fl 
 
 f .. 
 
 I 
 
 >^./^/o5T 
 
 §rom f^e Eifirarg of 
 
 (professor ^amuef (gftiffer 
 
 in (Jttemorp of 
 
 3uoge ^amuef (JJtiffer Q&recftinribge 
 
 flftesenfeb 6p 
 
 ^amuef (Jttiffet QSrecliinrtoge feong 
 
 fo f 0e &i6rarg of 
 
 (princefon 2#eofogtcaf ^eminarg 
 
 
 2X , 
 
 x 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 pi '^*' ■" 
 
 /■ 
 
 h 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 

 I 
 
 c 
 
CONTROVERSY 
 
 BETWEEN THB 
 
 7 
 
 Rev. JOHN HLCiHES, of* the Roman Catholic Church, 
 
 AND THE 
 
 t 
 
 Rev. JOHN BRECKINRID&E, of the Presbyterian Church, 
 
 RELATIVE TO THE EXISTING DIFFERENCES IN THE 
 
 ROMAN CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT 
 
 RELIGIONS. 
 
 ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN THE "PRESBYTERIAN.' 
 
 JOSEPH WHETHAM, 22 SOUTH FOURTH STREET. 
 
 1833. 
 
CATHOLIC CONTROVERSY. 
 
 Preliminary Correspondence. 
 
 The following letters, &c. now published 
 by consent of parties, will explain to the 
 community the origin, nature, and object 
 of the discussion which is to ensue. It 
 has on the whole been thought best to pub- 
 lish the entire correspondence; and it is 
 hoped that a sufficient apology for its great 
 length will be found in the consideration, 
 that the respective letters in the order in 
 which they were written, constitute the 
 best history of the whole case. 
 
 To the Rev. John Breckinridge. 
 
 Rev. Sir. — I have perused your article 
 on the Roman Catholic controversy publish- 
 ed in the Christian Advocate, and feel that 
 you have been neither just nor ingenuous 
 in your observations. I am the more sur- 
 prised at this, because those who know you, 
 ascribe to you many of those qualities of 
 mind and feeling, which constitute or adorn 
 f he scholar and the gentleman. 
 
 Throughout the article you seem to re- 
 g. et that your antagonist is not an "accre- 
 dited" or responsible authority on the sub- 
 ject — And hence you say '-'There are 
 Priests and Bishops, &c. We are prepared 
 to meet any of them, on the broad field of 
 this important and vital discussion ; and 
 hereby make this disposition known." 
 
 Now, Sir, I am equally ready to accept 
 this challenge — let it only be conducted in 
 a spirit of Christian charity, and of sincere 
 inquiry after truth. Of course it will be 
 necessary to define certain rules and condi- 
 tions by which we may understand our- 
 selves and each other, in the discussion of 
 the question. 
 
 I hope you will find in the publicity of 
 your challenge a sufficient apology for the 
 liberty I take in addressing you. I shall 
 be ready to receive any communication you 
 may make on this subject, and shall be ac- 
 
 A 
 
 commodating as to the time, place, manner, 
 and circumstance of bringing this topic 
 fairly before the public. 
 
 Yours very respectfully, 
 Oct. 3d, 1832. Jno. Hughes. 
 
 Philadelphia, October 13tA, 1832. 
 To the Rev. John Hughes, 
 
 Sir, — Your communication of the 3d 
 inst. was duly received; and I have used 
 the earliest opportunity, which my present 
 unsettled life allowed me, in giving the ne- 
 cessary attention to its contents. 
 
 I am gratified to find that in your esti- 
 mate of my character, you differ from 
 "those who know me." If, as you con- 
 cede, they are pleased to ascribe to me 
 'many of the qualities of mind and feeling 
 which constitute or adorn the scholar and 
 the gentleman," I leave you to determine, 
 whether I ought to be more gratified by 
 their judgment, or distressed at yours. 
 
 I confess, however, that I am not a little 
 surprised, to find you speaking of my letter 
 published in the Christian Advocate on the 
 Roman Catholic controversy, as embracing 
 an original challenge, while charging upon 
 me, the want of ingenuousness. By a re- 
 ference to the introduction and close of that 
 publication, you will find that this contro- 
 versy was forced upon me; and that my 
 reply did not originate the discussion or 
 embrace a challenge, but attempted to trans- 
 fer a challenge already given, to more equal 
 and elevated ground, and to identify the in- 
 vestigation, with the best lights, and sanc- 
 tioned defenders of your faith. 
 
 And now, Sir, allow me to say, that it 
 gives me hearty pleasure to find you dis- 
 posed, in a manly form, to meet the ques- 
 tion at issue between Protestants and Ro- 
 manists; while at the same time I fully 
 respond to the wish expressed in your let- 
 ter that any controversy which may here- 
 after be undertaken, "may be conducted 
 
( 
 
 11 
 
 ) 
 
 in a spirit of Christian charity, and of sin- 
 cere inquiry after truth." 
 
 As what you have been pleased to style 
 my challenge, was a written reply, to a 
 previous communication which was also 
 written, so a written answer, from an ac- 
 credited respondent was requested. The 
 obvious course therefore for you to pursue, 
 in meeting the spirit of this requirement, 
 is to respond from the press, to the contents 
 of my letter which is now widely circu- 
 lated through the country. And I, in my 
 place shall, by the grace of God, stand pre- 
 pared to give your communication prompt 
 and appropriate attention. 
 
