Judging from the course pursued by both "Where ignorance is bliss Popish principles, but is given for a specific purpose to a certain college, in a country where it is most required. No doubt, had he done this, he would have been ashamed of the previous avowal; for in Ireland the majority, who are Roman Catholics, are taxed to support the minority, who are Protestants, for the express propagation of that which, in their estimation, is error of a vital character, and injurious to the temporal and spiritual well-being of mankind. In 1835, in reply to an inquiry, the following figures were presented to the House of Commons:-State Protestants, 852,064; Roman Catholics, 6,427,712; and the total revenue of the Irish Church for that year amounted to £716,785, being the cost of administering spirituality to 852,064 Protestants; whilst the revenues of all the dis Certain it is, however, that they have not referred to circumstances which are part and parcel of the question; hence it has fallen to my lot to present my readers with the materials necessary to assist them in their ex-senting denominations did not amount to amination of this question, which, whilst not altogether a part of the subject, must nevertheless be considered, for justice demands that, in this case, "the whole and its parts" shall be subject to, and determinable by, the same laws of reciprocity, right, and equity. I was certainly staggered by the following passage in the article of "L'Ouvrier," inasmuch as when I perceived that he made the withdrawal of the grant one of principle, I gave him credit for more liberality and fair dealing than is displayed in the extract. He says: The number of Roman Catholics in Great Britain and Ireland is, according to the best authorities, about 10,000,000, while the numbers opposed to Roman Catholicism amounts to more than 16,000,000; yet the whole of these 16,000,000 are required to contribute to the support of an establishment, to the amount of £26,360 per annum, for the express propagation of that which, in their estimation, is error of a vital character, and injurious to the spiritual and temporal well-being of mankind." Now, I put it to the good sense of my readers whether they would have thought any worse of him-whether justice or truth would have suffered or, if "L'Ouvrier" wished to place this obnoxious injury to the Protestants in the most charitable and the least painful light-had he rather given the total number of the Romanists and Protestants in Ireland only? Let it be remembered that the money is not given for the general dissemination of more than £500,000. And yet, forsooth, although the major portion of the Irish Church revenues is wrung from the Roman Catholics, there are those who begrudge them a portion of the money which they themselves have subscribed! How is it that the revenue of the Established Church in the United Kingdom, subscribed by Roman Catholics, has been totally forgotten, or passed over stealthily, by the afirmative writers? Was it that its enormities are too great and glaring-that the injustice of a state church, supported by Dissenters in general, was of so vast a magnitude-or that the affirmative writers were so ashamed of the sentiments they maintained, when denying £30,000 per annum as a return for the money contributed by the Romanists to a church which they completely ignored? Do they think the two are not parallel cases? Where is the difference? Are the Romanists to have "liberty of conscience"? May they exercise it as conscience would dictate? If not, then the phrase is a farce. Because the 16,000,000 Protestants contend that the religion of Rome is vile, is the same right of opinion to be maintained and practically exemplified by the Catholics? Do they, on the other hand, contend that because the number of the two are unequal, that the minority must bow, and be subject to the will and caprice of the majority, in matters appertaining to the free use of conscience? If these be their sentiments, how can they look upon the recent and present persecu- | justice as well as of common sense, the Pro tions of the Madiai and other Protestants of the south of Europe but as just and legitimate? If, on the contrary, the minority ought to have a will and the power to exercise it, how comes it that a great proportion of the revenue of the Church of England is wrung from Romanist and other Dissenters, who conscientiously dissent from its ritual; or, in default, their goods and chattels are seized in lieu of the "conscience money"? Are the Romanists to have the right of private judgment, and to act in accordance with its dictates? And if they decline to support a religion which they disshould they be treated as though they had contracted a debt, and were consequently bound to discharge it? This reasoning is the result of what must of necessity occur where there is a state-paid religion, whatever religion that be; and with what show of justice or reason "L'Ouvrier" can cavil at 16,000,000 Protestants being compelled to support error of a vital character," and be silent when 10,000,000 Catholics are called upon to pay tithes to a church which they also believe to hold doctrines and