The Charlotte journal. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1835-1851, 1842-10-27
NUMBER 5.
From the Tuscaloosa Flag Ct the Union.
- iAtiiff if1SAli.E- OF ROMAN ca.

Of ibis city, was truly astonshed, as we'll
as panied 10 observe an article N tha, paper
under the bead of" Roman Catholic poirer
in the United Safes" in which the editor
seems not only TO regard the doctrines OF
Catholics on some specified points, 40
" fraught with imminent danger 20 society
and government" but also as lendiug %
"open the food gates Of crime and iniqnitg
Of every species"
The gentle and conscientious editor.
seems 10 have been led TO the prmpulgaiion
Of these opinions, both by the sccidtuai
hearing Of Roman Catholic priest, che
Rev. Mr.. MaIony,) who in the discharge
o! bis ministerial duties, thought tii 10 ex.
plain 10 bis dissenting brethren, the doc.
iesston and communion, and likewise By
subsequent, sermon, preached by the Rev.
w. A. Scott, Of this city, who took occa-
sion, in the course Of his discourse, to Witty
his Roman Catholic neighboTs and fellow
citizens, and 10 represent them aud their
creed, Gas dangerous TO our Liberties, and
TO the peace Of society 10 this country"
My otjec; in meeting this TRADE against
Catholics, is no. TO enter into a religious
controversy on the subject, nor TO widen the
breach between Catholics and Professionals
il is simply 10 explain the doctrines Of tho
Catholic church Oh The points in question,
and thereby to counteract the uniavorable
impression which MIR. Millet's misrepre-
sensations may produce on the minds Of
such as have not an opportunity Of learning
our doctrines from proper source. Before
l proceed in explanation Of our creed,
must beg leave 10 remark, that DO not con
slder it as becoming in an editor Of politi
cal journal thus 10 assume the character OF
religious controversialist, and to endeavor
10 hold up TO public ridcule and animadveE.
sion portion OF his christian fellow ciiI.
zens, who believe il conducive TO their eter.
nal felicity TO profess and practice the doc.
trIues Of church which they consider as
being dvlnely established. The editor
should recollect that we are now living in
the nineteenth century, and that the greater
portion Of those who are separated from
the Catholic church, have made themselves
acquainted with the ,enets of that church,
and have satisfied themselves tina, it does not
contain such repugnant dogmas as have
been attributed 10 her; and furthermore,
be should consider, that il cannot in the
lens, help the cause OF Professionalism, nor
conduce 10 his own popularity to tIaduce
and ualigu, IN the manner which he has, q
certain ere, j, the professors Of which he
acknoale dges to be upright citizens" and
whose "conduct in this community does
them, as il would do any people, credit -
and Of whom he is willing TO testify, tina,
charity to the poor and the afflicted, is by
none administered with more freedom than
1 by Catholics, where their religion prevails"
/ Now, sirs, if Mr.. Miller is willing TO &C.
kowIedge the Catholics to be good and up.
right citizens, as we'll as being unsurpassed
IN acts of charity and benevoence towards
their necessiious fellow citizens, (Which 10
the very essence Of christianity why should
he presume to nveigh as he has done,
against the doctrines Of a church which
alone is productive of such invaluable bes.
sings and advantages TO the human race
/ But he has although inconsistency, made
thus wilfuI and unjustitiable attack; from
beginning to end, il is tissue OF false state.
ments in relation 10 the doctrine and prac-
tce Of the Catholic church, and is a com.
pleie specimen of what Curran once called
",hat confusion Of head which arises from
corruption Of heart"
/ shall now proceed to show, in the brief
est possible manner, on what authority the
Catholic church grounds her belief in tran.
SubStantidtion and in absolution, and in what
manner the Rev. Mr.. Mallory treated of
lhese doctrines on the occasion alluded q.
Mr. Miller introduced his remarks on the
eucharist, by pretending TO quote the lam
guage used by the aforesaid Catholic priest,
when explaining this doctrine, which he re-
| presents 10 be take and eat of this my
body, and drink of this my blood, in re.
nembrance of me.' Whether this perver.
sion OF the priests language on that occa.
sion, and on tina, point, be wiltul or other-
wise, know not but most certainly do
know, that such we're not the terms used by
the Rev. gentleman when treating Of the
/ doctrine of transubstaniIatlou. His lam
guage was the language Of his church, and
the language of his church Is the language
of Chris, himself, which was made use of
when instituipg this divine sacrament.
namely: This IS my body, this is my
blood, - Matt. 26 ch. 90 v. Mark IA cb.
% " Luke 90 cb. 10 Was appears from
the unqualified assertions OF three Evangel.
lists; the fourth asserts, I" unless you eat The
flesh of the son o! man, and drink his blood.
you shall have no life in you )" for my flesh
is meat indeed, and thy blood is drink in.
deed. - (Jobp 6 ch. 81 w I8is is tue
language of scripture; this is the language
of the Catholic church, and this ,cas the
language used by tho Rev Mr.. Mallory on
the subject alludedto. The Catholic church
farther teaches io explanation Of the man
ner,n which We are to regard the real pres
ence OF Chris, in the Eucharist. She
teaches. tina, by the words of conservation,
real change is wrought 10 the bread and