the king and his subjects, and which they determined to abolish," was only the exercise of a constitutional right, which is always odious to tyrants, and which they would abolish if they could; but it is untrue that the people desired its abolition: on the contrary, they desired its continuance; and one of the chief reasons why the kings and some of their favourite barons desired its abolition, was because by its exercise the subjects were frequently protected from their injustice and oppression. We do regret to find any advocate of the Protestant Episcopal Church in these states, endeavour to identify its cause with that of the most tyrannical of the English monarchs: by so doing they give a sort of religious sanction to the usurpations of those men, and weaken the great principles upon which the foundations of our republics are based; neither does that church need this injudicious attempt to justify those usurpations. The editors of the Miscellany would prefer meeting explicit statements, to answering undefined charges against what the correspondent of the Georgian is pleased to call "this odious power." As for the third not untrue of the gentleman, it will be easily seen that the Pope had no jurisdiction whatever in those English ecclesiastical courts; they were altogether national, and merely national institutions. The enforcement of the law by the tribunal was a matter with which the Pope had no concern. If justice was denied, the case was removable to the King's Bench; but if justice was not denied, the original jurisdiction of the court was untouched. It is therefore notoriously untrue to assert "that the ecclesiastical tribunal ultimately depended upon the Pope, and not upon the king, for enforcing its jurisdiction, and was amenable to the Pope, and not to the king, for the due and proper exercise of its authority." We would advise the gentleman to study a little more closely the British history of law, to look a little more deeply into the ancient authors, and not to be satisfied with what a tyro can collect from Judge Blackstone, and he will then perceive that he has made not only three, but three times three egregious blunders. We now call upon him for the decree of the Catholic Church, under which he alleges the English ecclesiastical courts claimed their civil and criminal jurisdiction within the realm of England. ON THE MORAL CHARACTER OF SEVERAL SOVEREIGN PONTIFFS. IN REPLY TO A WRITER IN WASHINGTON. [The occasion of the controversy on the moral character of the Sovereign Pontiffs was as follows. Some person reported in the columns of a newspaper in Washington, D. C., a sermon preached by an Unitarian clergyman at the dedication of a church, in which were some rather uncouth aspersions upon the Catholic religion. Dr. England, under the signature of Curiosity," noticed the sermon as reported, in the subjoined article, which appeared in the Fourth Number of the First Volume of the "Catholic Miscellany," for June 26th, 1822, under the title of] REFORMATION. OUR friend Curiosity, has placed our pen under an injunction; he will not allow us to answer him. We have, however, moved the chancellor of common sense to have the injunction dissolved; for this dissolution we have shown cause," inasmuch as the said injunction if continued in force would frequently cause the violation of a solemn contract which was made by us with the public, to wit: that we would give to them the said public good and sufficient information upon several subjects, concerning which the said Curiosity is very inquisitive. And forasmuch as the said injunction, if continued in force, might subject us to perpetual silence, inasmuch as the aforesaid Curiosity might write upon any subject, and forbid us to answer upon any." Which perpetual silence would be more difficult than Ithuriel's* perpetual celibacy; but though the chancellor was graciously pleased to dissolve the injunction and leave us at liberty, we will be moderate, to prove our claim to indulgence, and not this day remark upon the subject of these two letters. To the Editor of the Catholic Miscellany. SIR: I have lately read in the Washington papers, the account of the dedication of a building to the service of the ONE LIVING * [Nom de guerre of some writer in a newspaper.] AND TRUE GOD: that is, in plain English, the dedication of an Unitarian church. The following is the outline of the discourse delivered on the occasion by the preacher, as I find it in the papers. to be done, before all the rubbish which the I know, sir, the kind of answer you would give me. but I do not want yours. I wish you could prevail upon the Rev. Mr. Little to answer these questions, and by his great erudition to satisfy CURIOSITY. Charleston, June 19, 1822. To the several Christians who adhere to the Reformation of John Knox, Martin Luther, and John Calvin. DEAR FRIENDS:-If you will have the goodness to read my letter of this date to the editor of the United States Catholic Miscellany, you will perceive that a Rev. Mr. Little, preaching on the 9th of the present month in Washington, D. C., at the dedication of an Unitarian church, described in as good set terms as either of yourselves or of your predecessors could or would, the abominations of Popery. But, dear friends, he has his hand against the ark of the Lord; for he says that your great founders, "though they effected a comparatively great reformation in the church, considering the age in which they lived;" yet "left much to be done before all the rubbish which the bigots of the dark had heaped on the fair Christian fabric can be entirely removed." "To speak of the discourse of the Rev. Mr. Little as it deserves, would not fail to be accounted flattery; the prominent features of it were calculated to show that the Christian religion, like the Jewish in the days of Hezekiah, had been grossly corrupted and perverted in almost all respects:-the objects of divine worship