fraud and falsehood? or properly exempt from the reprehensions of the meddling, loose, vain, foolish, temporizing, and political priest of Warwick-street? which can never be so well attained, as by their concentration in one united legislative power. Obedience, therefore, to this power, and a ready conformity to the ordinances enianating from it, must be impera- Should these considerations be intive and unquestionably obligatory sufficient to enlighten PECCATIS duties. Peace, order, justice, and OBNOXIUS, divest him of his scruharmony, result from a ready ac- ples, or divert him from the future quiescence, nothing but anarchy, in-indulgence of his inordinate, his enjustice, and mischief from a contrary procedure. tirely artificial appetite, which his luxurious habits have created, I fear any thing I can say of the necessity of shewing a proper degree of " regard and interest for his country," of his "amor patriæ," will have little effect to deter him from the practice. The same may be said of his "amor sui," his own selflove," "self-esteem," or "self-interest;" the "good opinion," the " generally inestimable confidence" of his neighbour! 66 ar The species of property in question P- O ought also to consider, is as much individual and determined property as any other, public or private, possibly can be, and ought to be equally respected. To what authority, let me ask, can he, or does he, look up for the security and protection of his own? Can he, with justice or equity, claim the rights and privileges of a subject, and be at liberty to evade those of Permit me to add a word or two the government, the guardian pro- more. There are many catholics, tector of his own? For to evade, sir, to our shame be it said, who, strain, or do violence, to the laws like PECCATIS OBNOXIUS, are and ordinances regulating and pre- dent admirers of the divine precepts serving the rights and possessions of and observances of the catholic the social and established compact, church," yet "have no scruple to can be viewed in no other light than defraud the revenue whenever pracan act of unjustifiable invasion, and ticable." How, sir, does this arise? an unwarrantable breach of pledged From a deficient youthful educafealty. tion; from the prevalence of enFurther, the expenses of the go-couragement and bad example; vernment or constituted authorities from a love of money and undue must be borne, or it cannot exist. gain; in short, from a wide extendyou shift the burthen from your-ed ignorance of those moral, poliself, you throw the weight on your tical, and religious principles, that more conscientious neighbour; and prohibit the commission, and that thereby loosen the bonds of society, explicitly exhibit the reasons and moinjure the fair dealer, and commit tives for such prohibition. Is it crean act of unjust infliction, in defi-dible that the act of teaching these ance, too, of the divine precepts, principles, in a systematic manner, "Love thy neighbour as thyself," form so scanty a part of our private and "Do unto others as you wish or common school education? them to do towards yourself." Can A judicious catholic treatise on such conduct, such practices, be morals, backed by the sanctions of questionable, or, in any shape, al-religion, to facilitate and secure an lowable? Can they be deemed, by any admirer of the divine precepts of God and his church, free from If acquaintance with their important duties, is, in my humble opinion, a desideratum greatly to be coveted, to the right rev. prelate of the London district, I am bound to say, that as far as I have been able to learn, it appears without his sanction, or even his knowledge. particularly in these times of dege- Now, Mr. Editor, having premised thus much, surely I may be allowed to ask, what object can the publish in view? Are we poor catholics of PATRIÆ AND PROBITATIS this kingdom; catholics, who are Nov. 17, 1820. AMICUS. For the Orthodox Journal. MR. EDITOR-It is not often that I trouble you with any thing from my pen; however, to be silent at this moment and permit this month's Orthodox Journal to appear without a few words, would be to belie my conscience, and do an act of injustice to my feelings. At the beginning of this month, I, as well as many others, was favoured with a printed letter, a copy of the one supposed to have been given in to cardinal Litta, by Dr. Poynter during his residence in Rome in the year 1815. This letter coutains little else, but charges against that venerable pillar of orthodoxy in this kingdom, Dr. Milner, as well as a very lame and awkward attempt to justify what took place at the St. Alban's tavern in February 1810, respecting the ever memorable and ever to be detested fifth resolution. Who has thought proper to send forth this previous morceau, at this moment, I am unable, though I have made many inquiries, to discover for a certainty. It has how ever been hinted to me by a gentleman, who is generally admitted into most of our catholic secrets, that the public are indebted for it, to a certain well known personage in Lincoln's Inn; a person who for his meddling with theological questions and episcopal disputes needs not be mentioned by name. In justice no longer (to use the fawning lan guage of the Stone buildings junto,) a proscribed and degraded race? Are we never to sit down and enjoy the blessings of peace and amity among ourselves? Are we to