Page images
PDF
EPUB

tradictory proposition must be true, i. e. the Church of Rome is not erroneous. If it be replied that it is still a matter of doubt, I maintain the condemnation to be thereby a direct falsehood; therefore, ad hominem, the contradictory is true, and true from all eternity.

Now, Mr. Editor, first asking you whether your patience be not exhausted, I leave this discussion to the plain understanding of your readers. I apprehend that Sigma did not suffi ciently observe that the whole of my argument is ad hominem. I was well aware that some critic in ardent hurry might be so dazzled by the brilliancy of his own acuteness as to overlook this material circumstance. If I guess right, had I been at that felicitous moment before Sigma, I might have jumped like a Welsh fanatic of that denomination without being seen. The title of the last chapter of Dr. Johnson's Rasselais even occurred to me as not impossible to be sported on the occasion : conclusion in which nothing is concluded." How Sigma has verified the whimsical supposition! It was to put it, as I thought, out of any one's power to make the mistake, that I wrote the remarks with which I closed the article. Towards the beginning I distinctly stated the nature of the argument. Without taking it as an argumentum ad hominem the whole thing is perfect moonshine. However against Thirty-nine it might be employed with sore effect by the Quaker, the Socinian, the Deist. And were I enlisted, or ordained as possibly Sigma may be, in the service of the established Church, I should not like to meet any opponent on these principles.

If you can find room, Mr. Editor, for the following, perhaps Sigma will be still more amused than he was with the former specimen, in which I designedly confined myself to substance rather than form. Why did I do so? That is of no consequence. 1. By the 39 articles every Church is fallible; therefore the Church of England is fallible.

2. But if the Church of England is fallible she may have erred in pronouncing the Church of Rome in error; therefore the Church of Rome may not be in error.

3. If the Church of Rome may not be in error, the Church of England has actually erred in so declaring; but the Church of England could not err in so declaring if the Church of Rome were in error; therefore the Church of Rome is not in error. Therefore the Church of Rome is established by the 39 articles of the Church of England. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

[blocks in formation]

I beg to present Sigma with another process.

Here we are Rome and I: one of us must be right and the other wrong. Let us try to find out which it is that is right and which wrong.

1. I (39) say that every Church is fallible; therefore I myself (39) must be fallible.

2. But as I am fallible I may have erred in pronouncing Rome in error; therefore Rome may not be in error.

3. But if Rome may not be in error, I have actually erred in positively pronouncing Rome to be in error; now I could not have so erred, if Rome could err; therefore I must acknowledge that Rome has not erred. Therefore the Church of Rome is established by me (39) !! Q. E. D.!! Take another method.

1. If what may be eternally true could be false, a proposition could be true and false at the same time; but no proposition can be true and false at the same time; therefore what may be true cannot be false.

2. But it may be true by the 39 that the Church of Rome has not erred; therefore it cannot be false that the Church of Rome has not erred. Therefore the Church of Rome has not erred according to the 39. Therefore the Church of Rome is established by the 39 articles of the Church of England.

Sigma may be a Catholic (I beg his pardon once more). He must allow that if it is barely possible for the Church of Rome to be a false Church, it becomes utterly indefensible and must be a false Church. Why then must it not be the true Church if it may by a possibility be the true Church?

If Sigma is a Protestant perhaps he might like to wheel about and about, or throw his troops into a hollow square to meet a Cossack array of questions.

Q. 1. Is 39 fallible?

Q. 2. May 39 have erred respecting the Church of Rome ?

Q. 3. May the Church of Rome have erred according to 39 ?

Q. 4. If so has not 39 actally erred?

Q. 5. Could 39 err in condemning Rome if Rome were not free from error?

Q. 6. Is Truth immutable? Is it necessary?

2. 7. Can a thing be true and false at the same time?

Q. 8. If the Church of Rome may be in the right by 39, can it be in error at the same time by the 39?

Q. 9. If the Church of Rome may be in the right by the 39, and, with that admission, cannot at the same time be in the wrong by the nature of TRUTH, is it not consequently clear from error?

Q. 10. If the Church of Rome be clear from error by this reasoning from the 39, is it not established by the 39? Q. E. D.

I am sensible that this gloomy season of the year is the

most alarming for the event which Sigma hopes will not be realized. I should grieve much if it were realized; but I am under no apprehension whatever of reading in the chapter of accidents in the Newspapers, that I shall have occasioned any John Bull to throw himself into the Thames, or the sea, or any other deep water, on account of my logic. I cannot finish this long epistle without thanking Sigma for his advice to study some solid treatise on metaphysics: may I in return recommend to his perusal The Grounds of the Old Religion, by Dr. Challoner, or Dr. Milner's End of Controversy, Dr. Fletcher's Manual, or the late performance of the same able writer? Yet I do not wish Sigma to become a Catholic unless he likes it. I am, Mr. Editor, yours, CONCLUSIONISTA.

