quainted with the subject and its bearings, must know, that it can be made a work of great good, or great evil, just as the writer is acquainted with his subject and makes it to turn upon truth or error, and as I and many others know, that this good, or this evil, will, from your pen, correspond with your great ability and influence as a writer, I take the liberty to correct you upon a very serious error in your first No., one, which, if not corrected, will lead to a chain of error throughout your work, and may be the cause of your drawing the most unjustifiable inferences. This error is thus set forth, and is in fact, the gist of your first letter.

In paragraph 3, you say: "Before we proceed further, let us clearly understand the meaning of these words: CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, and REFORMATION. CATHOLIC means universal, and the religion, which takes this epithet, was called universal, because all Christian people of every nation acknowledge it to be the only true religion, and because they all acknowledge one and the same head of the Church, and this was the Pope, who though he generally resided at Rome, was the head of the Church in England, in France, in Spain, and, in short, in every part of the world where the Christian religion was professed. But there came a time, when some nations, or rather, parts of some nations, cast off the authority of the POPE, and, of course, no longer acknowledged him as the head of the Christian Church. These nations, or parts of nations, declared, or protested, against the authority of their former head, and also against the doctrines of that church, which, until now, bad been the only Christian Church. They, therefore, called themselves Protestors, or PROTESTANTS, and this is now the appellation given to all who are not Catholics."

In paragraph 10, you say: "This religion (the Roman Catholic) was the ONLY CHRISTIAN religion in the world for fifteen hundred years after the death of Christ. They may say, indeed, that for the first three hundred years there was no POPE seated at Rome. But, then, for twelve hundred years there had been; and, during that period, all the nations of Europe and some part of America, had become Christian, and all acknowledged the POPE as their head in religious matters; and, in short, there was no other Cristian Church known in the world, nor had any other ever been thought of."

Upon a first consideration, it would not seem necessary, that to write a history of what is called the Reformation, the

writer should be acquainted with the whole history and progress of Christianity; nor would it have been so with you, if you had kept to the purpose which you have laid down in your title; but by launching back to the very origin of Christianity, and by asserting, in effect, that there was no change or reformation, in the Christian Church before what was called the Protestant Reformation, you have spoiled your book, you have made its foundation to rest on that which is notoriously untrue: and before you go a step further with it, I advise you to read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, if you read no other works, upon the subject of the rise and progress of Christianity.

It is a singular circumstance, but no less true, that the mass of Christians, and even the majority of their Priests, are wholly uninformed on the rise and progress of their religion. Doubtless, I should have remained in the same state of ignorance, had I not been prosecuted for publishing the "Age of Reason;" but this circumstance, and my long imprisonment, have induced me to fathom it, wherever it is fathomable, as far as I could get at books for that purpose. I now see, that a correct, a most faithful, history of the rise and progress of the Christian Religion would be the most powerful Anti-Christian work that could at this moment be presented to the public. The mass of Christians suppose, that their religion and their churches were set up by their God, in the same manner, as we read in the book of Genesis, of the formation of the earth, and of the setting up of the firmament and its ornaments, the sun, moon, and stars. But wide is the fact, and the origin and progress of this Christian Religion were not a jot more respectable, than have been the origin and progress of the religion established by Johanna Southcote. No two circumstances could have been more alike, with the exception, that we have not yet heard of any eunuchs among the followers of Johanna.

But your error, Sir, in this matter of the Christian History, consists, in your not knowing, that the Greek is older than the Roman Church, and that the whole Greek Church, which has ever included the whole of Asia that was Christian, and nearly the whole of Africa that was Christian, with a large portion of Europe, or the whole of Greece and its Islands, and Russia, has ever been independent of, and never did acknowledge, the authority of the Bishops of Rome. As much less in extent as has been the Protestant Catholic

than the Roman Catholic, so much less has been the latter than the Greek Catholic Church. I would not have interrupted you, had I not seen, in your little book, an attempt to give a great importance to the Roman Catholic Church; but if you will make yourself acquainted with the history of Christianity, your ideas of the importance of the Roman Catholic Church will be much lessened. It never had any such influence as you ascribe to it; and if you know the history of England well, you must know, that the authority of the Bishop of Rome was often set at defiance, before the reign of Henry the Eighth, by the Kings, by the Aristocracy, and sometimes by the English Bishops. You may also learn, that there were two, and sometimes, three Popes up at one time: and different priuces of Europe espousing their dif ferent interests: and that there is not a Roman Catholic country in Europe, but has at times spurned the interference and authority of the one reigning Pope or Bishop of Rome. Even some of the Italian Bishops have asserted a co-equal power with the Bishop of Rome, and have successfully opposed him. Mosheim will inform you correctly and most impartially of the rise, progress, and decline, of the Papal power of the Bishops of Rome.

