A plain and rational account of the Catholic faith...

Front matter

A PLAIN AND RATIONAL

ACCOUNT

OF

Preface

This brief and faithful account of the general hatred of the Christian religion* in its very infancy, may serve for a key to many useful discoveries. As, 1 st, that a formed design of misrepresentation and slander is a sure mark that the cause, in favour of which they are employed, is a very bad one. 2dly, that those, whose faith and morals lie under the injustice of public censure, may comfort themselves with t»ds reflection, that nothing was ever more contemptible than religion, when in its greatest purity. 3dly, that what our blessed Redeemer said to his followers, Luke xxi. 17* Y< u shall be hated by all men for my sake," was not confined to the primitive times. For truth always was, and always will be, odious to insincere and wordly spirits ; and the present age is so over-stocked with these unhappy dispositions, that if they had been as frequent in the primitive times, few nations, perhaps, would ever have embraced the Christian faith. 4thly, that the same methods are still pursued against the truths of the gospel, as were at first employed against the gospel itself. My meaning is, that the character of Catholics is as unfairly represented now, as that of the Christians was in the primitive ages.

I might appeal for the truth of this to an infinite number of Protestant books and sermons, filled with such filse characters, both of our faith and morals, as cannot but create the strongest prejudices against us. But I have luckily met with a two-penny libel, which has saved me the trouble of transcribing volumes. It is entitled, a Protestant's resolution, sliewinxj his reasons why he will not be a Papist, fye. This piece not only contains a summary of the most usual objections against, or rather misrepresentations of, our doctrine ; but all the old scandalous calumnies, that malice has ever invented against us, are epitomized in it. So that as it gives us the very marrow and quintessence of many volumes of misrepresentation and slander. I flatter myself that the following sheets, though they only attack this malicious libel by name, will be a sufficient answer to books of a much larger size.

Now, though the fourth editit n of the piece I speak of appeared s 'veral years ago, I became not acquainted with it. otherwise than by the bad character that was given me of it, 'till about the middle

Preface. xi

of August, Anno. 1719- But unless I had trusted to my own eyes rather than common fame, I should have thought it impossible, that a person, who not only professes himself a Christian, but sets up for a guide and teacher of Christians, should be capable of writing such an unchristian piece.

Whoever is the author of it (for I know nothing of him but his exhorbitant hatred to Papists) I shall make bold to call him the Catechist as often as I have occasion to name him : because he has delivered his reasons against the twenty-four pretended errors of Popery in the method of a catechism : that is, by way of short questions and answers : which was doubtless done, to fit them for the weak capacity not only of boys and girls, in order to imbue them with an early hatred towards us, but of the populace in general, who greedily swallow down any thing against Papists, though ft be ever so absurd, or improbable in itself.

But dare I then presume to blame him for writing against us ?— By no means. But I hope it is no presumption to expect a Protestant, though he writes against Papists, should guide his pen by the common rules of charity and Justice. I likewise hope it is no presumption to expect that a writer, though he be a Protestant, should remember that he is also a Christian ; this, I think, is but reasonable. And therefore if the Catechist had done no more than fairly to propose his reasons against the pretended errors of Popery, or if he had only laboured to instruct or settle Protestant s in their religion by sober reasoning, all this had been fair and honourable

Those of his own communion would have applauded nis zeal, and others of a different persuasion would have valued him as an upright well-meaning man, who sought not to ruin the persons of his adversaries, but only to convince their judgments For no man can be justly blamed for standing up in defence of a cause, which, upon rational motives, he judges to have truth and justice on its side. But as the Catechist has managed the cause of religion, he is neither justifiable before God nor man : nor do I wrong him in the least in saying, that he appears rather as the captain of a furious mob, breathing nothing but massacre and plunder, than a sober advocate for the Christian faith.

xii Preface.

I shall therefore wave the ordinary complaints on account of unfair dealings of a less mischievous nature, such as are the misrepresentation of our doctrine to make it appear absurd.and ridiculous. For we are so accustomed to this sort of treatment, that we expect nothing else from any man that draws his pen against u« ; and we are the less effected wi.h it, because the usual "consequences of it seldom go beyond contempt, which is but a small evil comparatively to that of hatred, and was therefore too little to satisfy the fiery zeal of our Catechist. For he was not content to employ his best endeavours, as many other Protestants have done before him, to make us appear ridiculous in our faith, but he labours to render us the most hateful creatures upon earth, by painting our morals and practice in the very blackest colours.

