“If,” said he, “the Roman Catholic religion were to regain its ascendency to-morrow, it would leave our entire code of laws, liberties, and privileges just as it found them; it is one of the many calumnies with which our Church is continually treated, to say that she would act otherwise:  and were it not so, I would immediately desert her.”

The Catholic priest did not look well pleased with this frank avowal.

“I quite believe you,” said our host.  “I believe you are too much of an Englishman to say or to act otherwise.”

“So do I,” said the Deist; “I moreover agree with you, that, if the Roman Catholic religion were to regain her ascendency to-morrow, she would leave all our privileges intact; but would she the next day, and the day after that?  In other words, is it an essential principle with her to persecute,—­as in this instance, to imprison for peeping between the leaves of the Bible,—­or is it not?  Do you think, Signor, that in such acts the principles of your Church are complied with or violated?”

The Italian gentleman looked perplexed; he presumed that the Catholic Church complied with the actual laws of every country; and if such Country chose to deny religious liberty, the Church did not deem it requisite to declare opposition.

“I fear that is no answer to my question,” cried the other, a little cavalierly.  “It cannot serve you, Signor.  It would not, indeed, serve you anywhere for we know the anxiety with which Rome has expressly secured, in her recent concordat with Spain, the recognition of the most intolerant maxims.  But least can it serve you in the Papal States, where, unluckily for your observation, the Pope is monarch.  Your remark would imply that your Church favored the principles of religious liberty rather than otherwise, but did not deem it right to oppose the will of civil governments.  Are we to understand by that, that the chief of the Papal States abhors as a Pope what he does as a sovereign? that in the one capacity he protests against what he allows in the other?  No, no,” continued this brusque assailant, “It is too late to talk in that way.  If the Church of Rome really approve of religious liberty,—­of such principles as those which govern England,—­where are her protests and her efforts against intolerance and persecution where she still retains power?  It is the least that humanity can expect of her.  If not, let her plainly say that, when she regains power in England, she will reform us to the condition of Spain and Italy in this matter.  For my part, I frankly acknowledge, that I have more respect for a Roman Catholic who proclaims that it is inconsistent for his Church to tolerate where it has the power to repress, because I see that that is her uniform practice, and therefore ought to be her avowed maxim.”

The Roman Catholic priest, who is a devoted admirer of Father Newman, said that he thought so too; and quoted some candid recent admissions to that effect from certain English Roman Catholic periodicals.  “To employ,” said he, “the very words of a recent convert to us from the Anglican Church, ’The Church of Rome may say, I cannot tolerate you; it is inconsistent with my principles; but you can tolerate me, for it is not inconsistent with yours.”