes of 
the Middle ages with their Councils did not invade the rights of Princes 
[that is, it was not invasion or usurpation of their rights when Popes, 
their sovereigns, commanded] as tor example Gregory VII., of the 
Emperor Henry IV.; Innocent III., of Raymond of Toulouse; Paul 
ill. in deposing Henry VIII. ; or Pius V., in performing the like 
paternal office for Elizabeth. I submit, then, that. . . .England is en- 
titled to ask and to know in what way the obedience required by the 
Pope and the Council of the Vatican is to be reconciled with the 
integrity of civil obedience. . . . The Pope demands for himself the right 
to determine the province of his own rights, and has so defined it in 
formal documents as to warrant any and every invasion of the civil 
sphere ; and that this new vers ; on of the principles of the Papal Church 



-36- 

inexorably binds its members to the admission of these exorbitant 
claims, without any refuge or reservation on behalf of their duty to the 
crown." So far for Mr. Gladstone. What says Mr. Blake to all this ? 
I shall tell him what Cardinal Manning says, " The Catholic Church 
cannot cease to preach the doctrines. . .of the necessity of unity and of 
the sovereignty, both spiritual and temporal, of the Holy See;" and 
again, " If then, the civil power be not competent to decide tlie limits 
of the spiritual power, and if the spiritual power can define, with a 
divine certainty, its own limits, it is evidently supreme. . .and if this be 
so, this is the doctrine of the Bull ' Unam Sanctam,' and of the 
Syllabus and of the Vatican Council. It is in fact Ultramontanism. . . 
any power, which is independent, and can alone fix the limits of its own 
jurisdiction, and can thereby fix the limits of all ot her jurisdictions is, 
ipso facto, supreme. But the church, .is all this." On this theory of 
Cardinal Manning's of the Church Mr. Gladstone remarks, " Whatever 
demands may hereafter, and in whatever circumstances, be made upon 
us, we shall be unable to advance with any fairness the plea that it has 
been done without due notice" or that we have been misled, as in the 
case of Bishop Doyle. 

Why, then, quote the convenient declarations of any underlings of 
the Church, as if of final authority ? When any real difficulty arises, 
they will eat, or have to eat, their words. And Cardinal Manning 
will go the wall, as Bishop Doyle and the Catholic Hierarchy had gone 
before him. 

Who, then, lacked true insight ? Who failed utterly in true discern- 
ment. The poor bigoted Orangemen, or the acute, well-read, supercilious 
lawyer ? Who has been the worse humbugged after all ? 

But Mr. Gladstone adds further : " It is certainly a political misfor- 
tune that, during the last thirty years, a church so tainted in its views 
of civil obedience, and so unduly capable of changing its front and lan- 
guage after emancipation from what it had been before — like an actor 
who has to perform several characters in one piece, should have acquir- 
ed such an extension of its hold," &c. 
Mr. Blake tells us that 

"No man, any article of whose creed should make him a slave, would be fit 
to control either his own destiny or that of free men. A slave himself, he 
would be but a proper instrument to make slaves of others. Such an article of 
religion would, in a word, be inconsistent with free institutions, because it 
would not permit that liberty of opinion in the individual, which is tbeir very 
base and corner stone. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) But we are not confronted 
with that difficulty. The public and deliberate utterances of high dignitaries 
in more than one Province of Canada have shown that the assertion is un- 
founded."— Do they, indeed ? — 
And that 

" In 1876, an instruction was sent out from the Supreme Congregation of 
the Holy Office in these words : 

' The bishops of Canada must understand that the Holy See recognizes the 
extreme gravity of the facts reported by them, and that it is particularly de- 
plored that the authority of the clergy and of the; holy ministry should suffer 
thereby. It is, therefore, necessary, to repair the great damage done, to root 
up the evil. The cause of these serious inconveniences is to be found in the 



—37— 

divisions that exist among bishops on political subjects, as well as upon other 
questions that attract attention in Canada at present. To put an end to these 
regrettable dissensions, it will be necessary that the bishops, acting in consort 
with Mgr. the Apostolic Delegate sent to Canada, should agree together to 
determine what line of action is to be followed by one and all of them with re- 
ference to the several political parties.' 

And that 

' The bishops should be exhorted to observe, in political affairs, the great- 
est reserve; considering particularly the danger of provoking a war against the 
Church by the Protestants, who are already showing unquietness and irritation 
towards the clergy, under pretence that the latter exercise undue influence at 
political elections. The clergy should never call any persons by name from 
the pulpit, especially if it is to cast discredit upon them in connection with 
elections ; they should never make use of the ecclesiattical ministry's influ- 
ence to forward particular ends, unless the candidates might become hurtful 
to the real interests of the Cnurch.' 

Now, Sir, that was followed up by the pastoral letter and circular 
that were issued after the arrival of the Delegate Apostolic, and after 
an understanding had been reached with him in 1877. 

From which pastoral letter Mr. Blake quotes, I not so fully, thus : 

" Electors are always obliged, before God, to give their support to the can- 
didate whom they judge to be truly honest and able to discharge the import- 
ant duties confided to his care, which consist of watching the interests of re- 
ligion and of the state and to work faithfully in this direction." 

You will here, my reader, observe how guardedly and tenderly all 
this is done, as if the Catholic Dignitary was treading upon eggs, but 
so as not to break them. "It is particularly deplored that the author- 
ity of the clergy and of the holy ministry should suffer thereby. It is, 
therefore, necessary to repair the great damage done." Again ; " the 
clergy should never call any persons by name from the pulpit" and then 
we read of the "direction" in which the elector is to work. 

Then Mr. Blake quotes, in favour of the open fairness of the Church 
and its political liberality, a letter from Archbishop Lynch to the Hon. 
Alexander McKenzie, then Premier, from which I cull a few lines : 

"It would be very imprudent in a priest, whose congregation is composed 
of liberals and conservatives, to become a warm partisan of either political 
party ; it would neutralize his influence for good in too many instances." 

A better commentary on all this seeming desire for fair play and the 
absence of "undue inflneuce" is the late letter of this same Archbishop 
Lynch to his faithful Catholic Henchman, Mr. Higgins. 