 The terms in which you speak of ar- 
 rangements for discussion, "defining rules 
 and conditions," are not explicit. If the 
 above suggestion, therefore does not meet 
 your wishes, I shall be gratified to have 
 them more fully expressed, as to the best 
 method of using the press to reach the de- 
 sired end. And that you may be assured 
 of my sincerity, and entire readiness to in- 
 vestigate this great and vital subject, I use 
 this occasion to say, that there are several 
 ministers of the Gospel in this city and vi- 
 cinity, who stand prepared with me, to meet 
 yourself, and number any of your clergy 
 that may be disposed to unite with you, in 
 any way most agreeable to yourselves, that 
 is consistent with the grave and sacred na- 
 ture of the theme. 
 
 I am yours, very respectfully, 
 
 John Breckinridge. 
 
 The following rules were next sent to 
 the Rev. Mr. Breckinridge, by the Rev. 
 Mr. Hughes. 
 
 Whereas the undersigned have agreed to 
 enter on an amicable discussion of the great 
 points of religious controversy between 
 Catholics and Protestants, — and whereas 
 such discussion cannot prove either profit- 
 able to the parties concerned, or edifying 
 to the public at large, unless they are con- 
 ducted in the language of decorum, and 
 in a spirit of Christian politeness, — and 
 whereas this object is best attained by ad- 
 herence to certain rules, and conditions mu- 
 tually agreed to, therefore, the following 
 shall be the rules of said discussion, to the 
 observance of which, each of the parties 
 hereby binds himself: 
 
 1st. We agree respectively to adhere 
 strictly to the subject of discussion, for the 
 time being: and to admit no second ques- 
 tion until the first shall have been exhausted. 
 
 2d. Each of the parties shall be the ac- 
 credited interpreter of his own religion. 
 And neither shall have the right to ascribe 
 to his adversary, doctrines or explanations 
 of doctrines which the latter disclaims. 
 
 3d. The parties shall write and publish 
 alternately in the same paper, never allow- 
 ing any communication to exceed two co- 
 lumns. 
 
 4th. The controversy shall commence by 
 a discussion of the rule of faith, to prevent 
 it from becoming interminable and useless. 
 Signed John Hughes. 
 
 October 23 d, 1832. 
 
 Philadelphia, November 7th, ] 832. 
 The Rev. John Hughes, 
 
 Sir, — I received by the hand of your 
 friend on the 26th ultimo, a series of rules 
 proposed by you as the basis of "an ami- 
 cable discussion of the great points of reli- 
 gious controversy between (Roman) Catho- 
 lics and Protestants." When you called 
 upon me yesterday, I informed you that I 
 preferred to settle the preliminaries of the 
 proposed discussion in writing ; and that 
 although my answer to your proposals, had 
 been delayed by my absence from town, as 
 well as other causes, beyond my control, 
 yet it was then in readiness to be sent, 
 needing transcription only. In the ex- 
 tended conversation which was at your par- 
 ticular request then entered into, my ob- 
 jections to your rules were then stated at 
 large. I need not now repeat more than 
 the substance of what was communicated 
 then: viz. 1. Your proposals are entirely 
 silent as to any rejoinder to my letter in the 
 Christian Advocate, though in that you find 
 the avowed reason of addressing me on this 
 subject, and though it contains a number 
 of objections to your system of faith, and 
 morals, to which answers are requested. 
 2. The manner in which you propose to 
 conduct the discussion, (rule 3d,) seems 
 very insufficient, breaking up, as it must 
 do into so many fractions, every leading 
 question, and requiring so much time to 
 reach any adequate result. Besides, you 
 are local, and may be always at hand 
 to attend upon the continually recurring 
 
( 
 
 111 
 
 ) 
 
 details of a controversy carried on in the 
 columns of a daily paper, for such you 
 seemed, in your conversation yesterday, to 
 prefer. But my present pursuits (I will 
 not say that they were known to you in 
 making out this rule) lead me to every 
 part of our country, and frequently after 
 very short notice. 3. Soma of the rules 
 are unfair. I speak not of your intention, 
 but of their tendency. See, for example, 
 rule third. This rule will put it in your 
 power by a forced construction to suspend 
 all argument on any question by a private 
 explanation or special disclaimer. The 
 symbols, decrees, bulls, and approved wri- 
 ters of the Church of Rome, are now be- 
 fore the world, and many of them have 
 been extant for ages. The distinguishing 
 doctrines of the Reformation and the stand- 
 ards of the Presbyterian Church, have also 
 been fully published to mankind. While 
 due weight should be conceded to our re- 
 spective explanations, yet the discussion of 
 these doctrines must proceed on the prin- 
 ciples of honest interpretation. I feel the 
 more constrained to be explicit here, be- 
 cause you charge me with being both un- 
 'ust and disingenuous in the statements of 
 my published letter, though they are all 
 founded in acknowledged facts, and most 
 of them on the authority of your standing 
 symbols or accredited writers. I must 
 also add that the explanations of this rule 
 given by you yesterday were not .satisfac- 
 tory. Again, the 4th rule, as interpreted 
 by you yesterday, would appear to intimate 
 that our discussion must stop, if we cannot 
 agree on the rule of faith. The tendency 
 then will be to narrow the argument to 
 this single question. For it is not very 
 probable, however others may be affected 
 by our controversy, that either of us will 
 be convinced by the other. 
 