He cannot be an honest man, who, knowing the true history of Christianity, will applaud it, in any one of its establishments: though I confess, that any thing uniform is better than that horrid and degrading sectarianism which now exists. But, it is out of the sectarianism, that the total overthrow of Christianity is to be sought; and, therefore, I will throw in my pen against yours, if you shew any disposition to set up any one sect above and at the expence of another. Pull down, as much as you like; but nothing on this ground shall you build in this country, whilst I can write in it. For the equality of the sects in the eye of the law, I am a strenuous advocate; therefore, I wish all the improvement in the condition of the Irish or English Roman Catholics that an honest man can wish them; but if you, as you have shewn symptoms of doing in No. 1, of your history of the Refor mation, seek to re-establish the Roman Catholic Church by law, if you assert the right of the Bishop of Rome to perpetuate his power over any one human being, then you will seal your character as a public writer, and illustrate every motive by which you have been hitherto actuated.

In all that you write upon the subject of agriculture, in all that you say upou the subject of amending the con

dition of the labouring class, you exhibit honesty, decision, great ability, and the most intense desire to add to the public good. In your assaults upon paper money and the funding system, your end is evidently good; though your forging scheme, as a means of overthrowing them, was atrocious, and sent you many degrees downward in the public esteem: and further, it has not been overlooked, that you not only never ventured to do that which you recommended to others to do; but that you have never ventured to recommend the subject, whilst in England to share the danger of publishing it. But on all great political questions, on all first principles of government, there is such a lack of honesty of purpose apparent throughout your fifty volumes, that it is really painful to those who wish to see you make the most of your great power as a writer. Almost within the same hour, we have seen from your pen, adulation fulsome, and. insult uncalled for, towards the person of the present King. You laud the system of King, Lords and Commons, and yet call for the Bourbon of Spain, the Bourbon of France, or the Pope of Rome, with absolute power, in preference to the government now existing. And, in lately commending the Judges for asserting their power to decide upon what is proper and what is not proper to be reported of public proceedings in our Courts of Law and Magisterial Offices, you seem to exbibit, that absolute power, without responsibility, is your ruling passion.

Sometimes, I endeavour to make apologies for you in my own mind, by supposing, that you seek to accomplish the same object in some round about and strange manner; which others may be working at more direct. But I really am afraid of the object of your history of the Reformation, and seeing you starting wrong on a fundamental point of your subject, I could not resist the duty of this correction. Whilst on such a subject, I will give you one very important hint, which you may otherwise possibly overlook or not dis

cover.

If you examine well the whole history of Christianity, and its bearing upon the labouring class, you will discover, that all the evils, which you are evidently about to attribute to the overthrow of the Roman Catholic Church in this country, are connected with a prior principle, with the principle of religion itself. You may see this in the fact, that, when the authority of the Bishop of Rome was first renounced by the government of England, for the people had no share in

the change, there was not a Protestant Catholic Priesthood ready made to supplant the Roman Catholic Priesthood. How then was the new Church supplied with Priests, you may well ask? Why, as it always has been supplied! The Roman Catholic Priesthood followed their benefices and turned Protestants! And this is not the whole of the change. In the reign of Henry the Eigth, the supremacy of the Pope was renounced and even after this, there were various doings and undoings, cantations and recantations, with the Priests, in his reign. Under the short reign of the youth, Edward the Sixth, who was never any thing but a boy, aud does not deserve the sneers which have been cast upon him, the Church was uniformly Protestant, with some slight changes in the Liturgy. But when his sister Mary came to the throne, she restored the supremacy of the Pope over the Church of England! And you may well say, what was now to be done, to supply the restored Roman Catholic Church with a Priesthood, since the whole of the old church had been converted to Protestant Catholicism? For the word Catholic has been used alike by all the Christian Churches, nor was the Roman Church the first to adopt it. There never was a real Catholic Church in Europe, after Saint Paul got two houses full of Christians at Corinth. There was then at once a Catholic and a Protestant Church, the one abusing the other: and the growth of the Churches have but extended the system of mutual abuse and injury, the stronger being always the orthodox and alone free from persecution. You may well ask, how in the name of the Holy Trinity and of all the Saints, was the restored Roman Catholic Church, in the reign of Mary, so suddenly and so unexpectedly brought about, supplied with a priesthood? How? Why, you blind Christian, the Protestant Priesthood was again moved by the Holy Ghost, converted backwards to Roman Catholicism, and assisted to burn the exceptions that would not follow the general rule! But the reign of Mary was short, and the Holy Ghost interfered again, when Elizabeth came to the throne! The whole Church again, simultaneously renounced the supremacy of the Pope, and the already twice converted Priesthood was again converted to Protestant Catholicism! There were exceptions, certainly; but they counted but as exceptions to the general rule. And this was all done by one genera

tion of Priests!

Here, Mr. Cobbett, you may see, that the evils, of which