be for ever torn in twain and disunited, no longer living like brother with brother, because some few lawyers and lawyer's clerks wish to gain themselves a name and a few rounds of applause? Good God! shall this letter, the tocsin of a new intestine war go forth to rouse the slumbering and sleepy to arms; and awaken feelings which had better be for ever steeped in Lethe? Feelings which have heretofore, not only galled the heart, but broken the bond of charity, that should ever have bound us together. Oh forbid it heaven! The letter in question was written in the year 1815-Why has it till now been immured and prisoner-like dungeoned? Was it necessary to pass five years in close deliberation, as to the propriety of bringing it to life and light? "Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus." Oh, the reason is obvious! The would-be theologian of Lincoln's Inn had given to the world a new publication: this, for a time, stalked abroad, making, no doubt, numerous converts to the opinions of its author, from the ease and elegance of the style, and the plausible manner in which every article was brought forward. At length an answer, or ra ther supplement to it, comes forth, from the pen of him, before whom servility, and a wish to barter eter nal for temporal, shrinks with dread. The learned civilian is galled, finding that many flaming articles of his pages are exposed in a very different light, by Dr. Milner. Unable to contradict the assertions of his opponent, unwilling to meet him openly in the field, he has recourse to this paltry underhand way of proceeding, to endeavour to give him battle. A rumour is, I know, afloat, that Dr. M. has received orders from Rome, to cease writing upon catholic affairs. Surely the learned gentleman does not mean thus to expose, and lay charges of the most serious nature against one of the episcopal order; when he knows or thinks that person is forbidden to make a reply. Oh! dedecus, Oh! opprobrium! If such injunctions are laid upon Dr. M., there is not a man in the kingdom, I am sure, who will bow more submissively to them, or receive them with less murmuring. With regard to the letter in question, one thing must strike even the most inattentive observer-either it was favourably or not favourably received, when given in at Rome. If the former, Dr. M. must have been reprimanded for his conduct, and even then desired to desist from writing as he had done before. Still in his suplementary memoirs to C. B., we find him giving the very same account of the St. Alban's meeting as before; an account which differs very materially from that given in by Dr. P. How reconcile these facts? Again, if the latter be the case, why attempt to palm upon the people of England a document ill received at Rome? I wish much some intelligent member of Stone buildings committee would answer these que ries. But Mr. E., the publication of this letter is, in my opinion, nothing less than the harbinger of some plot or scheme soon to open to the injury of the Midland prelate and those who uphold his cause. Thank heaven ! the integrity of his conduct, the orthodoxy of his doctrine, the firmness which he has always displayed in the cause of religion, will be sufficient to endear him to every good and pious catholic, in spite of all the machinations of lawyers, servile sycophants, or fawning clergymen, gaping for power, The queen's case is at an end at last. Emancipation is soon, we are told, to be granted. Oh, then, the first step to please our friends in power must be to publish an eulogium (for the letter of Dr. Poynter is nothing less) upon that resolution, which was declared by the prelates of Ireland, in synod assembled, to be untenable, and inconsistent with the doctrine of the catholic church! Oh! Mr. Editor, if this is the price of the boon, may we never enjoy it; and I, for one among my catholic brethren, protest against it, and say, that the publication of Dr. P.'s let ter was not only unnecessary, but is another instance of the petty mean arts to which people are sometimes driven to support a bad cause. May we rather pine away and groan still a proscribed and degraded race, (notwithstanding the catholic board says we are not) than purchase our freedom and our birthright privileges at so dear a rate. CATHOLICUS. London, Nov. 21, 1820. fixed principles; and if well-mean- the archbishop of Canterbury and ing men sometimes seem to disagree others in council agreed) that our upon subjects of morality, it is be- queen should not be publicly prayed cause the wisest and the best may for, that we exclude her? If we owe err, ether from the absence of due submission to such authority in spi consideration, or from some misap- ritual matters, surely bishop Fisher prehension which discussion might and sir Thomas Moore suffered in detect. I trust, that if I be able to vain. Is it because our marriage inprove sati-factorily, that the princi- stitutions teach, that where a prior ples of morality are injured, and (as claim has existed, conscience rejects I think) essentially injured, by this any other, unless freed by death, and act of exclusion, it will be granted, that we regard such a claim as parathat it is consequently and necessamount to the civil institutions of the rily an irreligious act, since nothing country? To this I answer, there but pure and strict morality can be is but one queen of England, and