 In the deliberate review of these rules, 
 my conclusion as communicated to you 
 verbally in our recent interview is, that 
 your alternative properly is, either to an- 
 swer my published letter, or to meet me 
 in a public oral discussion, of all the lead- 
 ing subjects on which we differ. 
 
 You have, however, declined to adopt 
 either of these methods; and you assume 
 the right to choose the manner of conduct- 
 ing the controversy, upon the ground that 
 the challenge came from me. This I dis- 
 
 claim in the sense in which you use it; 
 and refer you for explanation to my for- 
 mer letter. Yet, that you may have no 
 just cause for attributing to me the failure 
 of the proposed discussion, I hereby agree 
 to adopt the preamble, with the 1st, 3d, 
 and 4th rules — provided, 1. That after the 
 rule of faith, shall have been fairly and 
 fully discussed, other topics, to be agreed 
 on hereafter, be taken up in order. 2. 
 that if either party was hindered by sick- 
 ness or inevitable calls to be absent, the 
 discussion shall for the time, upon due no- 
 tice being given, be suspended ; and 3. 
 That the paper called "The Presbyterian," 
 published in this city, be the medium of 
 communication with the public. 
 
 It is my expectation, Providence per- 
 mitting, to be stationary, either in Phila- 
 delphia or New York, for some months 
 after the first of December. In the inter- 
 val,, though several short journies will be 
 necessary, not only in the discharge of my 
 official duties, but also to prevent the in- 
 terruption of the proposed discussion from 
 that quarter, yet any communication from 
 you will receive the earliest possible atten- 
 tion. I remain sir, your ob't servant. 
 John Breckinridge. 
 
 November 12th, 1832. 
 To the Rev. John Breckinridge, 
 
 Sir, — In your letter of the 7th inst. you 
 have stated at length your ideas on the pre- 
 liminaries of the controversy to which you 
 had challenged the "Priests and Bishops" 
 of the Catholic Church. I shall briefly no- 
 tice in order all those parts of your letter 
 that seem to require attention. 
 
 You begin with setting forth that I should 
 issue a rejoinder to your letter. To this I 
 reply that the challenge is general, cover- 
 ing the whole of the disputed ground, and 
 consequently an acceptance of it requires 
 that we should commence with the begin- 
 ning. Secondly, you object to the manner 
 of conducting it, (as indicated in rule 3d,) 
 and hint that lam "local," and you ob- 
 liged to travel, this rule would give me 
 decided advantage. Now, so far as this 
 rule restricts us to two columns and alter- 
 nate communication, I hereby agree to 
 withdraw it; leaving you free on that sub- 
 ject. But with regard to your "present 
 pursuits," I am surprised that you allude 
 
( 
 
 iv 
 
 ) 
 
 to them, since you know that they are pre- 
 cisely the same as when you published 
 your challenge. 
 
 You say the 2d rule is unfair. This 
 must be owing to your misapprehension of 
 its meaning. I will submit another in its 
 stead at the close of this letter, in which 1 
 trust you will find nothing " unfair. " 
 
 Rule 4th, you have adopted with a pro- 
 vision to which I agree. Your second pro- 
 vision had reference to that part of the 3d 
 rule which you objected to, and which I 
 have agreed to withdraw. 
 
 The only difficulty that remains, has re- 
 ference to the medium of communication 
 with the public. I cannot consent to its 
 being "the paper called The Presbyte- 
 rian." If we are to be judged by the pub- 
 lic, it must be by the public generally, and 
 not by a sectarian fragment of the commu- 
 nity — which is itself a party in the contro- 
 versy. If I agreed to that provision what 
 would be my situation? Why, I should 
 have a Presbyterian antagonist, Presbyte- 
 rian judges, and receive my license to pub- 
 lish in every case, at the hand of a Presby- 
 terian Editor! This Sir, is asking too 
 much: — and is not in good keeping with 
 that courage which prompted you to chal- 
 lenge "Priests and Bishops" to the discus- 
 sion of these vital points before the public. 
 Upon a review of your letter and my 
 own, I find that we are agreed upon the 
 preamble and the first rule without 
 amendment. Let the second be expressed 
 as follows: 
 
 "Rule 2. The question shall be confined 
 to those points of doctrine and morals 
 which are admitted by the parties, or 
 found in the Symbols, Decrees, Bulls, 
 Catechisms, approved writers, Standards, 
 and Confessions of Faith, of the churches 
 to which the parties respectively belong. 
 And such points shall in all cases be stated 
 in the precise words or literal translation 
 of the document from which they are ex- 
 tracted, and the reference given." 
 
 If you agree to this, and will adopt the 
 natural, obvious, and impartial medium of 
 a public newspaper — then am I ready to 
 answer your challenge. If you prefer an 
 oral discussion under the guidance of these 
 rules, let it be in the presence of twelve 
 enlightened gentlemen neither Catholics 
 nor Presbyterians — and again I am ready. 
 
 But I cannot consent to exhibit myself as a 
 theological gladiator for the amusement of 
 an idle, promiscuous, curious multitude. 
 