had been greatly multiplied:-the idea of one holy, just, and good God, almost obliterated from the Christian world :-and a system of corrupt priestly government, where every crime might have been commuted for wealth, substituted instead of the divine morality taught by Jesus Christ. In this time of terrible mental darkness, rose John Knox, Martin Luther, and John Calvin, who, from their bold characters and convincing reasoning, effected a comparatively great reformation in the church, considering the age in which they lived; but much remains yet bigots of the dark had heaped on the fair Chris-gone much farther, and impiously put forth tian fabric, can be entirely removed. A correct translation of the Bible, with the light of increasing science, he recommended as the best means of bringing back the Christian church to its ori: ginal simple state, as in the days of the Apostles." I cannot avoid asking a few questions in this respect I am unfortunately incorrigible. First. At what time was the Christian religion so corrupted that the idea of one, holy, just, and good God was almost obliterated from the Christian world? Secondly. At what time was the Christian religion so grossly corrupted, that a system of corrupt priestly government, where every crime might have been committed for wealth, was substituted instead of the divine morality taught by Jesus Christ? Thirdly. Who were the "bigots of the dark" that heaped all the rubbish on the fair Christian fabric? Fourthly. How can the light of increasing science be added to a correct translation of the Bible? Fifthly. Are all the former translations of the Bible incorrect? Sixthly. Where is the authentic copy from which a correct translation should be made? Seventhly. Who will testify and prove its authenticity? Eighthly. How shall we know that the new translators will deserve more credit than the former translators? Ninthly. How will a pure translation of the Bible bring back the Christian church to its original simple state, as in the days of the Apostles? Tenthly. How many hundred years was the world deluded by imagining it had the doctrines of Christianity, when it really had them not? And, lastly. When did the Christian religion become corrupt and perverted; and when did it become pure, or is it yet pure? Allow me to ask you, dear friends-Have your several reformations been all imperfect, and do you still preserve some of the rags of the scarlet lady? Or is Mr. Little presumptuous and erroneous, when he charges those great men whom the Lord raised up to reform his church, with leaving their work unfinished? Who is to inform me whether I shall adhere to John Knox, to Martin Luther, to John Calvin, or to the Rev. Mr. Little? Who or what shall save me from this perplexity? The Bible? I have read it, and it does not even contain the name of the Rev. Mr. Little, nor of the zealous John Knox, nor of the mild Martin Luther, nor of the liberal and tolerant John Calvin. But wo is me, this is not all; the same Mr. Little asserts that the Bible is incorrect. The Lord pardon me; no, I was wrong; he does not say the Bible, but our translations. Yes, those translations are incorrect, and he does not say that we have one correct one. What then, good friends, are we to do? This same Mr. Little appears to me to have equal claim to a divine commission with either of those venerable men whom you follow-shall I reject him? Who will deliver me from this torture of doubt, and satisfy Charleston, June 19, 1822. CURIOSITY. [In the eighth number of the Miscellany, for July 24th, appeared the following explanation from the author of the sermon, under the title] CURIOSITY AND THE REV. ROBERT LITTLE. "Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour." pleases with me, provided always that the text is genuine. ROBERT LITTLE. Washington, July 11th, 1822. The reverend gentleman has a claim, and a well-founded one, to candour, though he makes no pretensions to a divine commis We copy the following article from a sion. We do not propose to ourselves to Washington paper: To the Editors. GENTLEMEN: I will thank you to inform (through the medium of your paper) the editor of the United States Catholic Miscellany, that I do not hold myself responsible for any misrepresentations in the public newspapers, of what I may have said in my sermons, for that is not the mode in which I am wont to communicate on religious topics. The subject of his correspondent" CURIOSITY's" string of queries is, however, easily answered. The report, in the Washington Gazette, by an anonymous AUDITOR of my sermon, preached at the dedication of the Unitarian Church here, is about as much like my discourse, as it is like the Declaration of Independence. I never preach extemporaneously, and hope that I do not usually talk nonsense. On looking again at my notes, I perceive, particularly, that I did not say anything about "the idea of one holy, just, and good God, being almost obliterated from the Christian world:" nor of "the bigots of the dark" (ages, I suppose the reporter meant, but there was nothing of the kind in my sermon), nor yet about a "translation of the Bible," correct or incorrect. It would have been scarcely more foreign to my general reasoning, on that occasion, to have talked about a translation into a bishopric; nor did I mention either the names or actions of John Knox, Martin Luther, and John Calvin. The editor of the United States Catholic Miscellany will, doubtless, as an act of justice, insert this in reply to the paper of "Curiosity," in his number for June 26th. I hope his correspondent will not persist in demanding, as a proof of my "erudition," the vindication of other men's mistakes. But, if other remarks are made, which have a claim to serious consideration, I shall not be averse from replying to them in a spirit which no genuine Catholic can condemn; though, as a Unitarian, I should protest against certain doctrines, as