New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. SATURDAY, JANUARY 16, 1875. THE 'OTAGO GUARDIAN.'

New Zealand Tablet, Volume II, Issue 90, 16 January 1875, Page 5

New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. SATURDAY, JANUARY 16, 1875. THE 'OTAGO GUARDIAN.'

Tnis Journal, in its issue on the 6th inst., says many things in reference to us and others, which are not true, and for which its Editor lias not condescended to adduce even the shadow of a proof. His readers, no doubt, attach great importance to all he has written ; and not improbably regard his estimate of us as (correct. But, we trust his. triumph, if, indeed, such a thing exists in any shape, will be short-lived ; and that honest men, even among his own supporters; will demand the production of evidence before they finally make up their minds that the New Zeaxajtu Tablet is painfully conspicuous amongst its compeers for its illiberality of sentiment, and for the- aggressive feeling

which it displays agaiusfc those who honestly differ from itself. " The two points," continues our contemporary, " for which it is most noticeable, are its fierce antagonism to Freemasonry, and its bitter denunciations of all and. sundry whose opinions do not happen to harmonise in all respects with its own." Our answer is, that antagonism to Freemasonry, so far from being a proof of " illiberality of sentiment," and of an, " aggressive feeling," affords a strong argument of r our being neither illiberal nor aggressive. Our hostility to Freemasonry arises from our detestation of tyranny and aggression. Freemasonry is the most tyrannical and aggressive of societies. Without going further, the fearful oaths imposed by this society more than sufficiently prove its tyranny ; and its never ceasing assaults on the Church establish, beyond the possibility of a doubt, that it is essentially and fundamentally aggressive. But the ' Guardian' charges us with giving currency to " absurd and monstrous misstatements, and pledging our reputation to the authenticity of spurious Masonic oaths, binding the fraternity to compass the subversion of the Christian faith, and the overthrowal of monarchial institutions," and thinks this an adequate reply to out serious charges against Freemasonry, aud an overwhelming proof of our illiberality and aggressive spirit. The fact is, however, that we have not made any misstatement whatever, and have rot published anything spurious in reference 'o Freemasonry. In all our writings as to this society, we have always been most carpful to give our authority for every statement made by us. We have given the names of the authors from whom we quoted, most accurately ; and and also the chapter, page, <£c, &c. These authorities have also been, for the most part, high Masonic authorities, such, for example, as Coitrs philosopliiqua et inierpretatif cles Initiations anciennes et mordernes, and VOrthodoxie Ilagonnique, both written by Brother # * # K.ioois". whom the French Masons have styled The Sacred Author of Freemasonry ; Ekides Historiqtiis et Philosophises sur les trois grades de la Maqonneric Symholiqwi, by Brother # * # Redahes ; Le Monde JUJn^onniqiie. We have also quoted from the works of Monsignor de JSeguu and De S-Unt-Albiit, who are most careful to prove their statements from official documents and treatises, -written by Freemasons, which are recognised as authentic by the Freemason Society. The Editor of the ' Guardian' says, " It is rather improbable that a society to which Kings and Princes account it an honor to belong, should entertain the atrocious sentiments so freely and so falsely ascribed to it by the ' Tablet,' " and he fancies that this disproves all we have said. The Erlitov of the ' Guardian' is to be pitied for his simplicity. Why, the fact is, these Kings and Princes are mere dupes — phantoms, as they are called in the circular drawn up by the Chief Illuminated Masons, after the Masonic Congress, which had been held at Wilhelmsbade. And Brother Francis %*% Favre, Essai H'tstorique et PhilosopJiique, p CIL, says that Princes have decreed to themselves the title of its protectors, and that Freemasonry will accord to them freely the title of Grand Masters, but that it will remain fermes — closed against its Grand Masters and protectors: tuat their vanity may be satisfied, but that the secre+s of Freemasonry shall never be communicated to them. There has been no misstate men t made by us, and wo have published nothing spurious. Throughout our controversy with the ' Guardian,' and in all we haye N written on the subject of Freemasonry, we have not set down anything untrue, or even exaggerated. It would have been well had the * Otago Guardian ' followed this good examnle ; but, even in the very leaderwith which we are just now concerned, there is more than one instance of carelessness, or bad faith, or recklessness. For example, the ' Guardian' says, "Aud the mere circumstance that Pio Ncm> (himself at one time a member of the craft.)." — What will every honest, caufid ir.a i think < f this ? Now, for the third time, the ' Otago Guardian' has repeated this calumny. On two previous occasions we ■disproved this statement of the ' Guardian,' on a third, we give the denial of Pio Noiro himself, and yet the ' Guardian' repeats this lie, which Avas first spread abroad by Hazzixi in 1847, and which has been denied and disproved a thousand times since, as if there had never been a denial or disproval. Is there any language expressive and strong enough to adequately characterise and denounce such conduct as this ? The ' Guardian' says we have displayed intolerance. In one sense, we plead guilty to this charge. We are intolerait of a lie, and shall continue tc be so ;