 This, Sir, is my last private communi- 
 cation on the subject. I shall await your 
 decision on this letter. If you decline 
 every thing I have proposed, then, it 
 strikes me, that consistency and candor 
 will suggest to you the propriety of offer- 
 ing a public apology for your challenge, at 
 least some explanation of the private cir- 
 cumstances which tempted you to publish 
 it, and to wear laurels without the trouble 
 of deserving them. 
 
 Yours, very respectfully, 
 
 John Hughes. 
 
 Philadelphia, December 3d, 1832. 
 To the Rev. John Hughes, 
 
 Sir, — As I intimated to you in my last 
 communication, I hope to be located in this 
 city or New York, for the chief part of the 
 winter, and to enjoy sufficient rest to give 
 you some attention. Having returned 
 home on the evening of Nov. 29th, I now 
 send my answer to your letter of Novem- 
 ber the 12th. 
 
 If the cause you advocate is to be mea- 
 sured by the spirit of your reply, then it 
 is still worse than I had even supposed it. 
 The dignity and Christian decorum with 
 which you professed yourself desirous of 
 conducting the proposed controversy, have, 
 I regret to say, strangely disappeared in 
 the progress of our preliminary correspon- 
 dence, giving place to severe invective, 
 ungenerous taunts, and bad temper. If I 
 patiently lend myself to these uses, the 
 public will at least not think me aspiring; 
 and the laurels which you suppose me so 
 desirous of possessing, without having won, 
 will scarcely be worth wearing. But in- 
 deed, Sir, you mistake me in supposing 
 that I wish to wear laurels. I desire vic- 
 tory for the truth of God, and the crown 
 for Him whose right it is to rule — and 
 whose prerogative has been usurped by 
 him "who, seated as God in the temple 
 of God, exalteth himself above all that is 
 called God." As this will probably be my 
 last communication to you in this way, it 
 is perhaps my duty once more, explicitly 
 to state the grounds on which we respec- 
 tively stand in the matter now at issue be- 
 tween us. 
 
( 
 
 ) 
 
 Some two years since, (while a resident 
 in Baltimore,) I was singled out without 
 provocation, by one of your leading lay- 
 men, and required to write a reply to his 
 strictures, on a Protestant work, with the 
 alternative of appearing to an esteemed 
 member of the church of which I was pas- 
 tor, (who had been perplexed by his sub- 
 tlety, and was referred to me for a reply,) 
 to be unable to defend our avowed faith. 
 I chose to reply in writing, and at the close, 
 called for a written rejoinder to a number 
 of objections stated in the reply ; and in- 
 sisted on one from a responsible author — 
 stating my readiness at the same time, in 
 view of these " objections," to meet such a 
 person on the whole field of controversy 
 between Roman Catholics and Protestants. 
 In the autumn of this year I published that 
 letter — impelled to it in part by the fre- 
 quent, and sometimes insolent attacks that 
 were made upon the Protestant churches — 
 and in part, by the very unwarrantable 
 course pursued at the consecration of the 
 house of worship in which you officiate. 
 You professed to believe yourself (among 
 others) challenged by me originally in this 
 publication ; and you take advantage of that 
 assumption to fix the terms, according to 
 which, and which alone, the discussion 
 must be conducted. I proposed to you the 
 obvious and ordinary course, at once the 
 most refined and best adapted to make per- 
 manent and wide impressions on the public 
 mind — that you should reply to my letter 
 in a connected form, from the press — pro- 
 mising to write again in answer when ne- 
 cessary. This you entirely and repeatedly 
 declined, for reasons, whose weight an im- 
 partial community will not find it difficult 
 to estimate. I offered you the option of a 
 public oral discussion. From this also you 
 retreat — and urge in their stead the use of 
 the daily poll Heal press — and yet you ob- 
 ject to the oral discussion on the ground 
 that you "cannot consent to exhibit your- 
 self as a theological gladiator, for the 
 amusement of an idle, promiscuous, cu- 
 rious multitude /" How you can see 
 so much unsuitableness in one of these 
 forms, and none in the other, I am at a loss 
 to discover. In view of your unmoved 
 determination to proceed in your own way, 
 I proposed the pages of a weekly religious 
 paper— and having no connexion with your 
 
 papers, I did all I could, offered one of 
 ours, expecting you to reciprocate the ar- 
 rangement. I was led to this course the 
 more by the conversation which you held 
 with the Assistant Secretary in our office 
 before my arrival, and by the communica- 
 tions which passed between us, on this sub- 
 ject. The paragraph therefore in which 
 you resent my otter of "The Presbyte- 
 rian," is truly surprising to me, being, as 
 I recollect, wholly at variance with the 
 spirit manifested by you, in our interview! 
 Did you not then entertain the idea, that 
 the religious periodical presses of our res- 
 pective denominations, might be properly 
 and effectually used, if they could be ob- 
 tained, to carry on this investigation before 
 the public ? And yet now, when the idea 
 is matured, you charge me with dishonor- 
 able proposals ! Your proposition to meet 
 me before twelve gentlemen is quite amus- 
 ing, especially in view of your desire to 
 use a daily paper on account of its publicity. 
 