Caconsonant with the doctrines of reli-roline of Brunswick is that queen. gion and, moreover, this relates.to a part of the service of the church. Loyalty appears also to be violated: Wickliffe and Kuox, and others, have taught that deference was not due to kings and queens who were in a state of sin; but if this were a case in point, (which it is not, for a party, pending trial, must be esteemed innocent) catholic loyalty would admit of no such qualification, and catholic charity would redouble its zeal. uncon Is it because one, who has sworn to love, honour, and cherish," does not wish that the unoffending object of his vow should be prayed for? Is the church service to be made the medium of a compliment to 66 trollable inclinations ?" and ought we to contribute our mite of encouragement to such an unwarrantable wish? All must acknowledge her majesty to be more sinned against than sinning; but though I think her not only an Mr. Editor, what can the advo- unoffending wife, but, with George cates for the exclusion of the queen's Canning, an ornament to society, name from public prayer advance in some differ, or say they differ, from its support? or can they ever have this opinion; I may delight to speak given it any serious consideration? of her virtues, her accomplishments, I have heard some random argu- her beauty; these royal virtues, in ments, and some causes for the mea-particular, which form such a resure have suggested themselves to freshing contrast to the peculiar dismy mind, while seeking an apology positions of her enemies-her enerfor it. Such as they are, I shall sub-gy, candour, courage, magnani mit them to you, with what appears mity, disinterestedness, benevolence; to me their refutation. those accomplishments which render I apprehend that no one will pre-her the "life and grace," as well tend the omission has happened acci- as "ornament of society;" that dentally; that it might have hap. beauty likewise, which, when dispened in like manner had queen Ca- carded by a vitiated taste, shone un roline been the same favoured con- rivalled, and which, when she left sort to George the fourth, that queen this country, was pronounced by a Charlotte was to George the third. connoisseur in the fine arts, of the I will not argue upon this head, be- most distinguished eminence, to be cause I conclude that no one would perfect; and, if the most bitter and maintain such an argument. Is it relentless persecution, continued then because the head of the English through a quarter of a century, and church issued a decree, (to which unprecedented altogether in the ans too time-serving for the dignity of, For the Orthodox Journal. nals of mankind, has lent its barbarous aid to time to rob her majesty of some portion of that beauty, I pity the man who would not look upon her fine, intelligent, royal, countenance with increased interest. But, say the advocates for exclusion, these are your opinions, ours are quite opposite. We, with the timid German chambermaid, (Barbara Kress) and the chaste Italian courier, (Giuseppe Rastelli) are quite ashamed when we hear her majesty mentioned, though we do not shed tears like the former, nor blush so much perhaps as the latter, still our modesty suffers. I have always thought, that before we ventured a judgment upon the feelings of others, we should endeavour to put ourselves and our sentiments entirely out of the question, and exert our utmost to imagine ourselves situated as they are, and thinking as they do. I will try, therefore, to suppose the case to stand thus: that the queen of England were the most degraded being in the universe, and that her royal, injured, and innocent consort had ample cause in worldly estimation to hate her; supposing the case to stand thus, I ask then, are we christians? Are we christians, and could we contemplate, without shuddering, a depth of hatred which would exclude a guilty wife from the supplications of her fellow-creatures to the throne of heaven?tion and exposition of truths, which Could we contemplate this shocking state of mind, not only without shuddering, but, by a pointed and unequivocal silence, minister to its indulgence? If we might do this, we ought not surely to condemn the man, who only administers poison to the body, under the form of a-vened) I would take the liberty to greeable food. Mr. Andrews, implore that upright and conscientious body of men, the catholic clergy of England, to give to the world their reasons for a measure, which appears so much ORTHOD. JOUR. VOL. VIII. MR. ANDREWS,-I have read over the interesting debates and resolves of the general catholic meeting that took place on the 4th of last month, at the Crown and Anchor tavern, as recorded in your Journal; and whether I approve implicitly of all that was said and done on that occasion or not, yet I am sensible that great service was rendered to the catholic cause by the honourable members of that convention, by the declara nothing but the basest and most shameful despotism can wish to conceal from the public. In like manner, (if it be not too late, before the prorogation of the two houses takes place, and another independent meeting could be con recommend to their consideration a nicety, greatly interesting not only to catholics, but to the empire at large; namely, the constant unconstitutional sway which ministers are arrogating to themselves to govern 3 L |