St. Michael's Palace, ) 
Toronto, Dec. 9, 1882.} 
" My Dear Mr. Higgins, — We are now anxious to sustain the Mowat 
Government. If it go, then we shall have Orange rampant, and we may as 
well quit the country. The first act of the new Government will be to incor- 
porate the Orange Order, and then, indeed, the Catholics will suffer. If Catho- 
lics do not wish to vote for Mr. Drury, then they need not vote at all. I would 
be ashamed of Catholics changing politics for mean purposes, and some so- 
called Catholics are doing so, and playing into the hands of the Orangemen. 
Alas, there will always be traitors! You, I know, Mr. Higgins, will keep 
staunch. 

"Yours faithfully, 
"(Signed) tjNO. Joseph Lynch, 

"Archbishop of Toronto." 



-38- 

On these two letters The Telegram comments as follows : 

" Read in the light in which it will now be read, there is nothing so very 
surprising in Mr. Blake's anti-Orange speech after all. Archbishop Lynch's 
letter, calling upon the Catholics to support the reform candidates, put a dif- 
ferent face on it. The prelate and the politician were working for different 
objects. While the politician -,i>as aiding the prelate to crush the Orange Order, 
the prelate -.i'as aiding the politician to boom the reform party. Each was no 
doubt perfectly satisfied with what the other was doing, and although, as Mr. 
Blake says, there is no understanding between them, we may safely assume 
that each was pleased with the manner in which the game was being played. 

As a matter of fact, it has always been pretended that the spiritual guides 
of our Catholic fellow citizens kept themselves entirely aloof from politics." 
. . . .But here " his grace not only becomes a ' warm political partisan' of Mr. 
Mowat, but writes letters in which he calls upon Catholics to vote for the re- 
form candidate, or else not vote at all. He goes even further, as he stigmat- 
izes as "traitors" those who vote the other way. Has his grace one set of 
rules for his priests and another for himself? Has he one set of principles 
for public use, and another for use in private ? It would seem so. It is some- 
what singular that so shrewd a gentleman as his grace would write such a let- 
ter, to be hazvked around the constituency and used as a means of influencing 
Catholic votes. If he has anything to say at election times it would be infin- 
itely more in keeping with nis priestly position and character, to say it pub- 
licly, and not to stab oae of the political parties under the fifth rib in this 
underhand way." 

This one letter, by the merest accident, found its way into the public 
prints. How many others may have beeu written by his grace (or by 
his confreres) aud only reached the private ears for which they were 
intended, and the eyes or ears of those they were meant to influence, 
who can teli ? Or what may have been (heir effect in seating the 
Reform party in power in Ontario. But why the Archbishop and his 
fellow-Catholics should have to "quit the country " in the event of 
the passage of the Orange Bill I am at a loss to see. Is there anything 
in the Orange Constitution; has there been anything in the conduct 
of Orangemen so outrageous, so destructive of the rights of Catholics; 
have they dynamited or boycotted auy man of opposing sentiments ; do 
they compare so very unfavourably with other people, that a necessity 
might have been laid on his Grace to pull up his stakes, and emigrate 
with his whole flock, and build in the wilderness some new Salt Lake 
City, beyond the possible contamination of such an anti-social and bar- 
barous horde ? Or was it any thing more than the looking forward To 
possible wounded pride that dictated those highly coloured, passionate, 
aud exaggerated expressions ? 

Ecclesiastics are wont to indulge in such. Owing to entangle- 
ments in casuistic subtleties, and the habit, almost forced on them, of 
so often explaing-away difficulties, a twist is often given to the mind 
itself, which prevents them from looking straight at things and giving 
a plain, honest yes or no. They have an answer to suit the occasion — 
for the church, you see, cannot go wrong, and must not receive injury 
at their hands -and so they palter with themselves, and give you (in 
words — and some Frenchman has said that words were bestowed upon 
us to fade our thoughts) an answer that meets the difficulty- We see 



—39— 

something of the process in the words (quoted by Mr. Blake to uphold 
his argument) of the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office to the 
Bishops of Canada, thus : 

" We must, in short, exhort the bishops to observe the greatest reserve with 
respect to political affairs, especially since there is a danger of provoking a 
violent war against the Church on the part of Protestants, who are already ex- 
cited and irritated at the clergy under the pretext of undue inference in 
political elections. 

" Besides, it will always be necessary for the clergy to avoid naming indi- 
viduals from the pulpit, and still much more so, if it is for the purpose of dis- 
crediting them at elections, and they must never make use of the influence of 
their holy office for private ends, except when the candidates might be inju- 
rious to the true interests of the Church." 

No, no : Protestants must not be irritated, alarmed — no, there is 
danger in that — therefore, is there need of " the greatest reserve," 
" avoid naming individuals (then, that had been done) from the pulpit. 
This " might be injurious to the true interests of the church." 
First, the grand assertion is made by the Pope himself, followed by 
some great ecclesiastic such as Cardinal Maiming, the Pope's right- 
hand ; then, when men get alarmed at the greatness of the tyrannous 
claims, they begin to prune down, and soften, and unsay, and finally 
almost eat their own words: but " verbum irrevocable " remains 
behind, fixed as fate, absolute, condemnatory. Now, the above-quoted 
advice was given in 1876, and why ? 

Why ? Because Protestants had become " excited and irritated ;" 
and there was " danger of provoking a violent war against the church." 
Because Sir Alexander Gait had written his famous letter (May, 1875) 
to Treasurer Robertson, saying that things in Lower Canada were being 
pushed to such extremities, that " the rights we enjoy and the safeguards 
we possess will be, one by one, attacked, until our position will be so 
intolerable as to induce us to become, as their organs even already 
term us, aliens or strangers ; or force on us such a physical contest as 
must be most deplorable :" for says he, " the celebrated Syllabus suffi- 
ciently discloses the design that the regulation of faith and morals is to 
be extended to embrace the whole field of human thought and action:" 
and he demanded from the government of the day " a public and 
explicit declaration that they reject and refuse to acknowledge 
the authority claimed for his church by the Roman Catholic 
Bishop of Montreal, in all matters pertaining to public law and 
the government of the country." Yes, my reader, cock-sureness 
and the Vatican Decrees were beginning to bear their bitter fruits. 
" For about three years," says Bishop Bourget, "the Holy Congrega- 
tion of the Propaganda (note who), charged with Apostolic superintend- 
ence over this country, has been informed that certain papers allowed 
themselves to publish insults to the ecclesiastical authorities. The 

Prefect of the Holy Congregation recommended, in his letter, the 

Bishops to compel, if it were necessary, those who were guilty in this 
particular, to submit to this injunction, by forbidding the faithful to read 
these papers " (This, mark, was in 1873.) And so, adds the Bishop, 
"especially must the sacraments be refused to those Editors [Catholic] 



— 4 o— 

who -write such insults, and to those who employ them to edit the news- 
papers of which they are proprietors." This was Boycotting with a 
vengeance — the terrors of the eternal world, and empty purses in this. 
I wish Mr. Blake joy of his new Proteges, and I ask him to remember 
that it was not Orangemen who did this. Oh, that he held a brief on 
the other side ! But it was growing too hot for the Prelates, and in 
1876 and in 1877 (note the date always) this Prefect of the Holy Con- 
gregation changed his tune accordingly. Surely, Mr. Blake has been 
but a poor student of history, or, if not, must have read it to little pur- 
pose. 

