The Evening Star MONDAY JULY 6, 1875.

Evening Star, Issue 3857, 5 July 1875, Page 2

The Evening Star MONDAY JULY 6, 1875.

[ Thb * Tablet,' as a matter of course, replies to our remarks of last Monday in its Saturday's issue, and we are glad to see it has abandoned tbe bullying stylo of its first article, and adopted a more becoming tone. We do not purpose following tbe editor in bia sophistry. We naturally expected that be would repudiate tbe interpretation we put upon bis first article; firstly because tbe assertions made in it were so skilfully worded as to be somewhat ambiguous, and secondly because our view their meaning was not that which bo desired tbe general readers of the * Tablet' to understand. Yet mcdgrS bia pleasantry regarding tbe ability of the editor of the Ethhiit# Btas to “read,”* tbe editor of tbe ‘Tablet' either meant bis Oatbolie subscribers to construe his words in the sense in which we put them, or they were mere rigmarole—unmitigated sent. Last week, although the language used is scholarly jgnd courteous, precisely a fault he wrongfully charges the Stax with is committed. Ho has not only misrepresented what we said, but he has charged us with enunciating a doctrine which wo carefully condemned. We bare ever claimed for every max tho free exercise of bis religion, untrammelled by tbe State; but the * Tablet' tells us that tbe Boman Oatbolie religion requires its professors to obey the commands of tho Pope rather than submit to tbe civil law of Prussia, or, of course, any other nonOatholie State; and that The Catholic* of Prusiia, therefore, are rebel*, eimply because they exercise the Catholic religion, and for no other reason. Now wo give this assertion an unqualified denial. There has been no attempt on tbe part of the Prussian Government to interfere with tbe religion of its Boman Catholic population. Tbe rebellion of which tbe prelates and others have been guilty is defiance of tbe power of the State and asserting tbe superior temporal authority of a foreign potentate, tho Pope. Our readers need net take eur qwe dimt for thie statement, as the ‘ Tablet ’ is ezplieit enough on the subject. (The italics are ours) : Tbe&puly eriaae is they are C ios, and, accordinff to tbe Evening Stab, qu y (

XjW*. B*mms the Fruisiati Government, ise of endeaverfne to <if*tr®y Cathelioifcy by ftwcing Oatheliss practically to repudiate tht tippmaw •/ tts which it essential to m vary mm met of the Chwih, wire to mwct mlww oomm&uHnf ill Catholie* to mirtaoe Frotetfanttem, or even the religion of Mahomet, their refusal to ebey aueb a kw of the Stfete would, in the eyee of the Evmrnra Stab, make them rebels and deterring of punishment.

This precious specimen ef sophistry needs very little comment, but it is as well to test it by a standard superior to that ef the * Tablet.’ Roman Catholics and Frotestants base their religions on* a common authority, the New Testament, and in it are laid down two great principle*—lere to Go© and leva to man. Based on the last—the great soeial law—men are commanded to do into ethers whatever they desire others te do to them. Applying this to religious belief, it follows that every man should be allowed to worship according to his conscience without interfering with or claiming privileges not enjoyed or expected by his neighbors. We, in common with the great majority of our nation, are quite willing to abide by this law, and our clergy claim no privileges not enjoyed by others. But, according to the 1 Tablet,’ the Roman Catholics do claim mors than their fellow countrymen consider sufficient for themselves—they claim to live under a different eode of laws from those enaeted for the common weal of the State, and to be at liberty to set at naught the civil law when it does not accord with the decrees of the Homan Pontiff. This is not doing as they would be done by—they lay claim to privileges not even sought by others, and which sannot be conceded to any. We will not follow this reasoning further, for eur space will not permit it. Enough that no foreign Sovereign can ever bs allowed to interfere with the domestic policy of a British community. With regard to the true objects designed by Prussian legislation, the authority of Prince Bismarck is, in our opinion, more reliable than that of the * Tablet,’ and every law-abiding citizen will agree with his doctrine, that, while liberty of conscience should be respected, civil law must be enforced. If it be oppressive, there arc constitutional modes of seeking its repeal; but in every well-ordered State it must be enforced, and no authority can be acknowledged outside the State boundaries, It is respect for law,, and, t the conviction of the ultimate success oi just remonstrance where the laws bear unjustly on any class, that has secured prosperity to Great Britain. It is the ‘ Tablet’s ’ doctrine of the justifiableness of rebellion that has led to the troubles of Spain, France, and other lands where tenets so pernicious are misnamed religion. Under date April .16, the * Times’ correspondent transmitted from Berlin the following extract from Prince Bismarck’s speech in the Prussian Diet:— If the present condition of things had arisen in 1841 ire should hardly have embodied atieh provisions in the Constitution. At that timo we thought we possessed guarantees that the Catholic citizens and Catholic Bishops would aevor forget their obedience to the State and their duties as subjects. This state of things has changed since the Vatican Council.—(Uproar In the Centre.) Since that Council the Pope is the Catholic Churchj he stands at the head of a compact party, has a well-organised and semi-official Press and an army of obedient priests, and has overspread us with a net of congregations—in short, no one possesses so great an influence as this Italian Prelate. Even if he were a native, this power would be serious; but in this case it is a foreign Monarch who possesses it, who if he had the power to oarry'out in Prussia the programme he has solemnly proclaimed would have to begin by destroying the ma j erity of Prussians. The latter would either have to forswear their Mph at once or would risk losing all they pojnessed. We cannot concede to one who udefos such forces the power'that has hitherto hpen afforded him by the Constitution; we nmst limit it. We cannot ask for peace beforpwe have clearly defined the position to to whom in momenta of ill-advised and .bMIy-rewarded confidence we have granted-'bnly too many rights. 'This confidence ha^/‘caused breaches in the strong bulwark of the State. When they have been filled up we shall be able to conclude peace with the Centre Part} and with the far more moderate Catholic Church. In a sheltered position of defence we shall be able to feel secure, and leave the aggressive more to education in the schools than to politics. Then shall we regain that peace in the midst ef which we have lived in Prussia for centuries,—(Great applause.) WVoffar no comment on this. Prince Bismarck knows hia own purposes, and sets them forth plainly, so that none can mistake his meaning. We have only one more observation to make on the article in the ‘ Tablet.’ We are told by its editor that we are under “ a great delusion ” in stating that the Liberal Press of the present day. has “ anything in common ” with that which forty years ago advocated Catholic emancipation. On this point we claim to know something more than is afforded by mere reading, as we were' personally although humbly concerned in forwarding those reforms which have secured freedom and prosperity to our native country. Few of the noble leaders whose work is regarded with such ingratitude by the writers in the * Tablet ’ remain. But those that still live, although they would in need repeat their efforts in the eause of civil and religious liberty, could not have believed that the principles they have consistently advocated during a long and laborious life, would be branded as pernicious liberalism* by those who have reaped such benefit from their long and protracted efforts.