Untitled

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXIII, Issue 33, 13 December 1895, Page 2 (Supplement)

I'nhke the se-i ie>, of addresses on " The Hindrances to the Re-union of Chiistendom," Dr Littledale's extraordmaiy assertions are seemingly substantiated by a formidable array ot quotations in the shape of proofs from the fathers, Catholic thoologians, ascetical, and other wntors. Now, to make this crushing ai ray -till more crushing, he actually cited chapter and vtr^e tor marly ail proofs or quotations. For a shoit time all went well, until able men, like the present successor of Cardinal Newman m the Church of the Oratory at Birmingham, Dr R)der, showed more clearly than noon-day th it the proofs given by Dr Liuledale were simply worthless because they had no foundation in tact. In his masterly reply to " Plain Reasons," which he published in the same shape and iorm, this learned oratonan literally pulverises the strong fabric which Dr Littledale had reared on a lying foundation. So vigorously and thoroughly did another author, Mr Aubrey

Shipley, expose the untruthfulness and bitter unfairness of Dr Littledale in a pamphlet he wrote, called " Why Ritualists do not become Roman Catholics," that the English Church Union, though it was brought out under its auspices, felt it-elt bound, in sheer love of tiuth and justice, to withdraw it from cuculation.

Dr Liuledale, "the mendacious writer " as he had been justly called, has seen his plain reasons torn to shreds by wiiters both Anglican and Catholic. In his admirable reply to the Anglican Bishop of Ballarat and Canon Potter, the illustrious Archbishop ot Melbourne, brines I orth a ho 5t5 t of Protestant witnesses in condemnation of Dr Littledale's rash statements as to Catholic teaching. Like the Archbishop, 1 intend to produce the testimony, not of Catholic authors, but of Anglicans of the highest standing — and you may remark this is vvh it I have done during the whole course of the lectures which I have been giving for the last nine or ten weeks.

Of course I cannot give you Protestant testimony before Protestantism existed, because, as we know, for a thousand years and more, there were only Catholic writers throughout the civilised, Christianised world, but I have given many a strong proof of Catholic teaching and Catholic practice among our Protestant friends in Great Britain and Ireland since the so-called Reformation.

Now Dr Lee, an eminent clergyman of the Anglican Church, well-known for his historical writings, gave himself the painful task of examining Dr Littledale's " Plain Reasons." He took the trouble to tabulate the errors he detected in " Plain Reasons," even after it was more than once revised and corrected, and these are the facts that he discovered. He found the following mistakes or misstatements, whatever you like to call them : — On stern, stubborn, historical facts, he found no fewer than fifty-one errors ; on facts touching on dogma, he found forty-three ; of wrong quotations from writers on history and canon law, there were twenty-nine; mutilated historical and theological quotations, thirty ; quotations from Fathers, upon which Dr Liuledale had put a meaning totally different from the meaning of the Fathers, twenty-four; passages wherein he confuses the opinion of some Catholics with the defined doctrine of the Church, seventeen ; passages where he assumes as dogmas the current opinions of theologians, seven ; making a total, under all heads, of two-hundred-and-one palpable errors or misstatemonts. Having dtawn his hearers' attention to these obvious errors, Dr Lee snys— listen to the words of this eminent clergyman ot Hie Chinch of England — "had we a body of clergymen with a sound theological education, such a publication must have been met with only a chilling welcome horn those who were duped, and then," he says, "with a howl ot execration as it deserves, I will not directly say more than, having carefully examined it in conjunction with others, the first edition with the last, we have tound it to be manifestly unfair and altogether untrustworthy. I would," he concludes, " that we could regard its author as unintentionally misled and mistaken."

At the close of 1 881, when other editions had come out, Mr. Shir ley Brabazon, another Anglican, g.ive public expression to his opinion of the " Plain Reasons." " A book which has been corrected," he sa)S, "in nearly a hundred acts of misstatements, should have been first submitted to some competent author before being put into pi int. It shakes our confidence in the Society tor Promoting Christian Knowledge (under auspices, I am told, Dr Littledale's " PI un Reasons " had been printed), and it is not creditable that no expression of regret was made by its Committee for the circulation of errors and fictions. Dishonesty in controversy, particularly in religious controversy, even when resulting from the want of necessary inquiry betoiehand, is greatly to be deprecated." I should think it is.

The learned rector of Torrington, in England, Dr. Mossman, wntes thus :—": — " The book appears to me to be written in a most reprehensible spit it, unless exposed and refuted, it is calculated to do grievious harm to the blessed and holy cause ot Christian re-union. The book cannot, of course, mislead an) one who is really acquintcd with ecclesiastical history and dogmatic theology ; but how very few ot its .leaders will know, that it is very little more than a rude congeries of false and etroneous statements taken at second hand which have been exposed and refuted again and again."

Another clergym m of the Church of Kngland, Rev. \V. Hankey, says:—" I should be much obliged if you will allow me, as an Anglican who prefers Dr. Littledale's past to his present v iewb, to express the shame and indignation with which 1 have from _the first regarded the publication of " Plain Reasons. " Since the issue ot translations into French and Italian, the claim of the work to be defensive, not aggressive, can no longer be contended, and considering what manner of men are the vast majority of the Chuich's enemies in France and Italy, 1 protest in the name ot religion, in the name of Christianity, against any such attempt to weaken the hands of the Church." He considered it was weakening the hands of the Anglican Church,

Speaking- of the controversial works of Dr. Littledale, another clergyman says :—": — " In my opinion they are so plainly dictated by ill-feeling aud prejudice, and the rules of good breeding are so consistently ignored by him, that a reader of of any refinement of mind instinctively draws back from one who seems thus rega raters of the firsl primiplei, of Christian morals and ordinary c/iar.tj/." And he says, speaking of "Plain Reasons" in particular, because he speaks of nil the controversial works of Dr. Littledile: — " Entirely negative in character, this is moreover a coarse, vituperative, brutal book, without piety and without justice; a book whose spirit has nothing in union with a holy and upright mind.''

