London, Thursday, Novembe...
The Times, 1824-11-25T00:00:00

We are unwilling that our Journal should becoime the vrhicleof controversial Llivihity: we insert, however, a let- ter from a Catholic, whlo thinks he hias some reason to coMplaill, though we really know not the passage by whichl he is aggrieved, IHe informiis us " that the Catholic Church" (the hcatl of wbhich, at the command of BUONAPARTE, un- frothed Prince TAI.LEYRA Nti, Bishop of Autuni, and re- made him iilto a layman) " lias never admi- ted the validity " of the English Protestant orders, but considers the -highest minister amotig them as a mere layman." Itis of great importance to us, certainly, what the Catholic Church may thinki or prelicate ef our bishops. It is a grcat dero- gation, no doubt, fromii the s2cred character of such teachers as TILLOTSoN, ard STILLINGFLEET, an1d JEREMY rAY- ron, and JEWELL., and( a host of others, that the Church of Rome should call them laym-en. Some of the first English Biishops of the Reforined Religion, not being consecrated by Popislh Bishiops, were styled by the ,adherenta of * the latter, Parliamentary Bislops. It would puzzle our Cortespondent to show that the POPE himself is nominated to his office by so respectable or valid an authority. Por how has he been alnost universally chosen ? By the intrigues of Foreign Princes-generally according to the will of the most powerful and least scrupui- lous of them; ancl through the instrumentality of the most wicked and imbecile society in the world-nmen called Car. dinals-a name or title not found in holy writ, and to- tally unknown to the Foundler of the Clhristian religion and his Apostles. Did the Parliament, lvlwen they sanctioned by law the appointtnent of the Reformed Bishops, fighlt, and stab, an(d throw inkLstands at each oLher's heads ? which ceremonies have been knownv to attelnd the mnaking of Popes! But (a the subject of succession, CRANIM ER received the pall from the PQpo himself; and the succession to the see of Canterbury from that time to the prcsent has been much more unbroken than was the suiccession to the see of Rome ftom tlhe time of Pope GREGORY to the Reformation. How can the Catholics, indeed, speak of an unbroken succession of Popes; or how do they expect us to listen to them .vithout laughter, when both they and we know that they bave hrd two, and even three Popes at a time ? They pre- tend, also, to derive this succession, broken and divided as it is, from St. PETER, when there is no mention in 8cripture that ever St. PETF,R was at Romc, much less that he ordaiied a Bishop, or appointed a successor to himself in that see. St. LUXE, in " The "'Acts of the Apostles," narrates minutely the voyage Of St. PAUL to Rome. WVould the work have omitted all mention of the abode of St. PETER in the same city, if such a mighty consequence was to be (lerived from it's tbe government of the C.hristian Clh6rch to the end of the world, the unbroken succession, &c.? The proba. bility, therefore, is, that St, PETER never was at Rome; or at least it is clear that his being there was a circumstance not thought *vorth relating by a coternporary inspired wi.iter, arid therefore cannot be made the foundation of any important consequences. Indeed, the whole story of Popes and infallililities is almost too ridiculous, in the present sate of society in England and Scotland, in Germany, and even in France, to merit a serious refutation. In Ireland, Italy, Spain, and Portugal, where the great body of the pco- ple are-in a state ofibarbarous i,norance, thecase is dilTerent Lctiers were reeeived yesterlay from Mararjharn, daict ltc lth of Ctobvrj brought by rhe James, arrived at Li- vCrplhol. Lsrcl Cochrane W2S shorly expected at that place, but was to call at Ceara on 14s way thither. LOYDON, THURSDAK. NOVEMBER 25, 1824.