Immediately after the decrees of Infallibility had been passed, there 
were great mutual congratulations and rejoicings. With every inch of 
canvas set, with a blue sky above, and tranquil waters all around, the 
ship of the Pope had left the old Port exultant, passengers and crew 
and Captain mutually interchanging words of happy omen, but soon 
angry clouds gather in the horizon, and an occasional squall strikes the 
ship, and the mates order the crew to trim their sails, for that they are 
carrying too much canvas, and soon the storm grows wilder, and the 
remaining sheets get torn, and the spars begin to creak, and soon the 
new-old ship, damaged and water-logged, has to sail the best she can 
under bare poles. 

Even so it was : brave words at first: refuse them heaven and sew up 
their pockets : let them starve here and go to the other place hereafter. 
They well deserve it, for running counter to the Pope, who has condemn- 
ed the freedom of the press, and would gag every one of them, if he 
only had the power. But in a few years — nous avons change" tout 
cela — they have to trim and unsay, to suit the occasion ; for 1876 is not 
1873 or 1875— any one can see that — and Bishop Bourget must draw 
in his horns, and the Prefect of the Holy Congregation eat his words, 
and Archbishop Lynch write his party letters secretly. Is it not Mac- 
aulay who tells us I hat a blunder is sometimes worse than a crime; 
and this of his grace was one, because it was found out. Yes; that is 
what makes it so painful ; it was found out. 

Oh, may the honest ( 'atholic say— for Catholics are not to be con- 
founded with Catholicism — Oh, Syllabus; oh, infallibility; into what 
a raging sea of troubles have ye not plunged us ! Indeed, I doubt my- 
self, that if the storm they have raised had been foreseen, the Encyclicals 
and the Syllabus would ever have taken the shape they have taken, 
would ever have been so penned, and sent out among the nations in 
their crude and naked state. In fact, the whole Vatican Council may 
prove by and by so wholly inconvenient, so ludicrously absurd, that its 
authority will have to be denied altogether : for was it not a packed 
jury of Ultra-Montane Priests and cunning Jesuits, and was it not rife 
with cabal and intrigue, and scarce any freedom allowed at all, and, 
when the final vote was taken, was it not found, that those who could 
not, he cajoled, or coaxed, or intimidated had just left in sorrow or dis- 
gust: and, if the authority of other councils has been denied, why not 
that of this ? For Popery, semper c<t<lcii\ in print, can shift its ground, 



— 4 i— 

and change, and contradict itself, and yet be the old infallible Popery 
still. What its chief teachers proclaim its doctrines to-day, are not its 
doctrines the next. In Keenan's " Controversial Catechism," having, 
the author tells us, "the high approbation of Archbishop Hughes, the 
Right Rev. Drs. Kyle and Carruthers ; as well as the approval of the 
Right Rev. Dr. Gillis and the Right Rev. Dr. Murdoch," — four of them 
Vicars- Apostolic — we read the following : 

Q. — ' " Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible ?" 
A. — ' " This is a Protestant invention ; it is no article of the Catholic faith; 
no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and 
euforced by the teaching body — that is, by the bishops of the Church." 

Only fancy this being "a Protestant invention"*. But, as Mr. Glad- 
stone says, in the last edition, "the above crucial question and answer 
were quietly dropped out." Thus what is asserted with the utmost 
dogmatic confidence in one page is contradicted in the next, and yet, 
forsooth, Popery is, throughout and always, the same. I cannot help 
thinking that Pius IX would gladly have been rid of the Syllabus, if 
only he could. 

" I see," says Mr. Gladstone, "this great personage (the Pope) under ill 
advice, aiming heavy and, as far as he can make them so, deadly blows at the 
freedom of mankind, and therein not only at the structure of society, but at 
the very constitution of our nature ;" 

and yet, with all this shifting and changing, Mr. Blake is content to 
take the convenient opinion of the underlings of the church. 

"Instances," says Dr. Newman, "frequently occur when it is successfully 
maintained by some new writer that the Pope's act does not imply what it 
has seemed to imply ; and questions which seemed to be closed are after a 
course cf years re-opened." And, adds Mr. Gladstone, it does not appear whe- 
ther there is any limit to this 'course of years.' 

This seems a very convenient doctrine for the semper eadem boast. 
Cardinal Newman — but what is his opinion, as of final authority, really 
worth — tells us, that, 

"the lighter punishments, though temporal and corporal, such as shutting up 
in a monastery, prison, flogging, and others of the same kind, short of effusion 
of blood, the Church, jure suo, can inflict." 

But if the infallible Pope refuses to be held to this, bad and horrible 
as it is, and asserts that his jus has the wider range of even life and 
death, who is there to stay his hand ? 

For the Church, says Cardinal Manning, 

"has a supreme judicial office, in respect to the moral law, over all nations 
and over all persons, both governors and governed." 

And again ; 

" If Christian princes and their laws deviate from the law of God, the 
Church has authority from God to judge of that deviation, and by all its pow- 
ers to enforce the correction of that departure from justice." 

It is true, indeed, that Bishop Vaughan tells us that " it will never, 
as we believe, be exercised again ;" but we are sick of such very con- 
venient unauthorised statements, and refuse to be comforted by them. 