errors "injurious to the temporal and spiritual well-being of mankind," is an anomaly which I can neither explain nor understand. avow, The general tenor of the articles from the pen of "L'Ouvrier" (although, by-the-bye, only an enlargement of the idea of the immorality of the Romish doctrines) would irresistibly convey to the reader's mind the notion that there were but one set of consciences and opinions in the world-that those were possessed only by Protestants, or that they were to think and to judge for everybody else, or at least for the Roman Catholics. The whole of his articles, with one exception (that where he refers to principle), as well as the article of J. C. MC., Jun., is one complete tirade on the pernicious character of Maynooth teaching. Such is his opinion, and such is mine; but what of that? The college of Maynooth is not to educate Protestants, but Roman Catholics; perhaps, therefore, "L'Ouvrier" and J. C. M'C., Jun., will be good enough to tell their readers if Romanists are to consult them as to the character of the education to be inculcated at Maynooth, or whether they may please themselves? If the former, then, as a matter of testants are bound to extend the same right to Catholics, viz., that they should consult each other as to the doctrine and education to be taught by either party. Is there any other alternative, and which of them do my opponents take? I defy them to prove from their articles that any other than the former is coincident with their opinions, if their articles really express them. The latter is a "thing of nought" to them. They (the Romanists) receive Protestant money, give none in return, and therefore ought to act in accordance with the views of J. C. MC., Jun., and his party. Both writers seem to be of opinion that there is a general understanding amongst themselves that Romanists know nothing about education, or that they must defer to the opinions of those to whom they are opposed. Do they not know that what is truth to them is error to the Romanists and to others? Do they know that the doctrine of the Trinity is taught and believed by the Church of England, and ignored in toto by the Unitarians? Perhaps they will take upon themselves soon to legislate for all those with whom they differ; and, when expressing their conviction that the creed of Rome is anti-scriptural, anti-moral, antisocial, and, in point of fact, opposed to all human and progressive development, are they not equally aware that the 10.000,000 Catholics entertained similar opinions of the faith which they are called upon unscrupulously to support-a faith whose professors, or a great portion of them, whilst contending and boasting that their creed is the purest, their lives the most virtuous and christian, and their moral, social, and politi cal opinions the most charitable, liberal. and humane, are, practically, so tainted with bigoted, selfish, and illiberal notions, and so unfamiliar to that generous and forbearing spirit which would freely and unhesitatingly accord to the Catholics that which they themselves enjoy, and which is partly furnished and supplied by their enemies in faith, that they, in their shortsighted policy, would deny a grant of money to a sect because their creeds were different, and held to be in opposition to morality. An extract or two from the recent debate "in the house" on this subject will not be out of place. Mr. Scholefield said, "It sp peared to him, as to his hon. friend (Mr. Spooner), that Maynooth was an endowment, the result of which was, the propagation of error; but then he recollected that what was truth to him was error to others. His hon. friend, on the other hand, knew only one kind of consciences, and those Protestant consciences. He should know, however, that there were other grants under acts of parliament which must violate the consciences of Roman Catholics just as much as the Maynooth grant violated the conscience of his hon. friend. And it was but common justice that their consciences should be as tenderly treated by the House of Commons as that of his hon. friend. If they endowed one particular sect at the expense of others, it was, pro tanto, a religious persecution of those sects." The sum and substance of this question was graphically ex-, pressed in one short but impressive sentence delivered last year on this topic by the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, now Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said, "If the endowment be withdrawn, then the parliament that withdraws it must be prepared to enter upon the whole subject of the reconstruction of our ecclesiastical endowments." Such must inevitably be the case. Perhaps the total repeal and not the "reconstruction of our ecclesiastical endowments"-would speedily follow. Then those anti-Maynoothites who are in favour of an Established Church may thank themselves if all grants be repealed; for, whilst clamouring for the abolition of one particular grant, which they cannot tolerate, they are at the same time unwittingly hastening the destruction of a politicoreligious establishment which they wished to see undisturbed and still connected with the state. There