« PoprzedniaDalej »
ever, for that purpose, and under the assurance that I do not mean to use any flippancy of manner-allow me, I repeat, to frame two questions adapted to the answer which I am about to give in your own words.
Is the last clause of the profession of faith of Pius IV usually omitted in any other editions?
Mr. Butler's answer. "The passage in question is inserted in the Profession of Faith in the Bullarium of Cherubrinus, the Bullarium Magnum, and in a stereotype edition of the Canons of the Council of Trent, recently published at Paris.
"I am not apprised of any edition of the original, or of any version of it, except Dr. Challoner's, and the edition in the Ordo*, from which it is absent†."
Can you account for that omission?-or are we to understand, that the Roman Catholic
* Let the reader observe, that this ordo is that mentioned in the preceding passage of Mr. Butler's book, as "published under the sanction of the (Roman) Catholic prelates in this country, for the use of the English (Roman) Catholic mission."
† Vindication, page xxviii.
Clergy of this country disown and reject the clause omitted in the books you have mentioned?
Mr. Butler." Upon inquiry of those most likely to be well informed upon the subject, of the probable cause of Dr. Challoner's omission of the passage in his editions of the Profession of Faith (of) Pius IV, I understand that the clause is always retained, when the oath is tendered to priests, and always omitted when the oath is tendered to the laity; and that the latter (for till lately, priests were very seldom ordained in England) being of most frequent use in this country, Dr. Challoner naturally thought it was most proper to publish the profession in that form*."
I regret, Sir, that it is not in my power to obtain still an answer more, to a question, which even the most unpractised man in the art of crossexamination, would instantly draw from your last answer. It is the following: You give us a conjectural explanation of the omission by Dr. Challoner. Dr. Challoner, you say, "naturally thought it was most proper to publish the Profes
* Vindication, page xxviii.
sion of Faith in that form" which is "of most frequent use in this country." But can you tell us how, and why the profession of your faith was reduced to that form? Can you say who, for what purpose, and by what authority, has curtailed the Roman Catholic Profession of Faith of most frequent use in this country ?
Sir, this is a question of the highest importance to the Protestants, not only of this kingdom, but of all parts of the world. It is of paramount interest to every one who has the happiness of having been born out of the spiritual grasp of Rome, and of those, who, less fortunate, have escaped for their lives, with the sore marks of that grasp on their hearts-it is of vital interest to us all, to be acquainted with the details of that policy, which is incessantly at work to destroy our mental and moral liberty. We know too well the temper of your Church, from the past; we know her by her deeds of blood when she had power; but it is more difficult to discover her
wiles, when she has grown weak, and artful in proportion to her weakness. She formerly took the field against heretics with all the pomp and
clamour of a battue prepared for an eastern Prince; now she glides silently, like the degraded beings pursued by the game laws, setting her gins and traps in the dark. Having in your company stumbled upon one of these engines, we must take it to pieces, and examine it in your presence.
The first thing that strikes me is, that the most sacred materials are not spared in your Church, when they may be adapted to the purpose of entrapping the laity in these kingdoms. What, Sir! your most solemn profession of faith curtailed and mangled, in order that the public may remain in ignorance of a duty enforced by your infallible authority under an oath and vow! I thought, indeed, that I knew to what extent casuistry was allowed in order to forward the interests of the Roman Catholic Church; but I confess that I never conceived, that any one Roman Catholic prelate, much less a whole national body of Roman Catholic prelates, would venture to tamper with such a document as the Profession of Faith of Pius IV!
Upon meeting, a short time ago, with these
words of Mosheim-" It has long been known from experience, that many are in the habit of speaking differently from what they think; but there is no kind of men, whose deeds differ more widely from their intentions, than those who craftily and cunningly watch over the interests of the Bishop of Rome*"-I confess they appeared to me, though true, not quite accordant with the sober and moderate tone of that learned and candid writer. But how would he have expressed himself, if such a system of ecclesiastical policy as that of the English Roman Catholic clergy had fallen within his notice? Would Heaven we might be able to explain the extraordinary fact, which you have been forced to bring to light in your own defence, by the supposition, that the Roman Catholic prelacy in England had gradually imbibed the milder spirit of the Church
* Usu dudum constat, aliud agere, aliud sentire multos solere, nec ullum esse genus, in quo animus ab opere vehementius dissideat, quam id, quod astute et callide, pro commodis antistitis Latinorum vigilat. Mosheim, Syntagma Dissert. De Panis Heret. p. 409, ed. Lipsia et Gorlitzii, 1733.