corruptions of Christianity, which he may deem sacred truths. I beg leave to assure Curiosity, that I make no pretensions to a "divine commission," and, therefore, he may use as great freedom of investigation as he enter upon a discussion of his tenets, which are certainly very much in opposition to ours; but he will feel that an article inserted in the public papers, and circulated through the United States, evidently calcumade a violent and uncalled-for attack upon lated to impress the public, that he had the Roman Catholics, warranted our friend "Curiosity" in calling upon him for an exgiven that explanation, in such a manner as planation. The reverend gentleman has to show that some unprincipled writer has, him and the Roman Catholics. by the same act, borne false witness against [The next number of the Miscellany gives us the following brief, but significant paragraph.] CURIOSITY." If our friend will have the goodness to send to our office, we shall furnish him with a Washington paper which will afford him amusement and employment. [In the tenth number, for August 1, appeared the extract from the Washington paper alluded to, which is here subjoined.] From the Washington Gazette, July 20. In answer to Mr. Little's note, published in the National Intelligencer and in the Washington Gazette of the 13th inst. MR. EDITOR-I have very inadvertently fallen into a religious dispute with an esteemed friend, and a Mr. "Curiosity," a writer in the Catholic Miscellany, published in Charleston, S. C., and must beg the indulgence of your columns to get me out. First. A word to my friend Mr. R. Lattle, with respect to misrepresenting his discourse at the opening of the Unitarian Church, on the 9th ult. It is very true, in my report, I did not use the exact words of his discourse, nor did I intend to do so; it was the general tenor, and the principles to be deduced from it, that were intended to be conveyed; and this was done, as far as my recollection served. But, somehow or other, what between a memory always holey, and then being shaken by the ague, which must have sifted out my ideas as through a riddle, together with some mistakes in printing. I completely failed in my object. However, the evil is not past remedy; let Mr. Little MORAL CHARACTER OF SEVERAL POPES. the veil of the Catholic Church, and to dis- either publish the sermon, or preach it over, and all will be well again,-for the public will then be both satisfied and benefited. I wish I could clear up every other The Catholic Church pretends to abuse part of his note to the public in so satisfactory a manner; but I confess, there are the Reformation and all those who take a some parts of it which I really do not un- part in it; yet, there can be no doubt, that derstand, and I think must also puzzle that church has received as much benefit others. When he says, "I never preach from that Reformation as any other. The extemporaneously, and hope that I do not present Catholic Church, as conducted in usually talk nonsense," does he mean, be- the United States, is no more like that in cause he does "not preach extempora- the time of Clement the Fifth, or Leo the neously," he therefore never speaks non- Tenth, than the greatest sinner is like the sense, or because those who do preach greatest saint. Had that church been at extemporaneously do preach nonsense? that time what it now is, in this country, it Now, for his own sake, (for he sometimes is probable there would not have been a prays extemporaneously,) and also for the sake of a very large body of Christians who preach extemporaneously, I hope he will give a satisfactory explanation. Or, perhaps he means the word nonsense to be applied only to the report of the sermon. When speaking of the Bible, does he mean to say that he considers the present translation correct? If he do, why does he so often, and so judiciously too, point out errors and mistranslations, by quoting Greisbach, Wakefield, and other modern translators? If he do not consider the Christian religion (as generally taught) corrupted, and different from that taught by Christ and his Apostles, why attempt to reform it? I acknowledge, with respect to the names of John Knox, Martin Luther, and John Calvin, I do not think that they were mentioned by him; yet he certainly, both on that, as on other occasions, spoke of the Unitarian Church being founded on the "old Protestant principle" of reformation, and suited to the present state of increased knowledge or science. There certainly was no violation of truth, merely to add the names of the actors, where the actions themselves were so clearly mentioned. Did I not know Mr. Little better, I would be led to suspect, from the note referred to, that he wished to deny or renounce these fundamental principles of the Reformed Christian Church; but I do know to the contrary; and can only smile at the alarm his imagination has taken for his oratory being so badly reported. Yes, I believe I know him well; and esteem him as a preacher of the first order, for the soundness of his doctrine, the purity of his morality, the simple and sublime piety of his prayers, and, above all, for his own chaste and moral conduct in private life. A FEW WORDS NOW TO OUR CATHOLIC FRIEND, What evil genius has tempted you to lift Lutheran, or Episcopal Church; for, if they really believe all that is stated in their creeds, they might as well believe a little more, and take in with the whole Catholic faith, the infallibility of the Pope, purgatory, transubstantiation, the Virgin Mary, saints, &c. I was in hope that my friend, Mr. R. Little himself, would have answered your eleven simple queries, for I know of no one more capable; but since he has totally disavowed having said anything about the principles upon which they are founded, I must even do the best I can to justify the assertions I have made. First. Your eleven queries are very easily reducible to three: 1st, Those which relate to the corrupted state of religion at the Reformation. 