What! was he conscious to himself that his reasons against the twenty^four pretended errors of Popery, would be of no force to hinder Protestants from turning Papists, unless reviling, forgery, and slander, were called in to his assistance ? I am sure it can be no rash judgment to think so, or something full as bad, if we but observe that his Catechism is fully ended, p. 27* And he tells us in the title page, that the reasons it contains are digested into so plain a method of questions and answers, that any ordinary capacity may be able to defend the Protestant religion against the most cunning Jesuit or Popish priest. And why then did he did not lay down his pen when he had done our business so effectually for us, that there was no further danger of any one's being seduced even by the most cunning Jesuit, or Popish Priest? What necessity was there, after that, of adding twenty pages more, by way of an appendix, chiefly to defame and traduce our persons ? Certaiuly, either it was because he had a real mistrust of the solidity of his reasons against our doctrine, and thought they would do but little execution without the help of slander, which does no great honour to the Protestant cause : or what is worse for himself, he was moved to it out of pure malice to do us mischief merely for mischief-sake : since, if he expressed his thoughts sincerely in his title page, his. end was fully answered without it.

In effect, the twenty additional pages in his Catechism contain

Preface.

xiii principally, a most virulent invective, filled with as much gall, and studied malice, as can be crouded into so small a oompass. And, I must needs say, the character he there gives of us is so very black, that were we really the hideous monsters, he has described us, we should undoubtedly deserve the utmost hatied and execration of all mankind. So that considering with what industry his Catechism has been spread among the common people, as I have lately been informed, I can attribute it to nothing else but a special providence on the one hand, and the more moderate temper of the generality of English Protestants on the other, that we are not torn in pieces by the mob, or have not stones thrown at us as we walk the streets* I know not whether this was the Cfiristian design of our charitable Catechist } God only knows the heart, and I will not presume to judge of it* However, to shew that I am not conscious of having overstrained the matter, I shall set down a part of his own words, and then the reader may judge of him as he pleases*

1. He tells us, that Protestants being adversaries to the church of Rome, her Popish sons owe them nothing ^but ruin and destruction, and the vilest means they can use for that end are meritorious and glorious, pages 27, 28l

2. That they make perjury in this kind not only blameless, but necessary $ and that breach of oaths* is no less with them than a virtue or a necessary duty in many cases, pi 28.

3. That by the sacred dec rees .'of their councils they must be forsworn, if they will not be excommunicated. And that one, who has taken the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, sins mortally; not if he takes these oaths (for their priests may dispense with) but if he keeps them* Whence he concludes, that no Papist can possibly give any security which may be trusted, that Protestants shall enjoy anything, which is in their power to deprive them of, pages. 28, and 20.

4. That their religion has laid such strong bonds upon tbem to break all bonds that may favour Protestants that it leaves nojiopes of salvation to them, who will not at their death take the greatest xiv Preface.

nntrath upon their salvation if the Catholic cause may be helped by it, />. 2».

5. That the very principles of their religion bind them to observe no faith, or trust or common honesty with those, whom they account heretics, p. 30.

6. That they amongst Papists, who are executed for real treasons and murders, deny it at their deaths (being over- awed by their priests*) Ibid.

7. That hundreds of Irish Papists are executed In the kingdom 0 f Ireland every year for murders, thefts, &o. yet, when they come to die, take it upon their salvation, that they are as innocent of the fact they die for as tho child unborn, p. 31.

8. Thai for shedding of blood the Papal Rome exceeds heathen Rome, p. 34.

Far proof of this last calumny the Cateclasi relates some facts of which I shall take notice in my Appendix. Only the last of them being a valuable piece shall be here set down at its full length in his own wordsv

a Add to this (says he) their bloody traitorous design against king Charles II, the government, and the Protestant religion. A conspiracy, which, had it taken effect, might have turned England into an aceldama, a field of blood, or shambles of Popish butchers These things considered, I hope no man will be so mad as to kiss t ie Pope's toe until his nails be pared ; so as he will not scratch and make tl*e blood run about the mouth of Christendom, p. 35.**

I cannot here forbear remarking, how good an inclination the poor gentleman has to be witty, even at the expense of his neighbour's reputatian. Yet methinks so merry a jest was brought in somewhat unseasonably in so tragical a relation. But let that be as it will, the dismal story lie here tells us must either be the Ryehouse plot (the history whereof is fully related by the late bishop of Rochester,) or the design of seizing the king's person at OxJforjI* which was prevented by the unexpected dissolution of the par-

Preface.

xv liament : or, lastly, that which is commonly known by the name of Oates's plot. For I never read of any other in the reign of king Charles- II, If ho means eitlier of the two former lie has reason to say, that had it taken effect it might have turned England into an aceldama, a field of blood or shambles, not of Popish but Protestant butchers (if I may be allowed to repeat after him that unmannerly expression ;) for, praise be to God, there was not a single Papist concerned in either of these two conspiracies ?

