sceptre amongst her sacraments. If your excellency means to speak or to write upon those subjects again, it would be well if you took the pains to study them; because I believe the Almighty never promised to give historical, or classical, or legal information, to kings or to governors by mere inspiration. Thus, sir, if Mr. Jefferson drew up, with consummate felicity, an excellent declaration, "embodying what is valuable in Magna Charta, the Bill of Rights, and Act of Settlement,' it is no disparagement to his genius to assert, that the two latter only "invigorated and restored" what had been previously given in Magna Charta, but the force of that charter was impaired by feudalism, to which the Roman Catholic Church gave opposition, and which feudalism, by the destruction of that church, got full vigour to destroy the charter; and that this charter was obtained and established by the Roman Catholics in opposition to a feudal tyrant, and was but the imperfect restitution of what Roman Catholics had created and enjoyed by the aid of their church, before a feudal conqueror robbed them of their rights; and that the English Roman Catholic clergy endured their greatest hardships, because of their opposition to feudal tyrants.

Your excellency having, in defiance of all records, stated in reference to England, that Roman Catholic priests came in to aid kings and nobles in perpetuating and multiplying as well as establishing the abuse of feudalism, I come to examine your other assertions.

"The Divine right and infallibility of royalty were preached by the successors of St. Peter, to make a mystery of government, and by impressing the hopelessness of reform but through divine grace to perpetuate the dominion of the few and the vassalage of the many.'

Your sentence is wretchedly constructed; but still we can discover your meaning. Will you please to inform us what successor of St. Peter preached the divine right of kings? Have not the Popes been generally accused of asserting that kings held their crowns from the Holy See, and not from God; by papal, not by divine right? What successor of Peter ever preached or taught the infallibility of kings? Have they not been generally accused of acting towards kings not only as if their majesties were fallible, but criminal? Have they not been at war with kings? Have they not deposed kings? What page of history, what record, what fact has exhibited to your excellency that they preached that government was a mystery? I have sometimes heard of the Popes stating that a king reigned by divine right: but I have never heard or read that any Pope preached such a doctrine, until I read it in your oration; but for you was reserved the high distinction of being I believe the first public authority to charge the Pope with

preaching that kings are infallible. There are some persons, may it please your excellency, hold as an opinion, that some of our state governors imagine themselves to be infallible; perhaps there were in former times kings who really had as high notions of their own good sense and were as tenacious of their own opinions as any of our governors; the obstinacy of such kings might also have caused considerable loss of territory to their states. Believing such men as these, the Pope, who may also err in his views of human nature, or mistake the dispositions of individuals, as I find I have done as regards you; he might have either taken their assertion of their own infallibility as evidence of the fact, or he might have inferred their opinion of themselves from their conduct; nor is it to be presumed that a man who continues to act as if he was assured of his infallibility, does imagine himself liable to error. Be that as it may, sir, your assertion of the Pope teaching that kings were infallible, is to me a totally new piece of information. I am so anxious to add to my stock of knowledge, that you will confer a great favour on me by informing the editor of the Catholic Miscellany which of the Popes taught this doctrine, and he has promised to publish it as soon as you transmit the information. However, your excellency has placed the Pope in a very awkward position; for whilst you made him preach that the king was infallible, you made him hold out a hope to the people who were injured by the infallible king, that they would be redressed by the same king when the grace of God should have led him to repair the evils produced by his infallibility. Really, it requires more penetration than I can lay claim to, to reconcile this and this. These Popes have always been a very inconsistent race of beings! Now, sir, as I am no advocate for the divine right of kings, believing also that they have no claim to infallibility, I promise you for the name of every Pope whom you shall specify to the editor of the Miscellany, who preached in support of the divine right of kings, I will give to him, for you, the names of two Protestant bishops who have preached the same doctrine; but, Governor, we must have it a good close bargain: you must not only give the name of the Pope, but the passages of the sermon, and I will not only give the names of the bishops, but the passages of their sermons. It will be as well to inform you that unless you produce extracts from the sermons of seven Popes, I shall be victorious. I doubt that you can produce a single passage. Yet there were some Popes who held the doctrine, but not in the way that you appear to insinuate; like the gratia Dei, the jure divino has a meaning which a little more examination into the law of nations, the feudal system, and Christian morality would exhibit, and which even

natural religion, or the jus divinum naturale, would establish for yourself as long as the constitution of Georgia permits it, and no longer. But, sir, I consent that we shall not construe the passages of sermons on either side upon this sound principle; those which I have will not admit such construction; it is for you to say what construction your passages will require.

Now, your excellency must admit that in revolting against King George III., Mr. Jefferson and his associates were aided by a Catholic king, the eldest son of the Roman Catholic Church; and the revolt was against a Protestant king who persecuted Roman Catholics for not swearing that they would desert and reject the Pope. Yet, with admirable facility, with a tact peculiar to yourself, you give as the prelude to your insult upon the Roman Catholics, and your assertions regarding the Pope, a declaration that it was the most inveterate of the enemies of Rome, was the superstitious Protestant despot.

