Selden states that William at first preferred the laws of Norfolk, Suffolk, and Deira, but that upon the petition of the English people, the laws of the Confessor were restored and confirmed; and thus we perceive that those laws, to the observance of which the people submitted, and which the king, for himself and his successors, confirmed and gave in charge for execution, were as it were the charter of the English nation, and the kings were sworn to the observance and execution of the laws and customs, and of the defence and protection of those rights to the church. It would extend our observations too far to enter now into more special details, and a more lengthened history: we shall merely observe that it was part of the duty of the British bishops to defend the privileges and rights which they constitutionally possessed, against any illegal encroachment, whether made by the king, or by the Pope, or by any other person or power. The king of England had not despotic authority; but the Conqueror and his associates were accustomed to the feudal institutions of the continent, and he was impatient of the restraints under which he was placed by the customs and laws of England, and after the promulgation of those laws, he did by violence make serious inroads upon the rights of the church and of the people; so did his successors and the resistance which was given by the bishops and the barons was a constitutional, and proper, and meritorious exertion on their parts to restrain the despotism of tyrants. Henry II, who was an able and persevering despot, made more important encroachments than did any of his predecessors upon the privileges of the church; but he was at length obliged to desist, after the murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury, by the royal parasites.

When Langton, the patriot, who taught the barons their rights, had succeeded to the see which Becket had so well filled, this archbishop found that the tyrant John was about to prostrate every barrier against regal rapacity and arbitrary rule. He then, together with the chief justice, Peters, explained to them the necessity of having the exact demarcation of their rights made anew, he told them of the sworn obligation of the monarch to govern by the constitution, and that was the charter of Edward's laws. Thus, the united bishops and barons at Runnymede, when they compelled John to sign the Great Charter, only did what they had a constitutional right to do. When John, in the first clause of that charter, confirms and grants that the English church shall be free, and have her entire rights and her liberties uninjured, he only pledged himself anew to what he swore at his coronation. When by his intrigues he procured the subsequent interference of the Pope, to induce those who had obtained his signature to this charter to relinquish their

rights to the tender mercies of John, the archbishop paid no regard to this attempt of the Pope, for his rights and those of his clergy were founded upon and derived from the law of England, and not the canon law.

We may now call upon the correspondent of the Georgian for his canon law upon the subject, since we may claim to have at least made out a prima facie case for our proposition, "that the privileges of the English church, and its power of civil and criminal jurisdiction, were derived from the temporal government of England, and not from the canon law of the church.'

From what has been here shown, it is manifest that the writer, who identified the Pope with the English clergy, as respected the civil privileges of the English church, either was ignorant of the facts of the case, or desired to misrepresent them. The Pope was the head of the church in its spiritual concerns; he had no authority to confer or to withdraw civil privileges or criminal jurisdiction.

It will also be seen that what the correspondent of the Georgian styles the "exercise of an authority which was odious to 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.

THE MORAL CHARACTER OF SEVERAL POPES

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.]

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 28 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:

CHARLESTON, S. C., June 19, 1822.

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 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 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 to be done, before all the rubbish which the bigots of the dark had heaped on the fair Christian 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 original 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 can 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?

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.