This is the testimony of Protestant authors, mostly clergymen of the Church of England, characterising the work from which the author of " Hindrances to the Re-union of Christendom " derives his teach'ng, and to which he acknowledges his indebtedness for " much valuable information.' 1

I always like to give proofs of any assertions which I make. Now as an instance of the brutal coarseness and palpable falsehood of the information this Anglican clergyman declares himself indebted for. I will show you the way Dr Littledale indulges in these attributes at the expense of the clergymen of his own Church. Listen to what he says of " the practical reasons for conversion 10 Catholicism of so many married clergymen especially." He siys :—"I: — "I have much reason to believe that in not a (p\v instances the motive which prompted the secession of such men is the wish to be permanently free from the moral and religious checks of the clerical profession, and to be at liberty to adopt uncensured the habits of a fast layman." Mo'c than once he was challenged to give some proof of the vile charge which he, a clergyman of the Church of Kngland, had dared to make against his clerical brethren, against the most eminent and illustrious scions of the most illustrious houses of England, Ireland and Scotland, against men like Newman and Manning, and Faber and Wilberforce, and a host of others whose name is legion. Men who had made every sacrifice that the human mind is able to make, who had given up positions of honour, who had given up prospects of a brilliant career in the Church or State, who had made a sacrifice of every home tie and of their dearest friends, and became outcasts for their allegiance to what they deemed the true faith, and this Dr Littledale dares to impugn their motive, and when challenged to give proofs of so atrocious a charge he never dared face the accusation or attempt to substantiate the same.

As the illustrious Archbishop of Melbourne very aptly remarks, "there is no stronger witness against Dr Littledale's 'Plain Reasons ' than Dr Littledale himself." From the year 1880, when the work first came out, to 18S1, he sent no fewer than eighteen apologetic letters to the Protestant Guardian and the Churcli Times, important newspapers which are published in the interests of the Church of England. Each letter was the correcting and retracting of mistakes which had been pointed out before. In a new edition, published in 1 88 1, of his book, there were prefixed twenty-nine pages of closely printed " additions and corrections," mainly the latter. Each page contained about forty-six lines, and each line about ten words, that is to say altogi ther there were some 1^,340 works of errata or mistakes. Suiel\ a liter, u y pi odurtion of such a nature, considering that the book m its entirety does not consist of more than two hundred pages, is a no\elty in the vv iy of literary productions.

Now every new edition contained corrections, but, strange to say, the corrections and revisions we're as inaccurate as the original statements. I ask, dearest in Christ, what can we think of a teacher who dares to use mii h an authority as Dr Littledale to set forth the doctrine ot the Rom, in Catholic Church? What I ask could be a gi cater hindrance to the re-union of Christendom than to repe it mi<li mind icious statements 7 Why not appeal to sound, solid Catholic sources, and there get his information, as any ho'iest, (.iod-feai ing mm should do? If I want to know something about science, about art, painting or sculpture, sh ill I go to those who aie ignorant of the first principles, or who know, but steadily dtn\, the principles of the science or ait I seek to learn something about ? Surely not. If I did, so I should he considered to have lost mv reason or actuated by some unworthy motive.

You readily sec why I have spoken at such length on this subject to show the untruthfulness, the untiustworthincss of the source to which the author ot " Hindrmce-." declares hi 5 indebtedness for so much valuable inlormition.

Now let us examine some ol the assertions which the author makes. There area great in my. The p iges of this pamphlet teem, I repeat, with assertions in support of which he adduces not the iota ot prool. It is impossible to refute .ill within the tew moments at my disposal, foi , as I said this morning, it is a well-known fact one may put inoie questions or raise more objections in ten minute-, than can be answered in as many hours. Well, dearest in Christ, I have undertaken this painful task from a sense of duty. In what I am going to say, I will quote as much as possible Protestant testimony ; I will give my proofs from indisputably eminent men : great writers, great historians, and you will see

wheiher I nm not right in qualifying these addresses as utter nonsense. Dr. Littlcdale I dwelt upon because he is the groundwork of these addresses. He speaks cf Bishop Stros^mi\er, but he forgets to tell you th it although he did speak a^uii-t the opportunity of defining the inf illibility, hi mo>t unph.uiLaliy subsciibe-1 as soon as it vv tsdufiiud.

In the first paragraph of these addresses we re id this sir m^e stat' merit (I hope you will liy to be sei ious whui you heir it) I will read it as it was written, and, I pii-ume, reid :—": — " I only propose," he says, " in this addie-s to <Je il with the iuslituion of the Roman Church, bi c mse the Rom m Catholics were the first to separate from the Church of England, and, as many of you are aware, the popul ir notion that the Church of England was an offshoot from the Rom in Church is quite as fall icious as that the Church of Kngland was ere Ued by Heniy VIII." Now, if we prove that the Church ot England, as it is now existing today, w is created by Henry VIII., what he says (alls to the ground. But we have proved it, and proved it conclusively ; we proved it in our las' lecture, though we then proved it incidentally. "It is clear," he says "at any rate, that the Church of England existed before the Reform ition, or she could not have been reformed, but porlnps it is not so clear th 'it the Reform ition was not one great step by which the authority of the Pope of Rome wis banished from England. The RefoniTit-on was a gradual process, listing many years, during which the English Church freed herself from the unjust usurpation of the Bishop ol Rome and his peculiar Romish doctrines, andieturnedto what she had always been, in theory at least."