1799-) 
aS their interpreter in applying to the court of 
Rome. J# 1789 they afked of the pontiff a bi- - 
fhop for the tatbolics of North America, lee aving 
to the Holy See the perpetual right of nomination. 
Pius, who was notiaccuftomed to fuch defer- 
ence even from the catholic powers, accepted 
the offer, but did not make an improper ufe 
of it. Hetett to the members of the catho- 
lic clergy ¢he tafk of nominating their bifhop 
in this firft inftance, only referving to himfelf 
the privilege of confirming their choice. 
The perfon whom they elevated to the epif- 
copal chair was John Carrol, who fixed his 
fee at Baltimore, and affumed the title of 
pope’s legate. 
«¢ The-authority of the pontiff was ph 
making fome diftant acquifitions, while his 
lofles were accumulated clofe around him: 
and to modern Rome might have been applied 
what Racine faid of the ancient—” 
“< O Rome! thy bitt’reft foes ftand at 
thy gates,” 
It follows to notice the oriBahl error 
of this Frénch author ; for I am unwilling 
to criminate his defign, and a love of truth 
forbids meto credit his affertion. The 
myfterious inauguration of a‘prelate. you 
know, has, in fome kind of profeffional 
perfuafions, made its way fo flowly and 
confidentially to the aid of mortals upon 
earth, ‘that we poor Americans are under 
the neceffity of importing the difpenfation 
from Europe at fecond hand ; andi to this 
end it is requifite to ferry ae, thofe vehi- 
cles of imparted grace, the head and heart 
of the “reverend Dottor.. Now, if you 
or I, Mr. Editor, were to crofs the At- 
antic Océan upon a fimilar bufinefs, I 
apprehend the nature of the ele&tion would 
furnifh us with the credentials of our 
f{pecific church; and in the year 1789 
(when thé infant goveriment of the United 
States had admitted very few competent 
notaries) we fhould probably have been 
taught by common prudence to have de- 
manded, as matter of common right, the 
public feal ‘of ‘the community, certifying 
the authénticity of the church te(timonials, 
to the end that his Holinefs (or even 
Mahomet) might have honoured the iden- 
tity of the miffion “ awith all due faith and 
credence. 
In regard to the ‘Apifeopal rights of the 
‘Awierican people, F take ifemi to be ex- 
ceedingly clear: it is effential that they 
acknowledge a Supreme Being; for they 
would be otherwife unfitting tor focial du- 
ties, and would feel themfelves abfolved 
from the folemnity of a formal oath, which 
it often becomes neceflary to adminifter 
for the furtherance of worldly intercourfe. 
Ii they only profefs @ beliefin God, they 
are certainly free to worthip him im any 
Catholic Bifhop i 12 Amer? ica. 
793 
vay they pleafe ; and I think this is all 
that 25 or caz be regarded by the Confitu- 
tion itfelf, or enforced by the laws of its 
Susor, finale Leoiflatute.  ’ 
With refpest to the fpecific rights of 
Churches, and of the religious altociates 
who compofe them, they neceflarily arife 
out of the principle propofed ; and are each 
of them independent of the other: This 
perfect religious freedom has been and con- 
tinues to be acted on. But the mediums 
of its agency are neceflarily as various as 
the variety of collective perfuafions. 
The church of England, for example, 
has proceeded to organization. Tt has an- 
nual convocations of its clergy within the 
limits of the feparate fovereignties of the 
ftates ; and it imitates the civil jurifpru- 
dence in: its collective delegation oy a, 
SUBORDINATE SUPREME! In this ex- 
ercife of right it has conftituted zo7e nae 
*one bifhop. His authority is influential ; 
and his ftipend is like that of a bear: be 
has his paws to fuck !—~He is the thepherd 
of a flock who hold him at their option,. 
and at their mercy. While he is governed 
by this prefcription, he caz do no harm ; 
and if he treads out of this circle, the civil 
law will take care that he JSoall do no 
wrong. 
The Roman Catholics poffefs the aad 
rights as the Church of England, and no 
more: like that church they have created. 
a bifhop ; but (fo far as I am informed) 
the extent of his epifcopacy needs no 
diocefan ‘auxiliary; and bifhop Carrol 
continues, yet to bé the pope’s fole Ameri- 
can vicegerent, holding precifely as much 
authority as any one bifhop of the Englith 
church militant within the limits of the 
-United States. 
There are certain Boe (I have un- . 
derftood) who have alic beftowed the lawn 
fleeves of their profeffion upon a {uitable 
dignitary ; and if the mere motion of the 
{pirit was to flir up an epifcopal quaker in 
petticoats, I am bold to fay that America 
acknowledges no law to controul her fpi- 
ritual influence, while fhe demeans herielf 
orderly in the ordinary walks of focial 
contpact. 
What conftitutes the beauty of religious 
charity in America, according to my poor 
eftimation, is the harmony which fubfifts 
in the pradiice of difcordant theories: 1 
have otten beheld with pleafure a kind of 
pulpit bofpitality which I have feen in no 
other country ; for it is not unfrequent in 
this refpect for a clergyman to inwite his 
* Maddifon of nebo White of Penn- 
fylvania, Prowoff of New York, &s. 
diffentient 

