inging his adversary into contempt and odium with the British Public.

Moreover, there is a stake at issue--no offence either to Rome or
Geneva; liberty of thought, speech, and writing; freedom, political and
social. The question is, whether Britons shall be subjugated to a
priesthood and a foreign power--and not only that, but whether, by
receiving the religion of Rome, we may not engage ourselves to accept
the institutions of Naples. Which question it is not likely that Britons
will discuss dispassionately; and moderation may be inculcated to those
who are at issue upon it with about as much hope as gentleness and
forbearance may be preached to the belligerents in Moldo-Wallachia.

MR. CAPES complains of "a certain class of objects" of Roman Catholic
faith and affection being "made the subjects of scorn, ridicule, and
reviling." Very bad taste this on the part of Protestant buffoons. But
since, if the objects alluded to are worthy of reverence, any insult
that may be offered to them can hurt nobody but the scoffer, surely such
bad taste ought not to annoy MR. CAPES further than by exciting in his
mind a painful anxiety for the fate of those who are guilty of it.

Let MR. CAPES consider what manner of persons those are who are vexed by
having their persuasions derided. They are not those who believe that
two and two make four; no, but those who believe that two and two make
something else. They are those who believe what MR. CAPES believes; and
those who believe themselves to be Kings or Deities.

Alluding to a particular tenet, which to Protestants appears contrary to
common sense, MR. CAPES says--

"Let not such a doctrine be made the subject for jesting, scoffing,
contemptuous sneers, or those still more revolting attempts at
convincing us that we are fools, which the followers of Exeter Hall
occasionally adopt."

It seems strange that the attempt to convince MR. CAPES that he is a
fool should be still more revolting to him than the derision of what he
esteems most holy. But, not to dwell on this point, how, we may ask, if
a dogma is absurd, is it possible to convince a man that it is so
without at the same time convincing him that he is a fool for believing
it? To use a rather West British form of speech, we are sure that any
wise man who differs from MR. CAPES would be much obliged to that
reverend gentleman for proving to him that, in respect of that
difference, he was a fool.

*