are those who contend that the established religion should be supported by the state, although they cannot see the injustice of Catholics and others being compelled to contribute to its maintenance; and, strangely enough, refuse them a portion of the money they have contributed. But for what reason should there be any established church? Is it that its professors fear that they could not obtain sufficient aid from voluntary sources to maintain their ministers, churches, &c. &c., and to administer to the wants and necessities of the poor? Do they so distrust the faith of those who call them- Dependent, then, upon her professors for support, the Church of England will be in a far better position, and the right of the selection of her own ministers will enable her to expel those who teach not her true doctrines. A well-known writer (the Rev. J. A. James) says:-"It is evident that no external violence, short of the setting up of a Popish and intolerant government, can destroy the church; it may die a natural death by the total abandonment of episcopacy on the part of the people; or it may be destroyed by an entire relinquishment of it by its clergy, events by no means likely to happen; but it can never be slain, except by a suicidal act of its own. It may bid defiance to King, Lords, and Commons, as long as it lives in the affections of its ministers and members; and to affirm that its separation from the state would terminate its existence, is, in my opinion, to pronounce its condemnation as a christian institute by representing it as founded on human laws, instead of the word of God." It is worthy of remark, as being somewhat singular, that whilst "L'Ouvrier" is very careful in insisting that every one is accountable to God for his religious belief, he appears to forget the fact-in the face of this avowal -that the Roman Catholic and other portions of our fellow-countrymen are compelled to sacrifice religious scruples by supporting the church which they avowedly detest. third, which differs from both? On what principle of justice can any religious denomination which puts its own hands into the pockets of the Roman Catholics think it a shame that he should have a single shilling Let me, then, entreat those who seek to remove this grant to deal justly and equitably with the question. This is the only alternative-either to repeal all grants or to repeal none. Let me ask, By what logical process can it be shown, that if any one religion is sup-out of theirs? The truth is, that Romanists ported by state aid, to which all Dissenters are entitled to claim from the legislature the have contributed, that all others should not same rights as those enjoyed by the Protestant be equally endowed, if state aid be demanded; Church." or, in other words, how can the Maynooth,| or any other grant, be consistently repealed, unless all others are similarly treated? The present system of endowments may eventually lead to a claim on the part of other dissenting sects to receive state funds. Why should the demand be resisted? "Oh, because they teach immoral and pernicious doctrine; that's the reason." Then would it be difficult to show that the teachings of Oxford are not akin to those of Maynooth. See how many ministers she has sent forth who have seceded to the Church of Rome! It has been well called the "hotbed of Popery." On the contrary, I may ask, How many dissenting ministers have seceded from Protestantism to Popery? More persons have seceded from Popery to Protestantism than rice versá, as regards Dissenters, is the reply. The idea, then, of the immorality of Romish teaching, although true in itself, is unconnected with the question of state endowment. It is the only plea to which Mr. Spooner and his party can have recourse when asked, "Why not repeal all endowments?" The sentiments of the Anti-State-Church Association are so reasonable that I will give them a place here:-"But have these parties never reflected that Roman Catholics also pay taxes; and that it is equally a hardship on them to be obliged to contribute to the support of other sects, who denounce their religion as heretical and superstitious? If the Episcopalian in England, and the Presbyterian in Scotland, has his church supported by the state, in the name of fair play, how can he deny to the Papist in Ireland the same privilege? They believe their system to be true, and his false. He is of just the contrary opinion, and parliament, which equally represents, and is, in fact, composed of all three, has no right to take upon itself to decide between them. If it already endows the English and the Scotch churches, which are on many points opposed to each other, how can it object to endow a Whilst Dissenters are bound to contribute to a religion which they either totally ignore or partially disbelieve, they are entitled to grants of money on behalf of their own. Whether their doctrines be true or false matters not; each one must be allowed to judge of that to which he subscribes. Dr. Price has well said, "The legislature is no judge of truth and error. It is wholly incompetent to the task-was never formed for it." If the anti-Maynoothites wish to deal