 You say, "I am surprised that you 
 allude to your present pursuits, since you 
 know that they are precisely the same as 
 when you published your challenge.^ 
 Now, if when I published my letter I had 
 proposed as my plan of controversy, alter- 
 nate pieces in a daily paper, and then 
 when challenged by you on that plan, and 
 plead as a reason for declining it, my pre- 
 sent pursuits, though still the same, there 
 would have been reason in your remark ; 
 but the case is this, you know now, if not 
 before, that my pursuits prevent me from 
 being long local; when, therefore, you pro- 
 pose and insist on a plan not only puerile, 
 but which you know I could not adopt, is 
 it I, or you, who shrink from the manly 
 meeting of the question ? 
 
 Still more, your posture as to my pub- 
 lished letter, gives you no exclusive right 
 above me to decide on the method of dis- 
 cussion, it being only a transfer to another 
 person, of a controversy which I did not 
 originate. And still more, while my letter 
 was in progress through the press, and (as 
 I think,) that point which contained " the 
 challenge," was not yet published, you did 
 attack Protestant ministers in a daily paper 
 of this city, in a most unwarrantable and 
 injurious manner. 
 
 As to the rule substituted by you for rule 
 2d, to which I had objected, I still decline 
 
( 
 
 vi 
 
 ) 
 
 it. It is both unusual and uncandid, to 
 propose it in the form and terms which you 
 use. I wish to be fair but free in my argu- 
 ment, and extend to you the same right. 
 If we misinterpret, or- misquote, or bring 
 bad authority, let it be shown in the dis- 
 cussion, it will injure only him who does it. 
 And now, Sir, this is also my last pri- 
 vate communication in this way. I have 
 therefore to say in conclusion, if you will 
 secure a weekly Roman Catholic paper, as 
 I have the Protestant paper already named 
 by me, I will agree to write and publish, 
 simultaneously, in alternate weeks, with 
 you, our respective pieces, until we have 
 done ; or if you can obtain the use, week 
 after week, of some respectable paper de- 
 voted to religion and literature, which is 
 neither Roman Catholic nor Presbyterian, 
 I will promptly acquiesce. In the event 
 of your accepting this last offer, I am pre- 
 pared to have a personal interview with you 
 to settle the remaining particulars of the ar- 
 rangement, it being understood that I still 
 agree to your rules, as qualified by this and 
 any previous letter. If, however, you de- 
 cline this, having declined the fair and 
 scholar-like method of a connected answer 
 from the press ; having declined a public 
 and oral discussion ; and having entrenched 
 yourself in the columns of a daily political 
 paper, which can never afford room for a 
 full discussion, is no fit place for such a 
 discussion, and is a plan for any length of 
 time, to your knowledge, incompatible 
 with my "present pursuits," I shall feel 
 called on in duty, as well as justified in right 
 to publish this correspondence, and to begin 
 a series of letters through the press to the 
 public on the subjects which divide Protes- 
 tants from Roman Catholics. When you 
 demand an apology, you forget the age and 
 the land in which we live. My "apology" 
 for writing and publishing my letter, so far 
 as not already given, shall, with God's help, 
 be seen in a public vindication of divine 
 truth, and of the rights of man against a 
 system, which, in my humble judgment, is 
 at war with both. 
 
 I remain your obedient servant, 
 
 John Breckinridge. 
 
 Philadelphia, December Uh, 1832. 
 To the Rev. John Breckinridge. 
 
 Sir, — The object of the present letter is 
 
 to intimate, before you commence the pub- 
 lication of our correspondence, that I agree 
 to the proposals you have made, for the 
 purpose of bringing the disputed grounds 
 of controversy between Catholics and 
 Presbyterians fairly before the public. 
 
 In your letter of yesterday you allude to 
 the offer you had made of the columns of 
 "The Presbyterian," and to my having 
 declined it, in a tone of triumph, which 
 my reasons for declining were somewhat 
 calculated to subdue. However you are 
 pleased to overlook those reasons; and 
 since you decline every mode suggested by 
 me, I will even meet you in your own pro- 
 posals — and hereby signify my acceptance 
 of the same. 
 
 Of course "The Presbyterian" will con- 
 tinue to publish until one or the other of us, 
 think proper to decline the contest. I, on 
 my part, shall have the whole re-published 
 in one of our papers, so that the Catholics 
 may receive the enlightenment of your ar- 
 guments. 
 
 I must, however, enter my protest against 
 your rejection of the 2d Rule, as explained 
 in my last letter, The "mens conscia rec- 
 ti," has nothing to dread from its operation. 
 
 Now, Sir, you may proceed with the 
 publication of our correspondence; and as 
 soon as it shall have appeared, I will open 
 the controversy by addressing a letter to 
 you through the columns of "The Presby- 
 terian" on the "Rule of Faith" as already 
 agreed upon. Yours, very respectfully, 
 Jno. Hughes. 
 
 Philadelphia, December 6th, 1832. 
 To the Rev. John Hughes. 
 
 Sir, — I am truly gratified that we can so 
 far agree, at last, as to have the prospect of 
 beginning promptly, the proposed discus- 
 sion. In my last letter, I suggested a per- 
 sonal interview, in order to settle some of 
 the details of the controversy — such as the 
 question to be investigated — the order — the 
 quantity of matter from week to week, 
 &c. &c. It is understood of course that the 
 particular paper furnished on your part, is 
 regularly pledged to reciprocate the ar- 
 rangement made by "The Presbyterian," 
 in a weekly re-publication. My determi- 
 nation to publish our correspondence was 
 suspended upon the event of your declining 
 the terms offered to you in my last letter. 
 
f 
 
 Til 
 
 ) 
 
 I am pleased however that you consent to 
 the publication — as the letters themselves 
 will best explain the nature and origin of 
 the pending controversy. 
 