But if he means Oates's plot (as I presume he does, foi I find he was somewhat ashamed to speak out) the perjury and villainy of that wicked contriver of it, is so well known, and has been so fully proved by Protestant as well as Catholic writers, and even acknowledged by the supreme tribunal of the nation, that I need not give myself the trouble to vindicate the honour of those innocent persons, that fell a sacrifice to it, I wish the Catechist could as easily purge himself from the guilt of a most malicious slander, in reviving the charge of that sham plot against us. And I presume lie chiefly points at those innocent victims of popular fury, and others that have been under the like circumstances, when he tells us we make no scruple to die with perjury in our mouths. Which calumny he repeats, page 33, where he writes thus ;

•* No sort of heretics (not excepting Turk, Jew, nor Pagan: no not those of Calicut who adore the devil) did ever maintain, by the grounds of religion* that it is lawful, or rather meritorious, ( ; »s Papist call it) to murder princes or people for the quarrel of religion, Aod although particular men of all professions have heen some thieves, some murderers, some traitors, yet ever when they came to their end, and just punishment, they confessed'their fault to be in their nature, and not in their profession. But these per-* sons cleave to it at their deaths as zealously, as if all they had been doing w ere by the immediate guidance of the blessed spirit* Such is their blasphemy 1" Pages 38, 39.

This may be called blasphemy indeed. But it is a most wicked calumny to charge us with the guilt of it : and nothing but the father of lies could instigate the Catechist to defame us in so unchristian a manner* However he has not yet done with us, but

Preface. xvj

he tells his reader, page 42, " that it is observable, that the most ignorant or careless, or tin) .most wicked and debauched, make uP *he greatest part of our p'roseiy tes. : - •'"Nor is ft strange, since 'false principles an 1 bad lives mutually beget each other." it he had said that many of those, 'who led' wicked and debauched lives before they turned Papists, have been entirely seformed af'er their coming over to o«, he would have spoken the naked truth ; for ther e are innumerable examples of it: whereas 1 challenge Mm to name me out one single person in the kingdom of Great Britain* who upon turning Protestant, after he had been brought up a Papist, ever mended his life ; that is, became a soberer, a juster* and honester man by it than he was before. Nay, I may salely say, the very reverse of it is generally remarked; and it is a strong proof, ihat they change for interest and libertinism, and nut for conscience sake.

Lastly he tells us, •« That the %\ho 1 e Romish hierarchy is so far from being suited witbin the order of the gospel, that the main design of their popes, cardinals, jesuits, friars, &c. is but to advance themselves above all that is good, and to gratify their hase lusts," pi 44, Was there any thing so foul and scurrilous ! However I am verily persuaded that if the Catechist were but for one month in any religious order, or would but keep one lent among them, he would soon change his mind, and be convinced by experience, that the confinement of a narrow cell, a hard bed to lie on, spare diet, watching, praying, fasting, and many other mortifications both of the will and body, are not in the least prope r methods to gratify the lusts of the flesh.

But let any one judge, whether this worthy gentleman who pretends to so much zeal for religion, and talks of nothing but the blessed spirit, holiness, and tender conscience in his three last pages, could aim at any thing less, than, by the dint of downright 6 lander, to expose us to the hatred' and fury of a merciless populace On the first occasion that shall present itself? We are here represented by him as a knot of the most profligate villi ains upon earth : nay, worse than Turks, Jews, Pagans, or those who adore the devil. We are described as men taught by the principles of

Preface. xvii

their religion to observe neither truth, faith, nor common honesty with Protectants, As men thirsting after blood, making a practice of dieing with lies in their mouths, dispensing with unlawful oaths, looking upon perjiny and breach of oaths as virtues, and necessary duties in many cases ; and finalij seeking nothing so much as the destruction of Protestants, by all the foulest means the devil can suggest,

Good God! What a character is this ! Nay a character of Chrirtians drawn by the pen of a Christian ! Is not this cloatbing us, ss Heathens did the primitive Christians, in bear skins, to set dogs at us to tear us in pieces ! For my part, I praise God I have been a Papist these many years. I have also gone through all my studies under Popish masters, and have, chiefly, lived and conversed amongst Papists the rest of my life : so that it is morally impossible I should be ignorant either of their principles or practice. Yet I declare solemnly, and I declare it without any equivocation or mental reservation, to which I am a hearty enemy, that I have never in my whole life, heard any of the above-mentioned execrable maxims, which the Catechist lays so boldly to our charge taught by any of those, under whom I have had my education — . On the contrary, I have always been taught the following Christian rules,

1 . That we are bound to do by others, as we would be done by.

