to observe to you, that much of your charge is unfounded. You describe the ambassadors as addressing the pope as Lamb of God; the historian describes them as addressing Christ, the Lamb of God: You leave your readers to suppose that it was a mere matter of ceremony; the historian informs us, that it was an appeal made in a moment of great distress to the feelings of the pope, by bringing to his mind the supplicatory address in the mass to Christ the Lamb of God: You leave your readers to suppose that the address was favourably received; the historian shows that it was indignantly rejected. A subsequent pope told one of his flatterers: "Petrus non eget mendacio vestro; vestrå "adulatione non eget. Peter hath no need of your "untruth; no need of your adulation."

I am old enough to remember the commemoration at Stratford-upon-Avon, when with the full applause of English nobility, gentry, and clergy, beauty and wealth, assembled at it in numbers, an immense orchestra vociferated: '

""Tis he! 'tis he!

"The god of our idolatry!

Shakespear! Shakespear! Shakespear ! ”

"AGNUM DEI SALUTANTES, illa etiam ex altaris mysteriis verba supplices effarentur,-"Qui tollis peccata mundi, mise66 rere nostri:-Qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nostri:"Qui tollis peccata mundi, dona nobis pacem. Pontificem "respondisse, Panormitanos agere quod fecissent qui cùm "Christum pulsarent, eundem regem judæorum salutabant, "re hostes, fando salvere jubentes." Pauli Emilii Veronensis Historici Clarissimi, De rebus gestis Francorum. Liber x. Chronicon de iisdem regibus ex Pharamundo usque ad Henricum ii. fol. 328.

A divine might have frowned, a philosopher might have smiled at this mummery; but seriously to charge the shouting multitude with deifying Shakespear, would have been preposterous.

Thus I dispose of the criminations in your present chapter: You must excuse me for believing, that, if I had the command of more time, and a greater library than fall to my lot, I might discover other inaccuracies in the present chapter of your work. Be that as it may, permit me to request you will say, if you conscientiously believe that there is now a single catholic, who can justly be charged with the monstrous and blasphemous doctrines with which you attempt in this part of your work to brand us. Think of the Gallican declaration in 1682, which, so far as respects the independence of the secular on the spiritual power, in temporal concerns, is recognized by the whole roman-catholic world;-think of the opinions of the foreign universities, obtained by the direction of Mr. Pitt ;-think of the oaths taken by the English, the Irish, and the Scottish catholics* ;-think of their conduct;-then declare. explicitly, whether as a man, as a gentleman, or as a christian, you can, fairly and honourably, thus malign us?

I shall close this letter by a transcription of the following publication :-I hope it will vindicate us, in the opinion of all its readers, from the prelatic charges to which it refers.

* See the Appendix.

x. 6.

5.-Defence, by a Roman-catholic Divine, of the Romancatholic Church against Charges brought against her by the present Bishop of Winchester.

In the life of Mr. Pitt, recently published by doctor Tomline, the bishop of Winchester, a short account is given of the passing of the act of 1791, for the relief of the English roman-catholics; it occasioned considerable surprise among the catholics, and produced, from a secular clergyman of their communion, the following letter to his lordship:

"In your lordship's Memoirs of the Life of Mr. Pitt, vol. 2, p. 400, occurs the following passage: "A petition had been presented to the House "of Commons, on the 7th of May 1789, by certain persons calling themselves catholic dissenters, implying by that title, that they did not believe all "the tenets generally maintained by roman-catholics. The petitioners stated, that they and other "papists were subject to various penal laws, on ac"count of principles, which they were supposed to

entertain, dangerous to society, and totally repug"nant to political and civil liberty, and therefore

66

they thought it due to their country and to them"selves publicly to disclaim and protest against the "five following doctrines :--1. That princes ex"communicated by the pope, or by any authority "of the see of Rome, may be deposed or murdered

66

66

by their subjects or other persons:-2. That implicit obedience is due to the orders and decrees "of popes and general councils, even if they require open resistance to government, the subver"sion of the laws and liberties of the country, and "the extermination of all persons not professing "the roman-catholic religion:-3. That the pope, "by his spiritual power, can dispense with the obligation of any compact or oath :-4. That not only the pope, but even a priest has power, at his "will and pleasure, to pardon sins, and, consequently, can absolve from the guilt of perjury, "rebellion and high treason:-5. That faith is "not to be kept with heretics*."

66

66

*"These five doctrines are to be found in the decrees of "councils, and other authentic documents of the church of "Rome, and have always been considered as forming part of the "faith of papists." Note in the Bishop's Life of Mr. Pitt.

one.

"Allow me to observe, my lord, that the account given above, so far from being accurate, contains a gross misrepresentation, which, from respect to your lordship, I am willing to believe is not a wilful It is true, that the petitioners in 1789 styled themselves catholic dissenters. It is equally true, that many catholics objected to the title assumed by the petitioners; and for this reason, that they conceived the term dissenters to be appropriate to those who deserted the antient faith in the sixteenth century, not to such as were inheritors of it in the present times. But no thinking man before your lordship ever insinuated, that the petitioners were

dissenters from other catholics, in respect to the doctrines against which they protested.

"Neither did the petitioners insinuate, that the tenets which they disclaimed were maintained by any other catholics whomsoever: They knew indeed that such tenets had been imputed to other catholics, as well as to themselves; but as they were petitioning for themselves only, they confined the disclaimer to themselves.

"It is not, however, of these inaccuracies, but of the note which follows them, that the catholics chiefly complain*. The statement in that note is not only erroneous in point of fact, but is calculated to make on the public mind an impression most injurious to their interests, by representing them as members of a church which inculcates, "as part "of its faith," doctrines subversive of civil allegiance and moral duty; doctrines not to be tolerated by any government, nor in any society, On what this representation may be grounded, few readers of the Memoirs will stay to inquire; they will adopt it as true on the authority of the writer.

"The catholics deny that the five doctrines in question ever formed part of their faith. They challenge your lordship to prove your assertion; they call on you to produce, if you can," the de

66

crees of councils, and the authentic documents of "the church of Rome, in which they are to be "found." If you cannot, they trust you will have the courage to come forward, and with the honesty

* See note in italics in the preceding page.