which, being built on the confines of addressed to me I know not: but be Europe and Asia, looking as it were they whom they may, I return them to the eastern and western provinces my sincere thanks, for the early inforof the empire, watching also the Scy-mation they have given me of those thians on the north and the Africans important documents. With respect on the south, he elegantly styles, to addressing his Holiness on his re"the eye of the world, a most pow-turn to the metropolis of the Christian erful city by land and sea, and the world, it was a duty incumbent on link which, in some manner, binds the Catholics of this extended emthe together the east and the west; whi-pire. We, as subjects of the British nterther extremities from all sides run to empire, had contributed largely to the meet, and whence they begin again, restoration of the ancient order of as from a common mart of the faith." things, and we, as spiritual subjects (Oratio 32.) It is certainly difficult of the spiritual kingdom of Christ, to discover any similarity between this were in duty bound to congratulate passage and that of St. Ireneus above our Spiritual Chief on his restoration quoted. But Dr. Grabe was deceived to the power of exercising his spiritual by an equivocation in the Latin trans- authority. That an address, therelation of St. Gregory; for I should fore, should have been drawn up, and be sorry to suspect him of deceit. The presented, must meet with the conLatin translator writes, Ad quam ext currence of every British Catholic. tremi totius terræ fines concurrunt, et But, with respect to the address that a qua, velut a communi Fidei emport, has been drawn up and presented, how incipiunt, which the doctor has many were there of the British Cathctaken to mean, that the faithful went lics that were acquainted either with to Constantinople, from all parts of the intention of presenting an address, the world, as they did to Rome, of or with a single word that was conwhich St. Gregory does not say a tained in the one that was actually word. As to the expression common presented? The entire was a secret mart of the faith, he did not mean to the whole body of the British Ca that Constantinople was the common tholics, till the present address was mart, for he does not use the article made known to the public on this day. the, but a 66 common mart of the It has an aukward appearance this, of faith," which may be said of every presenting an address to a foreign place, where bishops meet, which was power, although only a spiritual power, actually the case with Constantinople, in the name of a great body, and that for the oration, from which the pas great body never to have been consult sage under consideration is quoted, ed, or made acquainted with it. We was delivered before a numerous as- do not read in ecclesiastical history sembly of bishops, who had met in that the affairs of the church were that capital. (To be continued.) ever conducted in that manner. cause of our holy religion is the cause of truth, and truth is always open and undisguised: truth never stands in need of underhand means, or cealed contrivances. However, all this I would willingly look over, were the words of the address in every particular such as could not be objected to without fastidious exactness. Trifles I would not object to, but would rather attribute minor inaccuracies to an error in judgment than to an er ror of intention. But there are gross 0. inc For the Orthodox Journal. MR. EDITOR,-On the 21st of this month I was favoured with a number of the British Press of the preceding day, the 20th, in which was contained a copy of the Address of the Board, calling itself the General Board of British Catholics, to his Holiness Pope Pius the Seventh, and the answer of his Holiness to the same address. By whom the said paper was ORTHOD. JOUR. VOL. III. P The con inaccuracies, such as the great body of British Catholics would never have consented to have been presented in an address of theirs to the centre of accuracy and truth. in a chain of far less value than a golden chain, even the chain of temporal equality and liberty? Where then is this golden chain, knit by the hand of God? It is not the chain of faith; nor is it of hope; nor is it of Christian charity. I acknowledge that the persecuted members of the Catholic faith have received the most liberal support from the government of this country, and from numberless individuals of the Protestant persuasion unconnected with government. But how does this authorize the expres sion, "Fools, they knew not how, under every form, they who call on the name of Christ, are bound by a golden chain, knit by the hand of God," &c.? What is there that can authorize a distinction in this place between Christians and Deists, and even Atheists? Both the one and the other were eager to relieve suffering humanity. The golden chain of religion had nothing to do in the business. It was the chain of benevolence. It was the chain of humanity. And I hope and trust that the blessings of heaven will fall upon those benevolent hearts, who set aside every other chain, and attended only to the claims of distress. What bu In the first place, this sentence, "Fools, they knew not how, UNDER EVERY FORM, they who call on the name of Christ, are bound by a golden chain knit by the hand of God, and which the utmost force of man or demon cannot break," in what sense is it to be understood? I do not condemn it, because it has not been condemned or noticed by the Holy See, to which it was addressed. But what is the meaning of it? The obvious meaning is, that all who call on the name of Christ, of every denomination, from the Catholic to the Socinian, who believes in Christ, without acknowledging his divinity, that all are bound together in one GOLDEN chain, and that this golden chain is knit by the hand of God, and in such a manner that no power either of earth or hell can ever dissolve it. Now what is this golden chain? Is it the chain of faith? By no means: neither the Catholic, nor any member of any of the dissenting sects will