But Mr. Blake thinks that he has scored a point against the Orange- 



—42— 

men of Ontario, and I know so little of the matter really, that I will 
not say he has not. I wrote to a gentleman in Montreal on the subject, 
from whom I received the following reply : l< Mr. Blake is perfectly 
right in saying, as he did, that the Oraugemen of Ontario worked [? acted] 
in the interest of the Ultramontane party of Quebec. But Mr. Blake 
should have added that the reason of this lay in their confounding 
the Canadian Conservatives with the British — two parties bearing the 
same Jiame, it is true, but whose aims and traditions are as different as 
day and night". . .Again he says, " the Ultra-Conservatives of Quebec 
would put all Protestants under the feet of their priests." " There- 
fore," he adds, " Quebec Orangemen arc for the most part, I believe, 
Grits." A good cry is often half the battle, and it was so here, 
according to this gentleman. He thinks (and he is no party man) 
that the Orangemen were misled by the name Conservative. But, 
again, he writes me that "in a Protestant couutry like Ontario, the 
Orange brethren should be Conservatives." 

But arguing on the supposition that it would be unwise on the part 
of Orangemen not to vote Conservative here; how I ask, were they to pre- 
vent the pro-priest-rule Catholics from voting Conservative likewise there. 

This gentleman also adds, " I very much regret the narrow fana- 
ticism which prevented the passing of the Bill for Orange Incorpora- 
tion — a very innocent and harmless measure after all. Here iu Quebec, 
if three priests or half a dozen nuns get together, they get an act of 
incorporatio s without any difficulty, often with exemptions from public 
burdens." But in this country of Protestantism — of Protestantism, the 
very bulwark of human rights and liberties— our members and legisla- 
tors arc generally so alarmed at the idea of losing the Catholic vote, 
that they are willing, rather than lose it, to burke or dodge any 
measure that seems likely to offend them, no matter how just it may be 
in itself. Conservatism and Gritism sway us too much, when right 
and truth should be our highest aims. I hope, however, that 
neither in Ontario nor in Quebec will Orangemen be again misled, but 
will come to an understanding iu the matter, and be governed by things, 
not by names. 

But if, as Archbishop Lynch lets it escape him, in his secret letter to 
Mr. lliggins, that he is " most anxious to sustain the Mowat Govern- 
ment," in as much as " the first act of the new [Conservative] govern 
merit would be to incorporate the" Orange order ;" and if Orangemen 
were, equally with the Archbishop, aware, that their chances were nit 
under a Grit administration, but that they were certain of success under 
a Conservative one, were they to fling from them their one only chance 
of gaining an object so dear to them, by voting against the only pat ty 
who were willing to <lo anything for them ? And if the implication 
involved in the Archbishop's letter be correct, T do not sen 1 how any 
Orangeman henci forth can vote for Mr. Blake or Mr. Mowat. And if 
the party, on either side, will not do them justice — will not come out 
fairly tind squarely on the question — will not by their votes and open 
advocacy commit themselves to this lair statement— -that, while they 



—43— 

incorporate the Peres Oblats and Catholic Bishops, they will not deny 
incorporation to a body of Protestants, whose avowed principles are at 
once just and tolerant, and whose conduct, as an organization, is citizen- 
like and good — then, I say, putting aside Mr. Blake and Mr. Mowat 
on the one part, and Sir John Macdonald on the other, if they are 
unwilling to go with them zealously and fully in a solemn matter of 
equal, impartial right, let them choose as a leader some honest, fearless, 
outspoken man, who will refuse no one his rights, be he Catholic or 
Orangeman ; but will act towards all alike as (he common citizens of a 
common country. We have been governed too long on a principle of 
balancing and expediency : let us open a new chapter in our history, 
and see how it will answer to govern on a principle of right. Jf justice 
be the interest of every man, can we not forego party, and work for 
right. If Orangemen ever advocate Protestant ascendency, they only 
mean thereby the ascendency of the gre it Protestant principle of civil 
aud religious liberty equally for all, not some specialty of privilege only 
for themselves ; nor have they, in saying this, an esoteric doctrine for 
the initiated, but a more convenient one for outsiders. What they 
speak they think ; and they are ready to guarantee to Catholics heartily 
the equal liberty to think and speak, too. 

Protestants have differences of opinion amongst themselves, which 
proves two things (firstly), that they are free ; and, so, think, as if we 
were not automatons but men ; and (secondly) that the breed of fools 
is not yet extinct; for they often differ where the matter is plain 
enough. But St. Paul tells us, that the Christians of his day (Rom: 
xiv:) differed in opinion, and yet he finds no fault with them for doing 
so, but only with those who tried dogmatically to impose on them their 
own belief. But Catholics agree not in what they think, but only in 
this, that they resolve to think alike — to think as the church thinks, 
without knowing really what, on many p )ints, the church does think. 

Mr. Blake ma} 7 have done a good stroke of business for himself 
and his party by his fierce onslaught on Orangeism. and by the 
toothsome morsel of gentle palliative and sweet excuses he has 
offered for Popery. But if I can read history aright ; if I can 
trace effects to their pregnant causes, and deduce from principles 
their sure results; then, has he dealt a heavy blow to the sacred 
cause of humanity and truth ; nor can 1 believe that great (and it 
was a great) speech would ever have been made, if the same large 
majority of Orangemen had voted with him, that were wont to 
vote for his opponent. 

I myself, on one specially 7 exciting occasion, was treated not 
over-gently by some Orangemen, who either mistook me, or 
thought differently from me. But am I to judge too harshly of 
men, when the cool intellect is in temporary abeyance, and passion 
for the moment takes the place of reason ; and is it ever safe or 
wise to attribute to a whole body what may be true of only a few 
or of many of them. 

But why — and here I suppose 1 have Mr. Blake on my side — . 



—44— 

these fearful and arrogant claims of such exorbitant powers on the 
part of Catholicism? On what foundation are they built? A 
claim so momentous in its consequences, so dangerous to human 
liberty and social well-being, ought, surely, to be stated in the 
most unequivocal language, to be fortified by the most unassail- 
able arguments, and to rest securely on the widest and most solid 
basis ; whereas, on the contrary, the whole thing is like a inverted 
pyramid, its claims and pretensions growing up and swelling out 
in exact proportion to the slightness of the base on which they 
are built. It is one long series of assumptions, largely dependent 
for their credibility on the loudness and daringness and constancy 
with which they arc shouted. 