2. That it is unlawful to do evil, that good may come of it.

3. That perjury in all cases whatsoever is a most damnable sin.

4. Ti>at the taking of unlawful oaths cannot be dispensed with by any power upon earth.

5. That no power upon earth can discharge us of any duty, to which we are bound by the law of God or nature.

6. That faith, justice, truth, and honesty, are duties, which by the law of God and nature, we owe to all mankind. And,

7. That we are bound to pay allegiance to our lawful sovereigns, et their religion be what it will.

I

Preface.

These are the moral principles I have always been taught : and I think I am not ignorant of the principles of my own religion. But, alas ! I forget, I am a Papist 1 and so the Catechist will tell me ! I may lie and swear by dispensation ; which I own is a clever way to stop my mouth. However I make bold to assure him, that if he were as free from slander, as I am from the sin of perjury and lieing, lie would have an easier account to make before the great tribunal, than he will most certainly experience, unless he retracts the falsehoods he has published against us. For slander is a most grievous sin against justice, as well as charity ; and will certainly damn those, who die with the guilt of it unrepented.

But let us reason a little calmly upon the matter. Perhaps the Catechist has never been conversant with any Roman Catholics either at home or abroad. Let him then first inquire of numberless English Protestants, who in the late wars have served either in Spain or Flanders, where it was their lot to be made prisoner* of war? Let him, I say^ enquire of them what sort of treatment they found amongst the French or Spanish Papists ? And whether their sick and wounded were not carefully looked after, as if they had been in their own hospitals ? Nay, whether the religious houses, both of men and women, had not the same bowels of compassion for them, and were not as forward to relieve their wants, as if they had been their Catholic brethren ? It is notoriously known they were, and there are many Protestants yet alive ready to attest it. And does this look like thirsting after the blood: of Protestants, or seeking their destruction by all means possible ? Yet no man can doubt but these Papists acted according to the principles of their religion. Nor do Turks treat Christians in this manner, though the Catechist will needs have us to be wors# than Turks.

Let him next take a view of Holland, where there is a mixed society of Protestants and Catholics : which latter are very numerous in all the great towns of trade. Here he will find great numbers of Roman Catholics, as well officers, as common soldiers, employed in Protestant armies, and serving their Protestant masters with as much fidelity and zeal as the best Protestants in Europe. Nay, the prince of Orange had so great an opinion of his Dutch

Preface. xix

Catholic troops, and reposed so great a trust in their loyalty, that he brought several thousands over with him into England, to fight against a Popish prince then on the^ throne ; and unless the Dutch Popish troops had been more faithfnl to their Protestant prince, than the English Protestant troops were to their Popish king, the revolution had never happened.

Whence I infer, that the Catechist has wronged us most inhumanly in asserting, that Protestants being adversaries of the Church of Rome, her sons owe them nothing but ruin and destruction. That the vilest means they can use for that end are meritorious and glorious.. That perjury is. no less with us than a virtue, or necessary duty : and that our priests can dispense with any oaths. For the Dutch Catholic troops, I have spoken of, knew nothing of any such dispensing power, even when they came to £ght for Protestants against a Popish prince. On the contrary, they knew the principles of their religion obliged them to be faithful to their lawful masters, though of a different religion ; and therefore acted accordingly. But did. the English Protestant troops follow their example? Alas! how partial are men in seeing motes in their neighbours* eyes, yet cannot see beams in their own..

But since the Catechist does likewise assert, that the principles of our religion bind us to observe no truth, or frith, or common honesty, with Protestrnts, which certainly is the foulest character that can be given of any society of men, I shall once more send him abroad for. his better- information ; I mean, to the countries o^ Germany, Switzerland, and Holland, where Catholics and Protestants live united together in the common bonds of commerce and; civil society. For it was never said, but that the Protestants? in those- countries, find the same faith, truth, and honesty from the Roman Catholics they deal with, as from those of their own communion. Which would be morally impossible, if the very principles of their religion, taught them the contrary. Nay, the kingdom of Great Britain is actually engaged in a strict alliance with several Popish princes. And will ihe Catechist have the boldness to cell the ministry, that they are confederated with a pack of perfidious rascals, who are bonnd by the principles of their religion to ob~ xx Preface,

serve neither faith, truth, nor common honesty with Protestants ? If he does, I know not what reward he may come to meet with.