acknowledge it. Is it the chain of hope? We all hope in-siness, therefore, had the Board, calldeed for happiness hereafter: but although we all hope individually, yet none will acknowledge, either Catholic or Protestant, that we are all bound together in the same golden chain of hope. Is it the chain of charity? Charity, I acknowledge, is the most universal chain that unites us together. But by whom is this chain knit? Whence does it arise? Does it arise from the principles of religion in those with whom they say that they are united? Do they acknowledge the existence of the chain that is said to be knit between them? Is it not rather the reverse? and do they not declare upon oath that we are idolaters, and consequently excluded from all hopes of eternal happiness, and that moreover we are unworthy to be trusted so far as to be bound with them ing themselves the General Board of British Catholics, to forge a chain, and attribute it to the work of the Almighty; a chain, that never was known to have bound together the Catholics and those who dissent from them, and that never was considered by any, either them or us, as any thing more than a non-entity. I willingly acknowledge that it was an elegant way of trying to bind themselves in one band with those who had temporal emoluments to bestow; but it was a band that had no consistency: it was a band that the opposite side would not consent to be bound by: it was a band, that had neither faith, hope, nor Christian charity for its cement: it was a band that could bind only on the supposition that the distinction of sects was mutually abo lished, and that calling upon the | for that he would be ready to relinname of Christ was alone deemed ne- quish. Eternity would not, for that cessary for salvation. he would be ready to sacrifice for temporary emoluments. Honour would not, for honour (such as it would be) would be lavished on him by all the host of Catholic opponents, and every door would be opened to him to worldly glory and splendour. Such an accusation, therefore, has not truth on its side. And so manifestly must the accusation have appeared in this sense at the Court of Rome, that not a single remark is made on the subject in the answer that has been returned by the Sovereign Pontiff. There is another point, likewise, Mr. Editor, to which I wish to call the attention of your readers. It is the severe lash which is given to those who have dared to dissent from the opinions of this self-constituted Board. It is said, that all the imputations, and all the reproaches which hav been cast upon them, as professors of the Roman Catholic faith, by those who have been the victims of prejudice, have not given them so much pain, as the reproaches of their own brethren, who have not ceased to accuse them as apostates, and as ready to sacrifice their faith to the acquisition of worldly advantages, and for temporal, to barter the eternal.What reason there may be for bringing before the Court of Rome such a serious accusation against those of whom they would willingly be considered the delegates, I cannot tell. I am one of those who oppose their au thority, and I have heard the opinions of many others who are of the same opinion as myself. But I never heard it declared that any of the English Lay Catholics, whether nobility or gentry, were That there had been opposition made to the sentiments of the soi disant General Board, I readily allow. But what has been that opposition? and by whom has it been made? The opposition has been an opposition in sentiment on subjects that were not condemned either as heretical or schismatical. It may be allowed that the danger of schism was apprehended: but an absolute accusation of inten tion of promoting schism was never brought forward against any single individual of the Board. Why then are we to be stigmatized at the Court of Rome of having accused our bre ready to barter the eter-thren of being apostates? We may nal for the temporal. Such an opi- be certainly allowed a difference of nion, I am convinced, was never en- opinion from them. We go for notertained by the most violent opposers thing new. We propose no new plans. of the soi disant General Board. No We form no new modes of discipline. such sentiment, Mr. Editor, was ever We are for old forms. We desire to expressed in your Journal, at least to walk in the beaten path. We are my knowledge; and I can positively fearful of innovation. We suspect declare that I never heard such a sen- the intentions of our enemies, and timent expressed in private company. wish to avoid the possibility of being What then are we to call such a noto- ensnared by keeping within the enrious accusation-an accusation pre- trenchments, in which we know we ferred even to the Court of Rome? have hitherto been secure. We wish Truth it certainly has not on its side: to keep a Protestant Government on for if it had truth, who is there that the outside of the rails of our sancdoes not know the man, who is will- tuary. There is certainly nothing heing to barter the eternal for the tem-retical or schismatical in this, or any Poral, would immediately read his reCantation, and be put at once in posSession of all that he valued most dearly? What is there that would restrain him? Religion would not, ways tending thereunto. Why then is a stigma to be cast on us? Why are we to be accused at the Court of Rome as " Bosom Enemies?" The opposition that we make is reasonable and just, and perfectly consistent with | tainly cannot be required of us that we should suffer them now to under: EDWARD PEACH. the spirit of opposition that has been made in every age of the church against the spirit of novelty. But by whom is this opposition made? By the whole of the venerable hierarchy of Ireland....By the truly pious, learned, and disinterested Dr. Milner,- by the far greater majority of the laity of Ireland, and probably by the great majority of the clergy and laity of England. My sentiments, and those of the Catholics in this neighbourhood were published in your Journal in July last. These are the opponents. A long and venerable