but we are not, and never have been, intolerant of truth, or freedom of speech, or fair discussion ; and we call upon our contemporary to publish what he conceives to be proofs of our intolerance ; but let him give our own words. By Ihcse we arc content to be judged. - Hitherto it has not boon the custom of the ' G-uardian' to let its readers hear ourselves speak ; but, following the bad example of the ' Bruce Herald,' instead of allowing us to speak for ourselves, our contemporary has preferred to favor the public with his own gloss, which so far from truly representing us, has grossly misrepresented us. The ' Guardian' continues, " The statement made by us in a former article, respecting the action taken by Pope vSixttjs IV. regarding the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, is strictly accurate, as every student knows." Our coutemporaiy is in error. And, instead of being strictly accurate, the statement alluded to is not only inaccurate, but absolutely false. Here is the statement : — " Pope Sixojtjs IV. . . declared in 1470 that this" — the Immaculate Conception — " was a matter which might be decided either one way or the other with equal advantage." There is really no truth whatever in this statement of the ' Guardian.' Pope Sixtus IV. did not make any such statement in 1470, or any other year. Letjthe Editor of the ' Guardian' give his authority for his statement ; let him, if he can, refer the public to the document in which Pope Sixirs TV. made the declaration. We deny, absolutely, that the Pope ever used the words attributed to him, or any simile r words. The statement of the * Guardian' is entirely untrue. Our contemporary concludes thus :—": — " If our contemporary is wise in his generation (and we thiuk he is) he "will pursue a different course henceforth ; and adopt the policy of conciliation rather than that of aggression." This is good, indeed, coming as it idoes from the ' Guardian,' which hardly ever loses an opportunity of publishing calumnies, as even in the present instance, against Catholics, tlie Church, and the Holy Father. It appears to us that his idea of conciliation amounts to ttis, that to conciliate the Editor of the ' G-uardian' we should allow him to j publish all sorts of calumnies against Catholics without daring to contradict him ; and that his idea of aggression, so far as we are concerned, is an effort on our pert 'to correct falsehood, clear up misunderstandings, explain our dogmas, which we ought to understand better than those who give so many proofs of knowing little or nothing about them, and prevent such journals as the ' Guardian,' from attributing to Popes what they never said. The ' Guardian' says that we are noticeable for our " bitter denunciations of all and sundry whose opinions do not harmonise in all respects with our own." But the Editor has not given any references, has not quoted any passages from us in proof or illustration of his general and sweeping charges ; and, until he does so, we take the liberty of saying that his charges are without foundation. There are a great many whose opinions differ from ours, whom we have never attacked, to whom we have never even alluded. For example, there are several religious journals, and some secular ones too, in this colony which contain very much with which we do not agree, and yet so far from denouncing them, the .New Zealakd Tablet has never even alluded to them. Our principle is to respect every nan's honest opinion, even though we may deplore its unsoundness and danger. But calumnies we must neither respect nor tolerate, and we cannot but repel the assaults made upon Catholicity openly and covertly by its enemies, particularly by the members of the secret societies, which are at present so bitterly hostile and indefatigable iv their efforts to inflict injury on it. Our attitude from the beginning has been that of self-defence, and this it is which the ' Guardian' calls aggression and bitter denunciation. The fact is, the Editor of the ' Guardian' claims the light to publish every species of falsehood against us and all -we hold most dear, and regards himself as the victim of intolerance when we deny his statements, and^call attention to his unfairness and incorrect theological knowledge. In his estimation, liberality authorises him to say whatever he fancies, and forbids us to endeavor to set him right, and put the public on their guard against him. Fairplay, in his judgment, means that he should be absolutely free, and that we should be absolutely slaves And so excited is he at the idea of being called to account for his untruths and injustice, that he has actually the hardihood to threaten us. What is it that he ha* in store, what is he about to do ? We are somewhat curious on this point. But we suppose, to use a hackneyed phrase, videbvmus infra.