But once admit, in opposition to Scripture, reason, and common 
sense, the force of human and churchl}- authority, and you are on 
the slope that leads downward towards the lowest pit of mental 
slavery and whole intellectual renunciation, till, at length, all 
natural objects swim uncertain before your eyes, and you can 
believe, or dream you believe, any thing and every thing no mat- 
ter how absurd, even that a wafer, however like a wafer it looks, 
and tastes, and handles, contains and is the body of a man who, 
eighteen centuries before, walked and talked with his disciples in 
Galilee, and that his flesh, and bones, and whole body are between 
the eater's teeth. Truly might the Philosopher Averoes, in the 
eleventh century, in presence of this incredible (but as he thought, 
Christian) belief, exclaim, "I have enquired into all religions, and 
have found none more foolish than that of the Christian, because 
that very God they worship, they with their teeth devour.'' Yet 
give yourself over with childish credulity to autJwrity, and you 
may believe (as the child believes the Arabian Nights' Entertain- 
ments) any thing whatever, and hug yourself in the thought that 
{credo quia incredlbile) the more incredible the greater the merit 
of the faith. Then may you believe with Borne, that a man 
acknowledgcdly a bad man, or a heretic, or an unbeliever may yet 
be an infallible Pope. And what a picture of things does the 
Roman Catholic historian, Baronius, present of the tenth century 
of the church. 

" Behold," says he, " the 900th year of the Redeemer begins, in which a 
new age commences, which by reason of its asperity and barrenness of good 
has been wont to be called the iron age, and by reason of the deformity of its 
exuberant evil the leaden age, and by its poverty of writers the dark age. 

" To our shame and grief be it spoken, how many monsters, horrible to 
behold, were intruded by them — the Princess — into that seat, (the seat of the 
Popes.) How many evils originated from them, how many tragedies were 
perpetrated. With what filth, it was her fate to be besprinkled, who had been 
without spot or wrinkle, with what stench to be infected, with what impuri- 
ties to be defiled, and by these things to be blackened into perpetual infamy 
. . . .Those were, unhappy times, when each Pope, thus intruded, abolished the 
acts of his predecessors." 

" What was then the face of the Holy Roman Church. How exceedingly 
foul was it, when most powerful and sordid, and abandoned woman ruled at 
Rome, at whose will the sees were changed, Bishops were presented, and 



—45— 

what is horrid to hear, and unutterable, false Pontiffs — their lovers — were in- 
truded into the chair of Peter." 

Such were these beautiful middle ages, when this system was at 
its height, and had full play and swing, with no Orangeism to 
confront it. I think it is much improved to-day by being so con- 
fronted. But what of the succession ? Or were these, too, true 
popes ? 

But if Orangemen believe to-day, — and Lord Acton and the 
Pope tell them they are right in believing — that the old decrees 
and the old line of conduct (owing to the Popes never being able 
to recede from any position once taken, tied as they are to it by 
their beautiful infallibility) must always be persisted in, are the}^ 
very terribly deserving of censure, if they fail to be blinded to the 
real truth, or + o be won over as easily as Mr. Blake has been by a 
little soft solder of words ; and if, therefore, they continue their 
little organization and prepare themselves for" future possible even- 
tualities. 

My arguments are not intended to be directed against Catholics 
but — a wholly different thing — against Catholicism. Catholics do 
not know that the principles of Catholicism really are what the}^ 
are really. They can hardly believe that the principles of the 
Syllabus and the naked statements of Lord Acton truly represent 
the immutable principles of frank Catholicism. If Catholics will 
listen to the words of reason, to the plain teaching of Christ, and 
to the principles and advice of Orangemen ; if, on impartial inves- 
tigation, they find what I have urged to be true, and will come 
over to the side of freedom and humanity, then will there be no 
longer any need of Orangeism. To-day Popery is the Pope. The 
whole matter, therefore, lies in a nutshell, Mr. Blake! Let the 
Pope pronounce, in unmistakeable language, officially, that, as far 
as persecution in any shape or degree is concerned, it was an 
egregious crime and folly, and that the whole past in this parti- 
cular was a terrible nightmare of the mind, from which the church 
has at length awakened, and has resolved henceforth to persecute 
no more, but to act for the time to come in the spirit, and up to 
the letter of the plain commands of Christ : let him decree simply 
and authoritatively that henceforth persecution for any departure 
from the belief held by him is morally and legally a crime; and 
I, for one, will henceforth live content; and Protestants will be 
only too glad to allow him and his people to hold what creed or 
speculative opinions they choose. Let Mi*. Blake with the aid of 
the Catholic Hierarchy effect this for us — it ought not to be very 
difficult, if, indeed, the Pope and the Bisnops are really at one on 
the subject — and the Orangemen and the whole Protestant com- 
munity, forgetting his speech, will owe him and His Holiness such 
a debt of gratitude as can never be repaid. 

But this would have to be conceded not as an up and down see- 
saw of expediency, to suit the convenience of the hour ; but frank- 



- 4 6- 

ly granted as a pregnant principle of right, and not by the under- 
lings of office however high, but by the central and supreme head 
of Catholicism himself. It would not do to have it come to us 
couched in the kind of language of Archbishop Lynch to Mr. 
Mackenzie, " It would be very Imprudent in a priest.. .to become a 
warm partisan of either party. It would neutralize his influence 
for good" — a precept, be it remarked, which Archbishop Lynch 
scarcely observed himself: or did he conceive its application was 
excused to the higher order of the Episcopate: or did he regard 
the whole thing as a matter of pure expediency — a "prudent" con- 
cession in a free country to the spirit of the age, and forced on him 
through fear of the irritated Protestants taking alarm. The com- 
ments of the Mail on this letter are so good, that I cannot forbear 
quoting them. " i\\" says this brilliant writer, 

" the crisis was one in which the Church was in danger, why not have boldly 
issued a pastoral ? Why not have instructed his bishops and priests ? Why 
should he have selected this infelicitous intoxicant to be the agent of his 
wishes ? Simply because his Grace knew that the rubbish in that letter was 
rubbish and something worse, and that no man of sense would believe a word 
of it — though it might have its due effect among the people of lesser intelli- 
gence, to whom necessarily and mainly it would be read." 

I read Mr. Blake's speech throughout with great care, and the 
impression made on me by reading it and by some things that 
have been done in this parliament, is this, that, in Mr. Blake's es- 
timate of it, Orangeism is an unmitigated nuisance, a dangerous 
and disintegrating element in the social compact, which Catholic- 
ism is not ; and that the Orangeman is so evil a member of society, 
that, while a Catholic Bishop may become, by the Act of the 
Dominion Parliament, a corporation sole to hold property, an 
Orangeman ought not to be suffered to hold a single foot of soil 
for the purposes of his order by such Act. 