fairly, honourably, and disinterestedly with the question, or with that of state endowments, let them cry aloud for the repeal of all grants; then Rome must look to her own professors for funds in order to enable her to carry on religious worship. That her doctrine is immoral may be; others think the contrary; and whilst they contribute to our church, by the same reasoning we must act reciprocally in turn. Roman Catholics have a conscience; and for them to subscribe to a religion which a great portion of their community ignores; and then, as in Ireland, to tax the majority for the support of a religion professed by the nority, and to begrudge them a share of the grant which they have contributed, is an anomaly which can find no parallel, either in ancient or modern history. In conclusion, I would earnestly exhort those who are seeking to obtain the removal of the grant to Maynooth to give this question another impartial consideration, in order to ascertain if they cannot adopt the principle of the repeal of all grants of money (from the public purse) to all religions denominations. Let them above all, when arguing the question, seek to introduce less ill feeling and bitterness, and blend their sentiments with that charity and forbearance which, whilst they "cover a multitude of sins," are at the same time more certain to win converts to their cause, and to make friends of those whom they formerly regarded as enemies, because they were the professors of a faith differing, unfortunately, from their own. J. G. R. P.S.-Since the above was written two additional articles have appeared-the one a confirmation of my own expressed sentiments and arguments, in part; the other only a facsimile of the views generally held by antiMaynoothites. A careful perusal of it convinces me that nothing further is needed from my pen in refutation thereof, as the above is, I trust, a sufficient reply to the articles of A. S., as well as those who have preceded him in advocating the same views. JUDGING FROM THE HISTORY AND PRESENT STATE OF FRANCE, IS AN ATTEMPTED INVASION OF ENGLAND PROBABLE? NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-I. Ox approaching this subject in the spirit of candid inquiry, we feel compelled to congratulate our readers on the noble character of the British Controversialist, which, taking its stand on the liberty of the press, throws open its impartial pages as an arena on which religious, social, and political error is to fall, and truth is to rise in its divine majesty! France ranks among the nations of the earth as one of the first and noblest. Its Gallic origin, its sublime genius, its Elysian position, and beautiful language, are the main elements of its national greatness. Notwithstanding all this, its history is dark and gloomy, being associated to an awful extent with superstition, atheism, anarchy, and revolution. The Gauls, like the ancient Britons, struggled against the power of Cæsar, but only became the nobler trophies of his conquest. They were early acquainted with the Roman constitution, and soon became familiar with, and partial to, Roman laws, learning, and customs. Seeing, then, that the Gauls were subdued by the same power, and their national character biassed by the same influence, as the Britons, the inquiry naturally occurs, How is it that their subsequent history is so different? An answer must be sought in the character of the Gallic people. The character of all nations is original, and we can answer no question in the history of any nation without first learning the character of its people. We may regard the French as the offspring of the Gauls, and, consequently, as partaking of their predecessors' national character. "The Franks, who were of Teutonic origin, and who, by their conquests, gave their name to the country, formed, perhaps, no larger portion of the inhabitants than the Norman conquerors in England, and did not sensibly affect the great mass of the people." Cæsar, in his Commentaries on the Gallic war, represents the Gauls as being "among the bravest and most warlike nations of the earth." Less ferocious than the Britons, but unwearied in military device and stratagem, seeking every opportunity to deceive the mighty conqueror to whom they had sworn allegiance-impatient and restive at the least encroachment of the ruling power over the democratic element;-enthusiastic and fanatical under the idea of national renown; raising monarchies to indicate their glory, and shortly hurling them to the dust to show their power! This feature of the character of the Gauls it is necessary ever to bear in mind while studying the history of France. But we have to do with its modern history. The revolutions of 1789, 1815, and 1848, were the fearful manifestations of the democratic element overwhelming the monarchic power which it had created. The "fierce Corsican" was, in the beginning of his career, the representative of the French democracy, just as Cæsar, in an age past, had been that of the Roman republic. But both Cæsar and Napoleon fell. Why? Through the violation of the power they had gained. Cæsar passed the Rubicon and defied the senate; and Napoleon * James Cornwell, Ph.D. |