Dec. 10th, 1826.

REVIEW OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FOURTEEN DAYS' MEETING OF THE IRISH CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION.

'(BY OUR Dublin Correspondent.)

Although the late meeting for fourteen days of the Irish Catholic Association, did not excite that lively interest which the Association did before the Algerine Act, yet there were some portion of the proceedings which deserved particular notice." In conformity to a requisition published in the usual papers, the meetings commenced on Friday, November 7. Preparatory measures principally occupied their attention during the first day. The rules of the Association were read and adopted, and the matters of subsequent debate were announced.

Mr. O'CONNELL promised to have ready the General Petition, which, owing to some mistake with Mr. Eneas Macdonnell, had not been ready for the Aggregate meeting. The Petition was not ready this day. The meeting adjourned to the following Sunday. Being necessarily absent from town, I was much astonished on my return, to find that no Petition was ready, and fearing that it would be managed so as to omit any condemnation of the hateful measures, I drew up one which I gave to Mr. Lawless, that he might submit it to the meeting, in case Mr. O'Connell would not have his ready; and, that if he had, ă

[blocks in formation]

clause might be introduced into it, sufficiently expressive of the public condemnation of the execrable measures.

On Monday the Association met. Mr. O'CONNELL, according to promise, had his Petition ready, but as I anticipated, prudently omitted any mention of the measures. In conformity to his promises, Mr. Lawless proposed my paragraph; but, he was immediately told, that this was again creating division, and that for unanimity sake, it was better to omit it. Mr. Lawless very properly remarked, that it was a singular thing, that whilst these gentlemen had agreed to send forward in the preceding year, a Petition for Emancipation, and condemnatory of the measures, that they should not do so now. Not being sufficiently supported Mr. Lawless sat down.

The plan of demanding one pound for admittance had been judiciously adopted, under the miserable sophism of keeping the meeting respectable, and of increasing the funds. I well knew how useful this arrangement would be, in carrying on prudent measures, and I accordingly told Mr. Lawless, that he need never pretend to respect public opinion, if he would give his sanction to such a system of packing meetings. He promised to protest against it that very day. He did so. Mr. O'Connell declared that if "the motion for diminishing the subscription should pass, he would leave the meeting." This did not intimidate Mr. Lawless, he proposed his motion of lowering the sum to one shilling, and it passed unanimously. Strange to say, supported by Mr. O'Connell, with the true, but ingenious expression, that "he would rather be wrong with some men, than right with others."

The discussion on the Agency of Mr. Eneas Macdonnell now commenced, and continued for nearly two days. On one side. were, Messrs. Shiel, O'Gorman, Ford, &c. on the other, (for the appointment) were Messrs. O'Connell, Lawless, O'Dwyer, &c. Mr. Macdonnell attended, and entered into a lengthened defence of his conduct and character, which he said had been wantonly assailed. In justice to Mr. Macdonnell, it is right to observe, that none denied his efficiency for the office. The arguments were not against the officer, but the office. Messrs. O'Gorman and Ford contended, that it would be giving authority to an in

dividual, which might not be serviceable to the body, and that it was creating an expense that they could not bear. Mr. :Ford followed in rather more severe terms. Mr. O'Connell seemed to have lost his humour in his reply to Mr. Ford, and seemed to have forgotten, that were it not for him he would not have received a vote of thanks at the famous meeting of St. Audeon's. The motion for the appointment of Mr. M'Donnell was carried, under the impression that it should be submitted to an aggregate meeting.

There is no person who is acquainted with the late exertions of Mr. Macdonnell against the Biblicals, or who has read some of his letters, but must admit, that he is possessed of no ordinary talents and determination. As my place is, however, to act impartially, I must express my regret, that private feelings, more than public duty, prevented him from taking that determined part against the late execrable measures, which the liberties of the country demanded.

He has asserted that "he exerted himself more against these measures when they were introduced, than those who now protest against them." I certainly have heard from a respectable quarter, that Mr. Macdonnell expressed himself against them in meetings of the deputation in London! But as Mr. Macdonnell considered himself "the Agent of the Catholics of Ireland," why did he not publicly and manfully warn them of the impending danger? Why did he not publicly address them when their rights were about to be fittered away? Why did he not state the nature of these execrable measures, and call upon them not to be seduced by any man? Was it under "the insidious, the ludicrous pretext of unanimity that he too justified himself?" Or was it personal attachment to a member or members of the deputation? Why did he conjure Mr. Cobbett not to join Mr. Lawless, lest there might be divisions in the Catholic body? I recollect well, having openly called upon Mr. Macdonnell to exert his talents publicly against these infamous measures; but, alas, alas! he too was seduced. He was, I am sure, opposed to them; but silence was in him a crime. Remonstrances at private meetings, or even with members of Parliament would not do; it was his duty to appeal

« PreviousContinue »