It seems so strange that, in a country all whose institutions are 
supposed to be based on the principle of equal human lights, an 
organization founded on the principle of inequality of rights, ex- 
clusiveness, and domineering, and which always has been and 
now is a disturbing and dangerous element in society, should be 
granted by special legislation special privileges; and that a Pro- 
testant organization, founded on the opposite principles, i.e., on 
those of only equal rights, should be denied them. That while 
the one party gels what it wants by direct action, the other is re- 
fused, it in our Dominion; and even in Protestant Ontario can 
obtain, only by indirect, circuitous, and expensivo modes of pro- 
cedure, the power to hold a foot of land for the purposes of their 
organization. Again, as Orangemen argue — I quote from a quo- 
tation cited by Mr. Blake — 

"We must not permit any political feeling in this matter, as it is very im- 
portant to our institution to have a Dominion Act of incorporation. 

" Without such Act, our noble brethren in the Province of (Quebec will be 
without one, as you nil know it is m) use for them to ask for incorporation in 
their Provincial Legislature, where Protestants are in the minority." 



—47— 

Such an act, by covering the whole field, would give to all 
equal rights, and even Mr. Blake allows that there arc cases that 
justify interference. 

An incident most laughable, if it had not been so painful, as 
indicative of the temper of Commons' House, and of their plain 
injustice, occurred at the moment of the rejection of the Orange 
Incorporation Bill. Just as the Speaker from his chair had an- 
nounced, as the result of the voting, that the Orange Bill was lost, 
a message came from the Senate to say, that the bill for the incor- 
poration of the Rev'ds. " Peres Oblats," a Catholic fraternity, the 
sworn friends of Rome, had passed, at which there was a regular 
titter. It is thus that we are baffled and laughed at. It is all 
considered a good joke. 

If the Orangeman wants an act of incorporation, argues Mr. 
Blake, let him go to his Provincial Parliament for it. But he did 
go, and when his plea was granted by the chosen representatives 
of the people of Ontario, the Bill was reserved for the imprimatur 
of the Governor General, who sent it back, since it lay within the 
competency of the Provincial Government to confirm it. Thus 
is the Orangeman met everywhere with obstruction, tossed among 
the politicians, like a shuttlecock, from hand to hand. Hit him 
hard, he has no friends ! 

Now, if Protestants were to argue that Catholicism is the Pope, 
the sole authoritative voice in Catholic Christendom, and that he 
has pronounced the verdict of condemnation of such beliefs as 
form the basis of modern society and of our most pronounced 
civilization — conquests won from barbarism and intolerance — and 
that, therefore, the Catholic Church ought not to be allowed an 
act of incorporation to enable it to hold a foot of ground, how 
would not the country ring with the insults ottered to the faith of 
Catholics, and with the cry of Protestant intolerance. 

For myself let me sny, that I have ever been the steady friend 
of Catholics, always conceding to them, and demanding for them, 
equal and unstinted rights, as men and citizens ; though not, I say 
it frankly, as Catholics. To some of them I am sincerely attached. 
One of them, Father Stafford, was an intimate and ever welcome 
friend, who seldom came to Kingston without coming out of his 
way to see me and mine; and, without my ever failing to declare 
fully mj' protesting opinions, we always lived in the mutual inter- 
change of little kindnesses and courtesies to the end. And I 
know that in my family, and by many Protestants in Kingston 
and elsewhere, his too early death has been deeply deplored. My 
difficulty is not with Catholics, but with the Pope. His pronun- 
ciamentos against almost all that I hold most dear and cherished 
in the world — against the very vital bonds and ligaments that hold 
together all free societies, and without which — to all who have a 
soul left in them — life itself were intolerable; against free speech, 
a free press, free thought, and free institutions; and, so, to have 



- 4 8- 

to fret our hearts out, like a newly caged bird, and beat our wings 
in vain against the fate that wires us in, when the free air and 
open sky and glorious sunshine He outside us, but are not ours ; 
and, where the stimulating food of congenial thought invites the 
healthy Galileo-appetite within to feast and be satisfied, how 
terrible to be forced to accept hypocritically an empty lie and call 
it living trut; and, through fear of the rack and stake, never to 
dare to open our mouths honestly, while our thoughts, all the 
while, burn within us, and we long to give them vent; to be 
denied the pleasure that comes from the interchange of honest 
thought, and the human sympathy of free, truth-loving minds, 
and onl} T allowed to say our amen to every utterance of senility 
in its second childhood ; this were unbearable, indeed. Yet suoh 
was the state of things, wholly intolerable to free minds, under 
Popery of old, and such would it be again, if Rome could only 
bring it back. 

Now. is there any thing like this, Mr. Blake, in the Orange 
programme? Does not the constitution that bmds them guaran- 
tee equal freedom and equal rights, the world over, to eveiy 
citizen of the common-weal, be he Catholic or Protestant, Negro, 
Jew or Indian. Are they not banded together in defence of 
human rights, and not to destroy them. 

My concern throughout this paper, as i have said, has not been 
with Catholics, but with Catholicism. I am far from affirming, 
what I do not believe, that Catholics are saturated with the 
opinions of the Vatican, or that they are opposed to what the 
Pope opposes, or cherish in their hearts what he contemplates in 
his. I do not believe that there are great numbers of just and 
thoughtful Catholics who would state in so many words, or in the 
substance of them, as their deliberate belief, what the Pope sends 
forth to the world in his Syllabus and Encyclicals and other utter- 
ances as his. 

But those definitions of the Pope are irreversible by any one. 
Pope Pius, " Pontificates nostri Anno XXV".," himself tells us, 
that they are so ; thus: "pro suprema sua Apostolica auctoritate 
. . . idioque ejus liomani Pontificis definitions ex sese non autem 
ex consensu Kccle^ia* irreformablles esse." But as Mr. Gladstone 
says, " Far be it from me to make any Eoman Catholic, except 
the great hierarchic power, and those who egged it on, responsible 
for the portentous proceedings which he have witnessed" in the 
doings ot this Vatican Council : and, again, "the claim now made 
upon him [the Catholic] by the authority which he solemnly. . . 
acknowledges requires him to surrender his mental and moral 
freedom, and to place his loyalty and civil duty at the mercy of 
another." And, so, when Magna Charta was forced from King- 
John, Pope Innocent [II. pronounced his popely anathema against 
it. How strange, then, in view of all this, sound the words of the 
great Catholic Bishop Doyle to Lord Liverpool in L826, " We are 



—49— 
taunted with the proceedings of Popes. What, my Lord, have we 
Catholics to do with the proceedings of Popes, or why should we 
be made accountable for them ?" 