 I propose, in fine, an interview to-mor- 
 row morning, in the presence of two mu- 
 tual friends, if you please, at such lime as 
 may be most convenient to yourself. 
 I am your obedient servant, 
 
 John Breckinridge. 
 
 To the Rev. John Breckinridge. 
 
 Rev. Sir, — I regret that was not in my 
 power to see you, on the day proposed in 
 your last letter, for the purpose of arrang- 
 ing those particulars to which you very 
 properly allude. 
 
 If it meet your views, I shall be very 
 happy to see you, on Monday at 10 o'clock, 
 A. M., with any gentleman you may think 
 proper to bring, at my dwelling adjoining 
 St. John's church. If the hour or place 
 be inconvenient, you may mention any 
 other, and I shall make it convenient to at- 
 tend. But sometime on Monday will suit 
 me best, as I shall be obliged to go out of 
 town next week, and shall start, probably, 
 on Tuesday morning, 
 
 Yours, very respectfully, 
 
 Dec. 8th, 1832. Jno. Hughes. 
 
 The proposed meeting took place, when 
 the following agreement was made between 
 the parties: 
 
 The undersigned, agreeing to have an amicable dis- 
 cussion of the great points of religious controversy be- 
 tween Protestants and Roman Catholics, do hereby 
 bind themselves to the observance of the following 
 rules: 8 
 
 1. The parties shall write and publish, alternately, in 
 the weekly religious papers called the Presbyterian, 
 and a Roman Catholic paper, to be furnished by the 
 first of January, it being understood that Jhe commu- 
 nications shall be published after the following plan:— 
 One party opening the first week, the other party re- 
 plying the next week, and every piece to be republish- 
 ed in the immediately succeeding number of the Roman 
 Catholic paper. The communications not to exceed 
 four columns of the Presbyterian, nor to continue be- 
 yond six months, without consent of parties. 
 
 2. The parties agree that there is an infallible Rule 
 ot *aith established by Christ, to guide us in matters 
 oi religion, for the purpose of determining disputes in 
 the Church of Christ. 
 
 e \ T d 6 - V moreover agree, that after giving their views 
 ot the Rule of Faith, they shall proceed to discuss the 
 question, « Is the Protestant religion, the religion of 
 Christ?" s 
 
 4. The parties agree respectively, to adhere strictly 
 to the subject of discussion, for the time being, and to 
 
 admit no second question, until the first shall have been 
 exhausted. Each party shall be the judge when he is 
 done with a subject, and shall be at liberty to occupy 
 his time with a second topic, when he is done with the 
 first, leaving to the other party the liberty of continuing 
 to review the abandoned topic, as long as he shall chose; 
 subject, however, to be answered, if he introduce new 
 matter. 
 
 5. Mr. Hughes to open the discussion, and Mr. 
 Breckinridge to follow, according to the dictates of his 
 own judgment. 
 
 John Breckinridge, 
 Jno. Hughes. 
 
 Philadelphia, December 14th, 1832. 
 
 Philadelphia, December "26th, 1832. 
 The Rev. John Breckinridge. 
 
 Bear Sir, — In the correspondence that 
 has taken place between us, you must have 
 perceived that I left several topics unan- 
 swered, in as much as they had no imme- 
 diate bearing on the arrangements of the 
 rules by which the controversy was to be 
 conducted. On those topics 1 will now 
 make a few observations. 
 
 In your letter of the 3d inst. you give a 
 statement of the facts connected with the 
 origin of this discussion, which I am not 
 disposed to call in question, because, even 
 admitting them, they do not sustain the 
 conclusion which you have endeavoured to 
 build upon them. Now the only portion 
 of the statement, with which I am concern- 
 ed, is the fact that in the ''Christian Ad- 
 vocate" for August and September of this 
 year, you published a letter headed "Ro- 
 man Catholic Controversy," which on pe- 
 rusal I found to contain charges, which if 
 they were true, would render our religion 
 an object of horror to all good men. For 
 example, you stated on the authority of 
 Usher and St. Thomas Aquinas, that ac- 
 cording to our belief, irnages representing 
 Christ are to be adored, as Christ himself. 
 After having made this statement and given 
 those names to support it, you ask "What 
 is this? Is it not divine worship of idols 
 or images — i. e. Idolatry sanctioned by 
 standing authors, and ordered by the great 
 accredited counsel of Trent?" 
 
 Who this Usher is, from whom you 
 quote, I am at a loss to conjecture. There 
 is an author of that name, but he does not 
 possess much authority with Catholics, for 
 the reason that he happens to have been a 
 protest ant Archbishop. But no matter for 
 his testimony : the main point is, that you, 
 with your proper signature, charge upon 
 
( 
 
 Mil 
 
 ) 
 
 Catholics that they are Idolaters, by doc- 
 trine and authority. 
 