2d, The incorrectness in the translation of the Bible. And 3d, How the Bible is to be rendered more correct, and the abuses and corruptions in religion reformed. The answer to the first, which will comprehend your first, second, and third, will be best found in your own church history. And as it is impossible, in an essay of this kind, to detail the facts of each age or reign, I will give a brief account of some of the Popes, who were considered the Vicegerents of God, the head of the church, and infallible: surely the body was not better than the head. Here follows a list of twenty-seven Popes, whom the writer accuses of the following crimes, viz., persecution, obtaining the acknowledgment of title from a murderer, pretending to cure lepers by a kiss, and not being able to prolong their own lives, privileging murderers and thieves, excommunicating kings and emperors, honouring saints, hating one another, ill-treating one another, cancelling each other's acts, incest, adultery, killing by poison, theft, magic, invoking devils, witchcraft, loving learned men, being alive in Italy when a man was killed in England, invent-rectness of the Bible, I shall select only one ing transubstantiation, imposing auricular confession on the people, ordering bells to be rung, putting crowns on emperors, kicking them off, exempting the clergy from payment of taxes, having great humility, being poisoned by figs, making indulgences saleable, burning men whom they never burned, approving marriages of the clergy, turning out numerous cloistered nuns, being soldiers, throwing a key into the Tiber, brandishing a sword, burning Luther's books, declaring him and his followers heretics, giving a cardinal's hat to a sodomitical boy, altering the callender, (we spell it as the accuser does,) contriving the massacre of Protestants, sainting Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Inquisition and the Jesuits. The writer then proceeds: I could name many more whose characters are similar to those I have given, but I think I have given enough to show what state the church must have been in with such men at its head; and what must have been the ideas of the Christian Roman Catholic Church, with respect to a "holy, just, and good God," in these times! The worship of the Trinity was introduced into the church about the time of Constantine, in 311. By and by prayers to the Virgin Mary were offered; then prayers to many hundred saints, saintesses, images, and paintings; false miracles were pretended to be wrought by relicts of bones, teeth, nails, dishes, forks, spoons, cups and cupboards, houses, chairs, benches, blocks, hats, gowns, shoes, and every kind of trash that could be collected. At the time of Luther and the Reformation, indulgences from the least to the greatest crime could be purchased from the Pope, from eating flesh on fast days, or drinking wine, to murder [ing] father or mother; and for crimes that are too shocking to be named; a list of which I would have subjoined, if this piece were not already too long. I appeal to Mr. Curiosity," and the candour of his own church, to say, was there not need of reformation? and was not the idea of a just God almost obliterated from the Christian world at that time? I have omitted to say anything of the horrid massacres, the bloody Inquisition, the rebellions, and other dreadful calamities brought on mankind by the Romish Church; the history of every Christian country is full of them; for till the Reformation, that church, by its agents, had for 1200 years debased, robbed and murdered mankind. Second Quere,-As respects the incor example of its incorrectness; it is a very important passage to Trinitarians; and the only direct one, that I know of, which would support the doctrine of the Trinity: it has been proved, and is acknowledged by many learned men calling themselves orthodox, to be an impudent direct forgery; and is to be found in 1 John, 5th chapter, 7th verse, viz., "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one." The Bishop of St. David's has lately written a book to prove the genuineness of this pas sage; and the work has lately been received in the Quarterly Review, published in London, republished in Boston, and will be found, I believe, in No. 57. Though the reviewers acknowledge also that the not to be found in any of the ancient Greek passage referred to is not genuine; for it is manuscripts, and the farthest back it can be traced, is about the fifteenth century. But it is no wonder that such a forgery has been committed, when we consider in whose hands the Scriptures were almost exclusively for nearly 1200 years. Now, sir, I would man who had been convicted of perjury,— treat the Roman Catholic Church like a I would not believe her, though she spoke the truth. lation of the Bible can be obtained. Let Third Quere-How a more correct transall the Christian nations depute learned men to the United States, and with others selected here, make a correct and impartial translation; for here there being no established religion by law, nor anything to be feared from princes, there is every reason to believe a fair translation would be made, without any regard to sectarian principles. before stated, that these observations are I hope it will be understood, as I have not intended to be applied to the members of the present Catholic Church, especially in the United States,-for here they have proved themselves as good and tolerant citizens as any in the country. AUDITOR. NOTE.-Those who wish to be better inlowing works, viz. Bower's Lives of the formed on this subject will consult the folPopes; Hist. de l'Eglise d'Eusebe, &c.; Burnet's Hist. of the Reform; Mos. Eccl. Hist., and Socratis et Sozomeni Hist. Eccl. contained the foregoing, appeared the following [In the same number of the Miscellany which under the title] |