Before closing this paper, I cannot resist the temptation of 
quoting some passages from a late very eloquent and well- 
reasoned sermon, preached to the Orangemen of St. John, New 
Brunswick, by the Bev. T. F. Fotheringham, (and brought under 
my notice after a good part of this had been printed) on the text 
Mark xiii: 24, ' : Do ye not therefore err because ye know not the 
Scriptures." 

To the Orangemen he says : 

"You publish your constitution to the world that all who will read may 
know the tie which binds you together and the objects aimed at in your or- 
ganization. You are secret in so far that you claim the right possessed by 
every society of transacting its business in private, adopting measures for 
recognizing its members and testing their claims to brotherhood. You rest 
upon a noble historic basis, commemorating in your name one of the grandest 
men that ever lived, and in your chief anniversary the triumph of principles 
which must ever be dear to the lovers of civil and religious liberty." 

Then, in contrast to the words of Christ in this text, he says, 

" In his ' Syllabus of Errors,' published in 1864, the late Pius IX. classes 
together in sec. iv., ' Socialism, communism, secret societies, Biblical socie- 
ties and clerico-liberal societies,' adding, ' pests of this kind are frequently 
rebuked in the severest terms.' The Freeman's Journal affirms, ' The Bible 
Society is the deepest scheme ever laid by Satan in order to delude the human 
family, and bring them down to his eternal possession,' and Bishop Spotts- 
wood declares, ' I would rather a half of the people of this nation should be 
brought to the stake and burned, than one man should read the Bible, and 
form his judgment from its contents.' " 

Again says he, 

"Bishop O'Connor of Pittsbugh is frank enough to say, 'Religious liberty 
is merely endured until the opposite can be carried into effect without peril to 
the Catholic world ' (Rome in America, p. 11), and the Archbishop of St. 
Louis proclaims in his Shepherd of the Valley (April 10, 1852), 'If ever 
Catholics gain — which they certainly will do — an immense numerical 
majority, religious freedom in this country is at ane nd. So say our enemies, 
50 we believe.' " 

And once more, he adds, 

" The late Vatican Council declared 'whoever says that Christ has confer- 
red upon the Church the power to direct only by advice and persuasion those 
who turn aside, not to compel them by orders, by coercion, and by external 
verdicts and statutory punishments, let him be anathema.' (Rome in Am. p. 
88). And in so deciding, it only formulated the opinions of the greatest 
theologians of the Church. Dens, whose theology is a text book in many 
Roman Catholic seminaries, says: 'It is the duty of the Roman Catholic 
Church to compel heretics, by corporal punishment, to submit to the faith,' and 
St. Thomas Aquinas, the study of whose writings has been revived under the 
present occupant of the Pontifical throne, is of the opinion 'that heretics are 
justly punished with death.' " 

But the whole sermon merits the deepest attention of all who 
desire to see how things s'.and really between Borne and us. And 
if Mr. Blake thinks so highly of the statements of the dignitaries 
of the church, and is content with them, he has full opportunity 
of studying them here. Still if we want to know what really 
Catholicism is, we must go to the fountain-head of all authority, 
the infallible Pope, and not to either emphasising or explaining- 
away cardinals or bishops or anyone, but to the Popes themselves. 



— 5 o— 
Then we get away from all the see-sawing of convenient interpre- 
tation to the ipsissima verba of infallibility itself. 

But Mr. Blake, led by the nose by convenient unauthorized 
statements of the underlings, and unwarned by the words of 
Bishop Doyle and the Catholic Hierarchy, and ignoring, or being 
uninformed as to the real state of the case, as I have shewn you 
above, quotes for disapprobation the language of that stout 
defender of Orangeism, Mr. White ot East Hastings ; thus : 

" The day was not far distant, if we did not show more pluck and courage 
in opposing the growing influence of the Papacy in this Province, when we 
should be obliged to fight, not as Conservatives or Reformers, but as Protes- 
tants, to free ourselves from the trammels which Rome's agents sought to 
place on us and our institutions." 

and thought he had, so, gained an easy victory. But think you 
that, in a court of law, Mr. Blake would have been satisfied with 
the testimony of the defendant, or with a copy or pseudo-copy, 
when he might have the original document itself. 

And is there anything so terribly unreasonable in the following 
resolution of the Middlesex County Orange Lodge, also quoted 
by Mr. Blake : 

"That the County Lodge of the County of Middlesex of the Loyal Orange 
Association is of opinion, that while those who last year voted for our incor- 
poration did but their duty in having shown their willingness to accord us 
those rights which we, as Orangemen, are ever ready to extend to all sections of 
Her Majesty's loyal subjects, we have no words to sufficiently express our 
strong condemnation of the course of those Protestant representatives, 
especially from Protestant Ontario, who from political spleen voted to deny 
us (their Protestant fellow-citizens) those rights which they are always 
willing sycophantly to grant to Roman Catholics ; Resolved, further, that we, 
the Representatives of the Orangemen of the County of Middlesex, will not 
be satisfied until our full rights in the matter of incorporation are properly 
accorded to us, our motto being ' No Surrender and no compromise,' and that 
a copy of the resolutions be sent to the public press." 
or in those (also quoted by him) of Col. Tyrwhill : 

"He counselled organization and unity on the part of all Protestants irre- 
spective of politics in order to stem the aggressive march of the Papacy in this 
our beloved Dominion." 

Mr. Gladstone, shocked and grieved by the Vatican Decrees, and 
by the Encyclicals and Syllabus of the Pope, had written a very 
able pamphlet on the subject, which was assailed on all sides by 
Catholics with a perfect storm of words; after leading which 
with due attention, he wrote a rejoinder, in which he affirms that, 
instead of over-stating the ease, he had understated it. From this 
rejoinder, at the risk of seeming tedious, I make the following 
quotations: 

" The Vatican Decrees do, in the strictest sense, establish for the Pope a 
supreme command over loyalty and civil duty. 