But perhaps the English Catholics alone are the monsters the Catechist has described. Yet I am very sure their principles ar e the same with those of foreign Papists. And I dare appeal to the judgment of any sober Protestant in England, who is but thoroughly acquainted with their persons and practice, whether they deserve the infamous character of men d estitute of faith truth, and common honestyV

We have some of most states and professions amongst us ; and these are as well known by Protestants,*" as by those of their own communion. The Catholic gentlemen, who live a; their seats, in the country, are generally as remarkable for sobriety and virtue, for justice in paying their debts, for hospitality to their neighbours and charity to all without distinction of Protestant or Papist, as any of their Protestant neighbours ; nay. I know a Catholic family in the country, which alone relieves more Protestant poor, than most of the Protestant families in the neighbourhood joinned together. And is this acting like persons, who, by their principles, are bound to observe neither faith, truth, nor common honesty with Protestants ?

Tho e amongst us, who live by their profession, such as lawyers, doctors, chirurgeons, tradesmen, and shopkeepers, have generally as good a character, and are reputed, by Protestants themselves, as honest, conscientious, and upright in their dialings, as any whatsoever. Which surely is not acting like men destitute of faith, truth, and common honesty. Besides there are several Protestant servants in Catholic families, and several Catholic servants even in posts of the greatest trust in Protestant families. Also Catholics and Protestants frequently marry together. Let then the Catechist inquire how Protestant servants are treated by their Catholic masters, and how Catholic servants behave themselves in Protestant families. Let him also inquire wheth er Catholic women make not as discreet, as virtuous, and faithful wives to their Protestant husbands, or whether Catholic husbands treat not their Protestant wives with as

Preface. xxi

much honour, tenderness, and good manners, as Protestants themselves. For if he cannot inform himself of any remarkable irregularities in the conduct of Catholic servants, or masters, wives, or husbands, towards their respective Protestant masters, or servants, husbands, or wives, then I hope he will have some remorse of the scandalous calumny he has published of us, viz. That the very principles of our religion bind us to observe no faith, or truth, or common honesty with Protestants.

I know that they, who are personally acquainted with some Roman Catholics and have a real value for them, yet continue under the ge«eral prejudices they have sucked in almost with their milk, are wont to answer, that if all Papists were like such and such a one, whom they know to be a very honest man,, they should have nothing to say against them. It seems then that such Papists as are person illy known hy Protestants are very honest men. But those, whom they know nothing < f , are all knaves, and void of common honesty. Perhaps this is the true reason why we are so black in the Catechist's eyes, and there may be room to pray to God to forgive him, because he knows not what he says.,

I shall here resume, for a moment, the subject of perjury j a sin hateful both to God and man. Yet the Catechist, charges us positively with it, as a thing of which we are so far from making any scruple, that we may think it wholly blameless, nay, necessary in. many cases. But it will be hard to determine, whether this accusation l>e more repugnant to truth or common sense, unless we are all ^supposed to be madmen. For it is notoriously known, that (excepting a few Protestant non jurors) we are the only persons in Great Britain, that have suffered by refusing oaths ; and have suffered grievously by it rather than incur the guilt of being perjured.. Yet forsooth, our priests can dispense with perjury, tf the Catechist is to be bellSVed. Can any thing in nature be more absurd ?

No man can be so great a stranger to the English constitution as not to know, that taking certain oaths qualifies a man in the eye of the law for any preferment, military or civil : as the army, the navy, the bench, the bar, the court, the parliament: in a word, for any place of honour, proSt, or trust j so that if we had but conxxii

Preface.

sciences large enough to swallow a few oaths, we might not only deliver ourselves in a trice from the innumerable vexations we are under, but enjoy all the advantages of free-born subjects, and be upon an equal footing with the best Protestants in the nation. — And why then do we refuse to do it, if our church can dispense with perjury ? It is such an unintelligible riddle, that neither reason nor religion can account for it. Yet we are told by the Catechist, that our priests cannot only dispense with unlawful oaths, but that the very principles of our religion, leave no hope of salvation to them, who will not even at their deaths take the greatest untruth upon their salvation, if the Catholic cause may be helped by it, page 29. And would not the Catholic cause be helped (as he calls it) by our qualifying ourselves for places of profit and trust, which nothing but our abhorrence of perjury hinders us from doing ? It is therefore a ridiculous calumny to say we have a dispensation "for lieing and swearing, when the very dread of incurring the guilt of it, is the principal occasion of our temporal ruin.