 You next charge upon them what you 
 call "legalized immoralities," and desig- 
 nate the doctrine of indulgences as " a bun- 
 dle of licenses to sin, and making merchan- 
 dise of souls." You even go into the de- 
 tail of this traffic, and tell us the scale of 
 prices on which crime was graduated — "for 
 a layman murdering a layman about 7s. 6d. ; 
 for killing a father, mother, wife, or sister, 
 10s. and 6d.." &c. page 392. 
 
 Now, Dear Sir, I would appeal to your- 
 self, and ask whether it was well possible 
 for us, desirous to share in the good opinion 
 of our fellow citizens, to let such charges, 
 sanctioned by your name, go forth on the 
 wings of the Press to every village and 
 hamlet in the land without claiming a hear- 
 ing for our defence. It is true that the 
 charges are, in themselves, too gross and 
 absurd to be believed by men of enlighten- 
 ed and educated minds. But when pub- 
 lished with your name, when published in 
 this city, when published with a direct, ex- 
 press, and positive call on the " Priests and 
 Bishops" of the church to meet you in the 
 broad field of this important and vital dis- 
 cussion — then the case is changed ; and there 
 is no alternative left, except either to obey 
 your summons to the field of controversy, 
 or allow the opposite course to be construed 
 into a tacit admission of the charges thus 
 boldly preferred. Persons were already 
 beginning to ask the question — "if these 
 accusations are unfounded, why do not some 
 of the Catholic clergy deny them, or meet 
 Mr. B. in the field of controversy to which 
 he has invited them? If they are silent, 
 when such charges, sustained by a respect- 
 able name, are brought against their reli- 
 gion, what are we to infer from their si- 
 lence ?" 
 
 It was in this stage of the question, that 
 your letter was brought under my notice, 
 and the circumstances seemed to leave no 
 room for hesitation as to the course to be 
 pursued . The charges against the Catholic 
 Religion, and the challenge addressed to its 
 ministers, were clear and unequivocal. Our 
 readers, then, will pronounce whether any 
 Catholic priest or bishop has been the as- 
 sailant in this controversy, or whether I, 
 among the least competent of them to un- 
 
 dertake it, should not be considered as the 
 party standing in the attitude of defence. 
 
 It is true, you qualify these facts and con- 
 clusions by reverting to a private contro- 
 versy between a Catholic layman and a 
 member of your congregation in Baltimore; 
 but this is an incident of ordinary occur- 
 rence, and has no necessary relation except 
 to the parties immediately concerned. Your 
 challenge — for I must use that term in the 
 absence of a more dignified one — was the 
 same when addressed to the young lady in 
 Baltimore that it now is — except that the 
 Priests and Bishops of the Catholic church 
 whom it summoned to the discussion were 
 entirely ignorant of its existence. But when 
 you spread out before the American public 
 the elaborate impeachment of their doctrine 
 and morals which your letter contains, then 
 it was that the document was served on the 
 parties whom it arraigned, and the public 
 duly advised of the proceeding. Do not 
 suppose that I am now complaining of your 
 proceedings in this matter. My object is 
 different : it is merely to show by a state- 
 ment of the facts, that view it on what side 
 you will, every aspect determines clearly 
 our relative positions, — yours as the assail- 
 ant, and mine, as the assailed. You speak 
 of my letter addressed to the Editor of the 
 Philadelphian during the prevalence of the 
 Cholera, as one of the immediate reasons 
 for the publication of yours, but even then 
 I was only repelling an unprovoked attack 
 
 upon the moral character of the Catholic 
 clergy. 
 
 I am well pleased to have this opportu- 
 nity of stating to the public the grounds on 
 which I utterly disclaim having provoked 
 this controversy; and the more so, because 
 there are many persons who deprecate such 
 discussions ; some, regarding the truth of 
 religion with as much dread or indifference 
 as Pilate ; others, from the admixture of 
 personal invective and even scurrility which 
 has sometimes characterized controversy. 
 Of this latter, however, I trust nothing shall 
 appear in our correspondence. I cannot 
 conceive that a strict adherence to the es- 
 tablished laws of literary decorum and pro- 
 priety, imposes any restraint on the freedom 
 of debate, or forbids the thorough dissection 
 of an adverse argument. 
 
 There is only one other topic connected 
 
( 
 
 IX 
 
 ) 
 
 with our correspondence to which I shall, 
 at this time, call attention. You have fre- 
 quently expressed your surprise that I did 
 not take up your letter as I found it in the 
 « Christian Advocate," and answer it, in- 
 stead of adopting the present course. You 
 have even intimated that it is beyond the 
 reach of refutation. I assure you, dear 
 Sir, that it never so appeared to me, and 
 that my motive for adopting this plan was 
 entirely different. There are first princi- 
 ples at the bottom of every subject, the ap- 
 plication of which never fails to throw light 
 on questions in detail springing out of such 
 subject. I saw in your letter that you had 
 entirely overlooked those first principles of 
 Christianity by the application of which 
 truth may be distinguished from error. I 
 saw our doctrines incorrectly stated, ar- 
 raigned, tried, and triumphantly condemn- 
 ed — but then you were conducting these 
 proceedings in the absence of every tribu- 
 nal except that of your own opinion and 
 the opinion of those who might happen to 
 agree with you. 
 