"Mr. Jefferson had already done enough for his country and for his own fame -he had marched with his comrades in the vanguard of freedom, had palsied the arm of despotism, broken the chains of superstition, declared the independence of his country, and promulgated the natural, imprescriptible, and unalienable rights of man.''

In doing all which he was aided by Roman Catholics!! A Roman Catholic signature to his declaration pledged not only life and sacred honour, but a million of money; General Washington testified that no blood was more freely shed in defence of Mr. Jefferson's principles, than that of Roman Catholics: the king of a Catholic nation, the king of all others most attached to Rome, sent his fleets and armies to be the copartners in palsying the despot's arm, and breaking the chains of superstition. What superstition? Certainly not Roman Catholic; because there was no Catholic superstition to enchain any person whom Mr. Jefferson had freed. What then does it mean? Protestant superstition! Be it so, if you will. It is not my province to contend with you that it was not. But if so, I ask you, why you attack the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church in the next paragraph? Come, Governor, honestly declare that you used the words as many of our fellowcitizens use them every day, merely for their sound, and without considering whether they had reason or not. Why would you then carelessly insult a large portion of your fellow-citizens? I have done.

Yours,

A ROMAN CATHOLIC.

LETTER CONCERNING THE MATTINGLY MIRACLE

Addressed to the Archbishop of Baltimore

But they going forth preached everywhere the Lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed.—Mark xvi. 20.

CHARLESTON, S. C., Jan. 23, 1830. To the Most Rev. James Whitfield, D.D., Archbishop of Baltimore, and so forth.

Most Rev. Sir:-Having been peculiarly struck with the evidence in the case of Mrs. Mattingly's restoration to health, I requested as a favour your permission, as the occurrence took place in the diocess over which you preside, to examine it specially, for my own satisfaction, and to publish my opinion after close inquiry, and mature reflection. You were pleased to consent.

My first wish was to converse again with Mrs. Mattingly herself: I had previous conversations with her in the latter end of December, 1825, and the beginning of January, 1826, and with several of the other witnesses to the principal facts of her case. I was also desirous of procuring the supplemental affidavits which are now for the first time published. And I might perhaps, better state here the reason of their not having sooner appeared.

When I was in Washington, about four years since, I was accompanied by my sister, who had much more conversation with Mrs. Mattingly than my opportunities then allowed; after our departure for the South, she stated to me her surprise that no more special mention was made in the published documents of what she considered to be the most palpable evidence of the miraculous nature of that lady's cure, viz., the sudden healing of an ulcerated back. The statement was perfectly new to me, and I asked particularly respecting the evidence: she mentioned to me her having had the information from Mrs. Mattingly, and from, I believe, one of her sisters: I immediately wrote to Mrs. M. and requested such affidavits as the nature of the case would require or admit. Soon afterwards I received a letter from Captain Carbery, the brother of Mrs. M., covering the affidavit. I mislaid this document, and was now anxious to make more particular inquiry, not only respecting the

fact and its circumstances, but to see and examine the witnesses, and to learn the cause of this omission, when the original depositions were taken.

I also was desirous of hearing again the verbal relation from the principal witnesses, and of investigating upon the spot more fully for my own satisfaction: for though my mind had been long previously convinced of the truth of the facts, and of their miraculous nature, I judged it but prudent to take this step in order to discover whether the process would disclose any ground or doubt or more fully confirm my previous impressions.

Having had several conversations with Mrs. Mattingly, her sisters, her uncle's widow, and some of the other witnesses, I received the very same explanation which had previously been given, viz.: that it was not considered necessary to enter into every minute detail, and that many circumstances of this most extraordinary case were passed over, some, through delicacy, and some, not to overload with too many particulars, the narrative and testimony already greatly burdened with facts and repetition. I found that a great many of the original witnesses, and several other respectable persons with whom I conversed, had been always fully aware of the fact related by my sister, and of many others, the knowledge of which might increase the satisfaction. of the believer, but would not convince persons for whom the published documents were insufficient.

I have myself been put in possession of much more of the same description; and upon being consulted by Mrs. Mattingly, I gave it as my opinion that there was no necessity for the publication, at present, of more than what is contained in the original documents and the four supplemental affidavits which I then procured. Before I close this little work, I shall state to you that although they contain more than enough of evidence to prove the existence of a splendid miracle, they do not contain all that might be adduced. I shall, however, of course, in the argument, confine myself strictly and exclusively to them, as if they did contain the entire-as I have no right to call upon any one to draw a conclusion more extensive than will be supplied by the premises which have been furnished.

I submit, then, that the following statement is fully upheld in all its parts by the documents, and that the testimony of their witnesses is every way unimpeachable-of course that the statement itself is an exact history of facts, and the facts being admitted as true, the miraculous nature of the occurrence is evident.

"A. M. The subject of the following case, was a married lady, about thirty