Weights, c. 19. p. 127) “there might be jealousy of offence in having images in Churches before idolatry was quite rooted out: of which afterwards there might be no appearance." The Council of Elvira, venerable and of considerable authority, prohibited for a time the use of images, because in those parts idolaters swarmed, &c.: but it did not teach that the use and veneration of them was unlawful, the fear of idolatry, scandal, &c. being removed.-Ergo, &c. Pope Gregory, in his letter to Serenus, Bishop of Marseilles, only prohibited the paying of latria, or divine honour, to images: "adorare non licet." In his letter to Secundinus, he manifestly speaks the doctrine of the Church. He says, (L. ix. Indic. 2, Epist. 52) we send thee the Cross, not to adore, but that, by means of it, thou mayest be excited to sweet recollection, love," &c.

Again, the Council of Constantinople, A. D. 754, which Mr. F. places in opposition to that of Nice, was not a General Council, nor a Council of the Church of Rome. It was devoid of all the requisite conditions constituting a General Council; it was assembled by the fanatic Constantine, son of Leo the Iconoclast, and consisted of a few intimidated Bishops, (Fleury, T. 9) all creatures of the Emperor, who himself presided: it consisted not of Bishops from all parts of Christendom; none were there from the Patriarchal sees of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem: those who attended were under the influence of fear, were not convened by canonical authority, &c. The Council of Frankfort, A. D. 794, (not a General Council) and Books styled Caroline, written by the pen or in the name of Charlemagne, condemned what they imagined was the decision of the second Council of Nice. The words of the Frankfort synod are these: "The question was brought before us of the Nicene Council concerning images; in which it was written that those who do not give to the images of Saints service or adoration, as they do to the Blessed Trinity, shall be anathema. This we utterly condemn." The Caroline Books say the same. The best critics tell us that the Council of Frankfort and the author of the Caroline Books laboured under the same mistake concerning the doctrine of the Nicene Council, and this was caused chiefly by the faults of their Latin translations of the decisions of the Council, and particularly in rendering the words of Constantine, Bishop of Cyprus, who said, (in the 2nd Nicene Council,

Art. 3.) "I consent and agree; receiving and embracing honourably holy and venerable images; and I give that adoration, which is Latria, to the Blessed Trinity only."

But the old Latin translation was faulty; of which the author of the Caroline Book says, (L. iii. c. 17) "I need not many words to prove how rashly and foolishly it was said by the Bishop of Cyprus, with the approbation of the rest, that "he will honourably receive and embrace images, and give them the service and adoration which is due to the Blessed Trinity," &c.

Mr. Thorndyke says again, (Epil. Par. iii. p. 363) "Whoever wrote the Caroline Books did understand the Council to enjoin, that the worship due to God should be given to the image of our Lord. But it is not to be denied, that it was a mere mistake."

Mr. Faber has still, then, to prove, that General Councils have contradicted each other in doctrinal points. He tells us, (Pref. p. 14) that "he was unwilling to waste his time and his strength in mere ephemeral controversy, talked of to-day and forgotten to-morrow, and therefore he endeavoured to impress on his work the character of permanent utility." From the specimens I have already produced, the sincere lover of truth will smile at the idea of the " permanent utility" of Mr. Faber's "Difficulties," and will conclude, though its fond author cannot think his work " ephemeral," that it is even now ready for the tomb of the Capulets, and the Rector of Long-Newton may string together a few elegiac verses as its epitaph! I am, Mr. Editor, your sincere well-wisher. PHILALETHES.

ERRATA.

In No. 51, page 438, for stiled read styled.

page 439, for stiles read styles.

FRIENDS OF CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.

At a Meeting of the General Committee, held at the Committee Room, Chapter house Court, St. Paul's Church-yard, on Tuesday evening last, the letter sent by the Secretary to Edward Blount, Esq. communicating to that Gentleman the vote of thanks passed to him at a former meeting of the Committee was read, together with the answer received by the Secretary from Mr. Blount.-It was then proposed by Mr. D. SULLIVAN and seconded by Mr. D. O'KEEFE, that the two letters just read be sent to The Truthteller for insertion.

Proposed by Mr. NANGLE, and seconded by Mr. DIAS SANTOS, That the Secretary of each Auxiliary Society do, as soon as possible, furnish the Secretary of the General Committee with a list of the names of such Catholic Clergy, Nobility, and Gentry, as are resident in the vicinity of their Society, to whom the circular adopted at a late Meeting should be

sent.