list indeed. And these are all denounced at the Court of Rome as BOSOM ENEMIES. Their opposition was termed menaces, as if they had been attempting to introduce innovations, and wished to silence the opposers of novelty by intimidation. Bosom Enemies! Af frighted by Menaces! O Candour! O Sincerity! O Piety! None of you had any concern in accusations of this enormous kind. And for the great majority of British Catholics, clergy and laity, even the whole hierarchy of a large division of the em pire, to be accused of such enormities. even at the Court of Rome, and that by a minority, even by a self-constituted Board, the few members alone whereof were privy to the accusation, SIR,-Two events which have lately oh! what shall we say of it? The happened in France, have giyen occa less said the better. Let the thing sion to a renewal of the old charge of speak for itself. We are all ready to cruelty and fanaticism against our acknowledge that the members of the church, for denying to a certain deBoard are to be ranked, in general, scription of persons, what Protestants among the nobility and gentry, and term a Christian burial," but should that the Catholic religion is much in-call" Catholic burial." One of those debted to their liberality for its pre- events relates to Mademoiselle Rausent dignity in this island. We know court, a French actress, whom the that they have done wonders during curate of St. Rock refused to bury; the last twenty years: and we, as re- the other, to the cclebrated Lady Ha presentatives of our flocks, return milton, who died near Calais, and them our most sincere thanks, and of- whom the newspapers tell us, her fer up our most sincere prayers to God friends were not permitted even to that he would bestow on them in re- bury in a decent place, nor with a turn every blessing both temporal and coffin. These last circumstances, with eternal. But because they have so ef- regard to the English lady, I do not fectually contributed to the support of credit. Though the laws of the country the church for so long a time, it cer- did not allow her to be interred in a 3 CATHOLIC BURIAL. To the Editor of the Orthodox Journal. 66 way, the Catholic Church excludes from her funeral rites, those who die unbaptised, those who, although baptised, either separated from her communion, or were retrenched from it, the apostates and the excommunicate, and public scandalous sinners, known to have died impenitent. Voltaire was one of this last description. When the Archbishop of Paris was traduced as a fanatic and a bigot, for refusing to bury that notorious infidel, his answer was, that it would be a mockery of the solemn rites of Catholic burial, which all allude to the resurrection of the dead, and a middle-state previous to it, to perform them on the corpse of a man, who not only did not believe those doctrines, but had so often combated and ridiculed them. Mademoiselle Raucourt died under Catholic church-yard, yet neither magistrates nor priests could forbid her friends to provide a coffin, and a decent grave for her. I have been a witness to the burial of Protestants abroad; their friends had even liberty to recite over them any form of service they chose. If this was allowed to merchants and prisoners, is it probable that the illustrious lady met with no better fate after her death, than to be (6 put into a sack and cast into a hole?" From the same source of information, however, I learn, that soon after this shocking treatment, her body was taken up by her friends, laid into a coffin, and conveyed to England. Were not these the same friends who had been with her when she died? I understand they are. Why then could they not obtain a coffin at first? If the magistrates had once refused it, an excommunication, and was therefore and ordered her body to be put into a denied Catholic burial, which cannot, sack, and cast into a hole, it is pro- consistently with reason, and the aposbable they would have condescended tolic discipline of our church, be to recal their sentence? granted to persons who depart this But why not bury her in the church-life out of the Catholic communion. yard of the parish, and with the usual My object is not to justify that awful ceremonies? For the same reason, we punishment pronounced in France may answer our Protestant friends, against persons ascending the stage; that the rubric of the Church of Eng- suffice it to say, that this excommuniland forbids the office for the burial cation is traced to a canon of the of the dead, to be used for any that great council of Arles, held in the year die excommunicate." Dr.Paul Wright, 314, eleven years before the general the editor of the New and Complete council of Nice." The canon is this, Family Prayer-book, in folio, ex-" concerning theatrical men, it has plaining this Rubric, says,' To such seemed good to us, that they should also as die under the great excommunica- be separated from the communion, as tion, as it is expressed in the canon, long as they act in that capacity." the Catholic church has ever denied De theatricis et ipsos placuit, quamChristian burial; the intent of whichdiu agunt, a communione separar.” is, to bring the excommunicate to seek Can. 5. At this council were present, the absolution and peace of the two hundred bishops, many of whom Church before he leaves the world, had confessed the faith during the last and if not, to distinguish him by this persecutions under the Roman empe mark of infamy, from an obedient|rors. and regular Christian," p. 197. The Church of England, besides ", the excommunicate," excludes two descriptions of persons from her burial service-those who die unbaptized, and those who have laid violent hands on themselves. Upon the same principle, though not applied exactly in the same The celebrated comedian, Mo liere, in conformity to this discipline, had also been deprived after his death, of the rites of the church. As for Lady Hamilton, she never belonged to the communion of the Catholic church, never believed her doctrines; therefore, for Protestants to complain, that the priest of the pa |