An Old Song Re-Set.

AN OLD SONG RE-SET .

OUR attention has been drawn to sundry remarks in a recent issue of the Universe , which appears to bo a thorough-paced exponent of the extremest ultramontanism . We say " appears , " for we know absolutely nothing of the journal , or the influence it exerts on public opinion . We imagine , however , it finds readers among that

narrowminded section of Roman Catholics who are nothing if not bigoted ; who , professing Christianity , daily and even hourly violate all the fundamental principles of the Christian faith ; to whom the love , truth , and honour which the Divine founder of that Holy religion sought ever to

inculcate m the minds of its followers , are as unknown as is Christianity itself to the aborigines of central and unexplored Africa ; who , proposing to throw light on holy things , are themselves in the profoundest depths of ignorance as to the true meaning of holiness . This being so ,

it will not unnaturally be urged , Why trouble yourselves to resent an attack from a journal so worthless ? Masomy is strong , and all the canting Jesuitical venom of the political priest and his minions can do it no injury . Be it so , but the attack in this case has not been levelled directly at

our Order , but in the first instance , at a most respectable organ of Christian Roman Catholicism , an organ which has exhibited what is now-a-days described as " the courage of its opinions . " No long time since , this journal —which bears the very honourable title of Catholic Opinion , and is doubtless far more universal in its influence on the

Catholic mind than its pretentious contemporary , the Universe—Catholic Opinion , we say , not long since , took the Universe to task for disloyally suggesting that in future the health of the Prince of Wales , " should be omitted from the list of toasts at Catholic dinners . " It argued , " as

loyal subjects of the Queen , we drink the health of the Prince of Wales as the heir , apparent to the throne of England , not in his capacity as Grand Master of the Freereasons , " And it followed up this distinction by pertinently asking , " Is our contemporary ( the Universe )

anxious that Mr . Gladstone should have some grounds for his accusation of the disloyalty of Catholics ? " These reasons must carry weight , and , indeed , naturally suggest themselves to every high minded English gentleman , be he Roman Catholic or Protestant . But what is natural

in the sight of men of honour , is contemptible , nay , even beneath contempt , in the eyes of the Universe , It rejoins — " Our answer is that ' we deeply regret' that a contemporary , long supposed to bo friendly to the Pope , should thus show a mixed allegiance .

The Prince of Wales is not a sovereign , he is only a subject ; he does not in any way represent our Queen ; he may never reign , and we owe to him , as yet , no allegiance whatever . " From this we ai'e justified in drawing these two conclusions . 1 st . The loyalty , if any , which the Universe feels

towards its sovereign is a mere lip loyalty , 2 nd . It would be loyal enough to the Prince of Wales—according to its feeble idea of what loyal means—if , while yet remaining patron of a " society which encourages murder "—so the Universe describes Masonry—he became our sovereign to-morrow . Our first deduction is reasonable . How can

any man , or body of men , be loyal to their sovereign who honour not her family , ancl , foremost amongst them , her eldest son and heir ? Literally true is it , perhaps , that

neither Catholics nor Protestants owe any allegiance to the Prince of Wales , " who is only a subject , " and " who may never reign . " But this is only a quibble , which none but a Jesuit or an Ultramontane would have disgraced himself

An Old Song Re-Set.

by indulging in . It is clear Catholic Opinion makes no secret of its dislike for Freemasonry , or it would hardl y have drawn a distinction between the Prince of Wales as " heir apparent to the throne , " and the Prince of Wales

as " Grand Master of the Freemasons . Nevertheless , it feels and declares it is incumbent on all loyal subjects of the Crown to respect the Queen ' s son and heir , and English subjects will cordially endorse this view so creditable to Catholic Opinion .

But , says the Universe , " there is no use in Catholio Opinion pointing out how to try and serve God and Mammon . " This means , if anything , that an English Catholic who serves an Ultramontane Pope serves God , while he who honours the Queen ' s son serves Mammon .

This monstrous doctrine may have found support in some countries in what are known as the dark ages , and even then the practical common sense of the unlettered English revolted against such absurdity . We can more easily imagine than describe the wrath of some grim old

Anglo-Norman or Plantagenet Sovereign on hearing this laid down . Still more easy is it to conceive of the disingenuous ruses by which the Universe would have sought to evade the consequences of its treason . But , fatuous indeed must this journal be if it imagines that a nineteenth century

Englishman , who is not an idiot , will " swallow' —to use a vulgar , but expressive word—such nonsense . But this is not all . " The Prince of Wales , " we read , " ( as the Pope ' s journals in Rome say ) has disgraced himself by heading a society which encourages murder . The Pope

says that Freemasonry , in a certain country ( meaning England ) , under its own name , ' does guilty battle with the Church ; ' and his Holiness emphatically adds , that the ' nefarious character of the sect being known , there is no honest man who does not turn from it with horror . ' " A

careful analysis of these two sentences seems desirable . What must first strike the impartial reader is , the knavish cowardice of the Universe , who dares not venture to say directly that the Prince of Wales has disgraced himself by joining the Freemasons , but throws the onus of the

statement on " the Pope ' s journals in Rome . " But reading between the lines , and having regard to the hope expressed in a subsequent paragraph , that the editor of Catholic

Opinion " will ' read , mark , and inwardly digest' the letter of the Pope to the Bishop of Orleans , " from which the above assertions of his Holiness are extracted , there is but one inference for us to draw . The Universe

fully accepts , as gospel , what " the Pope ' s journals in Rome say , " and as fully endorses what the Pope affirms . Now we need not be very squeamish in dealing with such state ^ ments as these . We will not disgrace ourselves by taking shelter under the wing of a contemporary , or of any

journals in England or elsewhere . We lay it down as indisputable , that to say that the Freemasons are " a society which encourages murder , " is a lie told deliberately , and with malice prepense . " The Pope ' s journals in Rome " know it for a lie , and the Universe which approves this

statement is aware it is approving a lie . There have been Freemasons who were criminals . There have been Christians who were criminals . As reasonably may we argue that Christianity " encourages murder , " because there have been Christian murderers as that our Order is " a society

which encourages murder" because there have been Masonic murderers . But it were worse than useless to argue with bigots or the exponents of bigotry . Wo

have , perhaps , done the Universe too much honour in noticing its malicious attempts at aspersing the character of Freemasonry . But ours being a mysterious brotherhood , to which the bulk of society is a stranger—though