Proposed by Mr. DIAS SANTOS, and seconded by Mr. JORDAN, That all donations arising from the circulars to be so sent, shall be at the disposal, of the General Committee, who shall render a public account of the same in the Monthly Balance Sheet.

Proposed by Mr. M'CAFFRY, and seconded by Mr. GILIGAN, That a de-, putation of the following Gentlemen, Messrs. Andrews, Dias Santos, Nangle, and Beckwith, be appointed, for the purpose of establishing an Auxiliary Society in the eastern part of the metropolis, in accordance with a communication received from that quarter.

Proposed also, by Mr. DIAS SANTOS, and seconded by Mr. GILIGAN, That the publication submitted to the General Committee this evening, called "Popish Pinching Irons," be adopted as a tract for distribution, The above Resolutions were separately put and carried unanimously.

LETTER TO MR. BLOUNT.

'SIR,-As Secretary to the General Committee of the Friends to Civil and Religious Laberty, it is my duty (a gratifying one) to transmit to you a copy of a Resolution passed unanimously at a Meeting held on Friday, the 22d inst. on which occasion it was moved by Mr. Grady and second by Mr. Rolph,

"That, impressed with a belief that the exercise of the elective franchise by the Forty-shilling Freeholders of Ireland, at the late general election, was patriotic, constitutional, and uncontrolled. Highly sensible of the importance of advocating and maintaining the rectitude of such belief-and, above all, inef fably grateful to every British subject who maintains the inalienable right of electors to vote according to their conscientious scruples; the General Committee of the Friends to Civil and Religious Liberty are unanimous in the opinion, that their thanks are eminently due, and are hereby given, to Edward Blount, Esq. for his most able, virtuous, and sound defence of the conduct of the said Forty-shilling Freeholders, in his late letter of reply to Wilmot Horton, Esq.”. Having thus performed (I fear imperfectly) the official duty required of me, I hope, Sir, I may presume on your known attachment to the Catholic cause, to offer some observations relative to those against whom we have to contend in' the prosecution of our claims. I am the more anxious to do this from the con viction that a much closer union would exist between the Aristocracy and the general body of the Catholics, did they view the conduct of their opposers in the same defined light. A desire to forward this in some measure induces me to obtrude the following remarks on your notice, and should I fail in effecting any part of this object, I hope Sir, your urbanity will prompt you, for the sake of the motive, to pardon this trial of your patience.

Varied as are the attacks made on us, our adversaries may be reduced to two classes.

1st-Those who are conscientiously opposed to us from early prejudices and misconception of our principles; and

2ndly-Such as are biased by feelings of an interested nature, and a fear that the admission of Catholics to a participation in national privileges would circumscribe and interfere with their own selfish views and narrow-minded policy. The first class includes, with some of the Nobility and Gentry, the great bulk of our antagonists.

The second comprehends a limited part of the Aristocracy and their de

pendents of every description; persons who, to secure professional advancement or the favours of a great man, would become, in the expression of their opinions, the echoes of their patrons. To point out a system at once calculated to gain over both classes as friends (were it desirable) is impossible.

It is against the mistaken policy which would endeavour to effect this, by a line of conduct miscalled conciliation, that many well-meaning Catholics are opposed; and if the measures of the Assoication have been occasionally condemned, it is because, in several of its public acts, more pains have apparently been taken to accede to the dictation and views of the second class, than to combat candidly and fairly the honest opposition of the first. It is from the second class, (in which I rank also our pretended but treacherous advocates) that we receive advice as to the necessity of conciliation. But what do they mean by this term? Is it that feeling which has for its object the dissipation of prejudice, and the promotion of universal charity? No! This, true conciliation, every reflecting Catholic is ready to adopt. They mean a sacrifice of all opinions not consistent with their own private or political views. Witness the sentiments of Wilmot Horton, Esq. who, in his letter which called forth your manly and noble reply, characterises the "virtue and patriotic devotedness" of the Forty-shilling Freeholders as ingratitude and duplicity towards their landlords, and expresses his certainty that it will impede the course of Emancipation.

*

An attempt to convince by argument where the faculties of the ear and understanding are sacrificed to interest, would be fruitless and absurd; there is only one method of gaining the advocacy of the unprincipled, namely, by forwarding their designs.