" Not even against men who voted under pressure, against their better 
mind, for these deplorable Decrees — nay, not even against those who resisted 
them and now enforce them — is it for me to utter a word of censure. The 
just appreciation of their difficulties, the judgment of their conduct, lies in a 
region far too high for me. To assail the system is the Alpha and Omega of 
my desire ; and it is to me matter of regret that I am not ablo to handle it 
as it deserves without reflecting upon the persons, be they who they may, that 
have brought it into the world ; have sedulously fed it in its weakness ; have 
reared it up to its baleful maturity ; have forced it upon those who now force 



—5i— 

it upon others ; are obtaining for it from day to day fresh command over the 
pulpit, the press, the confessional, the teacher's chair, the bishop's throne : so 
that every father of a family, and every teacher in the Latin communion, 
shall, as he dies, be replaced by some one more deeply imbued with the new 
colour, until at the last, in that moiety of the whole Christian family, nothing 
shall remain except an Asian monarchy ; nothing but one giddy height of des- 
potism, and one dead level of religious subserviency. 

..." I must avow, then, that I do not feel exactly the same security for the 
future as for the present. Still less do I feel the same security for other lands 
as for this. 

. . ."lam confident that if a system so radically bad is to be made or kept 
innocuous, the first condition for attaining such a result is that its movements 
should be carefully watched, and, above all, that the bases on which they 
work should be faithfully and unflinchingly exposed. Nor can I quit 
this portion of the subject without these remarks. The satisfactory views of 
Archbishop Manning on the present rule of civil allegiance have not pre- 
vented him from giving his countenance as a responsible editor to the lucu- 
brations of a gentleman who denies liberty of conscience, and asserts the 
right to persecute when there is the power ; a right which, indeed, he has not 
himself disclaimed. 

" Nor must it be forgotten that the very best of all the declarations we have 
heard from those who allow themselves to be entangled in the meshes of the 
Vatican Decrees, are, every one of them, uttered subject to the condition that, 
upon orders from Rome, if such orders should issue, they shall be qualified or 
retracted or reversed. 

'A breath can unmake them, as a breath has made.' 

..." And when Dr. Newman, not being Pope, contradicts and nullifies 
what the Pope declares, whatever we may wish, we can not renounce the use 
of our eyes. 

..." The lesson received is this. Although pledges were given, although 
their validity was firmly and even passionately asserted, although the subject- 
matter was one of civil allegiance, ' no pledge from Catholics,' says Cardinal 
Newman, ' was of any value to which Rome was not a party.' 

..." But this was the very assurance which, not a single and half-recog- 
nized divine, but the whole synod of Irish prelates gave to the British Gov- 
ernment in 1810, and which the Councii of the Vatican has authoritatively 
falsified." 

What, then, is the real value of Mr. Blake's quotations from 
dignitaries of the church. Are they not the emptiest words— vox 
et prceterea nihil — but not a feather's weight of consequence as 
argument. Oh, that — unless he sees the error of his ways — he 
would eschew politics, and confine himself to the bar where his 
great talents, and eloquence, and reasoning powers are sure, as 
they ever have been, to be fully appreciated. But, oh, no politics, 
until he is better read on the subject ! 

I have shewn you how the theory of the church and her dog- 
matic teaching influence not only men's speculative opinions or 
modes of thinking, but their political actions ; and as a notable 
example of this, I cite a passage quoted by Mr. Blake in his great 
speech : 

" In conversation, along with twenty other gentlemen, with Sir Hector 
Langevin, Mr. Bunting said : ' Sir Hector, we must have incorporation ' 
What was the reply ? Sir Hector said : ' So far as incorporation is concerned, 
I personally wish you to have it, but I am opposed to all secret societies, 

because my church is opposed to them My bishops and priests tell us, 

the members of the church, not to vote for and support any such societies.' " 

Personally I wish you to have it ; but my church says, No: and 
I, the echo of her voice, say no, accordingly. The priests and 
bishops " tell " me what to do, and I do it. My politics and my 



—52— 
conscience are in keeping of the church, and what she commands, 
I am bound to execute. 

"To-day," says Mr. Blake, " what are you [Orangemen] doing ? You are 
promoting these calumnies in reference to another church. You are coming 
forward and declaring that the tenets of this church, which you do not hold, 
are detestable, and that every true Protestant must take the same position." 

But I think I have proved by the amplest and clearest evidence, 
that far from being calumnies, they are the gravest and most un- 
deniable of truths. 

[f anywhere I may seem to hav3 spoken in too strong terms of 
Mr. Blake I hope I may be pardoned, especially, if I take shelter 
under the example he has himself set me, when he says, 

" I say that men will be misled by designing politicians, who are using the 
cloak of religion and the cloak of charity to promote party politics." 

Now, that we may have an idea of the kind of education to 
which we should be subjected, if Eome had her way, I quote the 
following from Bishop Charbonnel : 

'• Jesus Christ has confided the mission of instruction, which has civilized 
the world, to no others than the Apostles and their successors to the end of 
time. 

" It is their right so sacred and inalienable, that every wise and paternal 
government has made laws respecting instruction only in harmony with the 
teaching of the Church — the Bishops united to their supreme and universal 
Head ; and this right is so inviolable, that of late, as well as in former times, in 
France, in Belgium, in Prussia, in Austria, as in Ireland, the Bishops, with 
the Pope, have done everything to overthrow or modify every School or Univer- 
sity system opposed to the mission given by Jesus Christ to his sacred 
College." 

" It is here," comments a vigorous writer, " clearly claimed, that the Pope 
and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Chuach are the only persons authorized 
by God himself to direct the education of youth, and therefore, that all others 
undertaking that work are invading the prerogative of God ; that all legisla- 
tion on the subject must have the sanction of ' the Bishops with^the Pope ;' 
and that they have done, and will do, all in their power to overthrow or 
modify every system of public instruction, from the School te the University, 
which is not under their control." 

No, Mr. Blake : if you seem to have forgotten that " eternal 
vigilence is the price " that liberty exacts from her lovers, the 
Orangeman has not forgotten ; but is read}' at all times to stand 
up not for his own liberties only, but is bound, by the very con- 
stitution which makes him one, to grant to others the rights and 
liberties he claims for himself. Is there any Eomish constitution 
that rings out the same clear note that does his ? If so, (and, oh, 
that it were so) let him shew it. But let him not throw us back 
on unauthorized teachers, and pseud o-copies and convenient coun- 
sels and interpretations, but give us the original. Orangemen are 
prepared to shew him their's, about which, in its clear ringing 
language there can be no mistake. 

What Orangemen want, then, is, not to suppress or be sup- 
pressed, but only a fair open world for themselves and all men. 
Nothing more they ask, and nothing less will they take. 

J. ANT IS ELL ALLEN. 

Owing to circumstances unnecessary to relate, the publication of this 
pamphh t has been unavoidably delayed. 

J. A. A.