If, then, emancipation be obtained through the instrumentality of such friends, it must be purchased by the abandonment of dignity and honour, since the most they could be prevailed on to offer would be but the exchange of one state of degradation for another.

Differing as our adversaries do in their motives for opposition, there is, however, one material point in which both classes agree, it is in the apprehension of danger from the influence of our religion on our political conduct. This is a most important subject for consideration, as an impartial investigation of the causes which produce this agreement, will, I think, at once determine the course which Catholics ought to pursue if they wish to obtain a restitution of rights on terms that will render them worth accepting. I have said that both classes fear the influence of our religious doctrine on the political course which, as a body, we may pursue; but though the dread be the same, the origin of it in each is essentially different.

The first class, deceived by early impressions, the perversion of historical facts, and the misrepresentaton of the bigoted part of the Press, imagine that our principles may be directed in a way detrimental to civil liberty, as they have been falsely taught to suppose them inimical to freedom of conscience.

The second class are apprehensive of an opposite effect, and dread, lest (actuated by those feelings which assure us the duty of a Patriot is as OBLIGATORY as that of a PARENT) our public actions should convert our conscientious enemies to friends, plack from the serpent of slander its envenomed sting, and by destroying the barriers which calumny has raised, unite in our ranks a misled people who are unknowingly made the supporters of a system of persecution, which in its naked deformity they would abhor.

The fear of this, and not an attachment to geniune conciliation, regulates the measures of this part of our antagonists: it is this dread occasions the acrimony with which every act of the Catholics is attacked that may unite them closer with the people.

VOL. V.

I 2

It is for the Catholics of England to consider which class it is their true interest -to render friends, and the question is simply this-should they, in their endeavour to recover their rights, pursue an open and honourable avowal of their principles, and obtaining the regard of their fellow-subjects, owe their emanci pation to the acknowledged justice of their claims? Or should they succumb to the designs of the interested few, and sacrifice, with their own esteem, the good opinion of their liberal fellow countrymen ?

It is by the public actions of Catholics that the great majority of Protestants will be brought to co-operate in their views; and the patriotic integrity of our Catholic ancestors will serve our cause but little, should their example be not followed by their descendants of the present day. Our language, whether written or spoken, is ever liable to the wilful misconstruction of our enemies; and I shall be surprised indeed, if our religion be not calumniated by some member of the House of Commons, with the declaration of our Catholic bishops in his hand. Believe me, Sir, the great body of the people view the Aristocracy as their natural leaders, and still look forward with hope to the day when the direction of their exertions will identify them with the advocates of unrestricted civil and religious liberty. May their public energy in future prove that their patriotic integrity and zeal constitute the strength of the Catholic body, as their private virtues have hitherto been its pride. Impressed with sincere admiration at the liberal course you have ever adopted, I have the honour to be, Sir, your most humble Servant, W. H. BECKWITH,

2, Devonshire Street, Newington Causeway, Sept. 26th, 1826.

MR. BLOUNT'S ANSWER.

Bryanstone Square, Oct. 10th, 1826. SIR-I am this moment returned to London after a month's absence, and regret extremely that an alteration in my intended route prevented me from receiving your communication till it was returned to me here.

I request you will have the kindness to assure the General Committee of the Friends of Civil and Religious Liberty, that I appreciate, as I ought, the flattering testimony they are so good as to bear to my humble endeavours to vindicate from unmerited reproach the conduct of the Irish Catholic Freeholders, and of their virtuous Clergy.

To yourself individually I am grateful for your observations. I coincide in opinion with you that our opponents are divided into the ignorant and the interested; and that it being hopeless to gain the one, our exertions should be directed to enlighten the minds and subdue the prejudices of the other.

In my opinion we can alone effect this most desirable object by the extensive diffusion of works, painting our religion in its real colours, without insulting any man's feelings, or outraging his mode of faith; and by shewing that it essentially teaches us to be good men and good subjects, is compatible with every form of government and admits of civil and religious liberty in its full extent. This is the view which, in my opinion, every Catholic of every rank should take of our question; and in this country, where each individual claims a freeman's birthright, we all should join in manly exertions to gain ours. Our cause does not belong to one class of Catholics or one class of men; it belongs to all, and all should cordially join in advancing it.

Admitting this general principle in its full extent, it is not less my decided opinion that we cannot too often bring our own wrongs, as Catholics, before the public, in firm and dignified language, abstaining equally on the one hand from coarse invective, and on the other from tame servility. It is not for us to