 But knowing that Christ, in the constitu- 
 tion of his church, has provided a tribunal 
 expressly for the purpose of determining 
 such disputes as those agitated in your let- 
 ter, I chose to appeal to the legitimate um- 
 pire. I am happy that you have also re- 
 cognised the existence, and competency of 
 this divinely appointed tribunal, and al- 
 though our controversy is to commence 
 with an investigation of what it is, still the 
 fact of its existence is a point on which 
 there is no dispute between us. This start- 
 ing from a common principle, should indi- 
 cate that truth, and not personal triumph 
 is the object we have mutually in view: — 
 and proceeding under the guidance of the 
 rules agreed upon, I hope and trust that the 
 discussion will lead to consequences neither 
 unpleasant, nor unprofitable to our readers 
 or ourselves. In this way questions will 
 succeed each other in the rational order 
 both of time and place — and it now remains 
 for me to open the correspondence with 
 that great question, viz. "what is that in- 
 fallible means which Christ has appointed 
 for determining disputes in his church?" 
 
 Yours, very respectfully, 
 
 Jno. Hughes. 
 
 New York, January 5th, 1833. 
 
 To the Rev. John Hughes. 
 
 Sir, — I had hoped that our prolonged 
 correspondence would cease with the adop- 
 tion of the rules, and give place to the ex- 
 pected discussion. You have felt it neces- 
 sary however to write again on preliminary 
 subjects, and your letter calls for some no- 
 tice by me on several accounts. 
 
 In reference to the origin of the contro- 
 versy which is about to be undertaken, I 
 now in conclusion lay before you the pas- 
 sages which relate to it in the published 
 letter. They are taken in part from the 
 beginning, and in part from the close of 
 that communication. 
 
 " Baltimore, 25tk July, 1831. 
 
 " My dear Madam, — When you first put into my 
 hands, " Father Clement," with the strictures of an 
 anonymous writer, I cursorily looked at his remarks, 
 and sent you in reply, a work called the " Protestant," 
 originally published in Edinburgh, as containing a full 
 and satisfactory refutation of those strictures. 
 
 " You have since informed me that a written answer 
 would be more satisfactory — nay more, that it was in 
 some sort, triumphantly demanded as impossible. 
 
 " You are fully aware, that the points at issue be- 
 tween Protestants and Papists arc numerous and vital, 
 and that it would require far more leisure, than I ever 
 can command, and far more talent than I possess, to do 
 justice to this discussion. 
 
 " Nor is the writer to whom I am requested to reply 
 in the proper sense a responsible one. His name was 
 for some time withheld, and when at my request, it was 
 given, the author, though highly respectable and intel- 
 ligent, did not appear to me an accredited defender of 
 his principles ; though in all likelihood, as wise as his 
 teachers. He may not be acknowledged as authority, 
 by those whom he here represents. 
 
 " Notwithstanding these things, however, I feel your 
 call to be imperative. As your pastor, it is my duty 
 and my privilege to do all in my power to aid you in 
 arriving at a knowledge of the truth, and in repelling 
 attacks on our precious faith. And when to this is 
 added the declaration, that we do not reply to such 
 things because we cannot; when our delay, arising from 
 pressing avocations, from dislike of controversy, or from 
 a delicate regard to what is proper, in the mode and 
 spirit of conducting it, are triumphantly appealed to as 
 evidences of the conceded weakness of our cause, it ap- 
 pears indeed our duty to take up the challenge." — 
 [Christian Advocate, Aug. 1832, p. 347.] 
 
 " In pressing these questions, we intend to be res- 
 pectful, though plain — and as we have been called on 
 for a defence of our views, so we feel it a duty to re- 
 ply." 
 
 " Finally, we expect a reply to these various objec- 
 tions and inquiries, and we ask one from some accre- 
 dited respondent, not from one whose defence may be 
 disclaimed, after the trouble of an extended discussion 
 has been gone into. There are priests and bishops, See. 
 We are willing to meet any of them, on the broad field 
 of this important and vital discussion ; and hereby make 
 this disposition known. 
 
 " Though removed from Baltimore, I shall be near at 
 hand, (in the city of Philadelphia,) and by God's grace. 
 
( 
 
 prepared for any respectful and intelligent communica- 
 tion of responsible character, on this subject." 
 
 In these passages, you have the history 
 of the discussion, prior to your taking it up. 
 Let it speak for itself. I have already giv- 
 en you some of my reasons for its publica- 
 tion, and need not here repeat them. I 
 freely own that the publication of my let- 
 ter, gave notoriety and intensity to the call 
 for a reply. But it did not begin the con- 
 troversy — nor did it first publish, though 
 it first printed it; for the whole matter had 
 become a subject of conversation in Balti- 
 more, and the manuscripts severally writ- 
 ten, were so far read, as to constitute a pub- 
 licly known issue. It is also a little re- 
 markable, that the reasoning which you 
 adopt, as to the Roman Catholic commu- 
 nity, applies strictly to the congregation of 
 which I was then pastor. It was known to 
 many that I had been addressed; that an 
 answer was demanded of me; that I had at 
 first declined to give one, sending only a 
 book on the controversy, and that a writ- 
 ten reply from me was then, with some 
 triumph, insisted on. And it was not until 
 nearly a whole year had passed, and many 
 of my friends thought my own character, 
 and even the cause of truth suffering from 
 my silence, that I took up my pen. There 
 is another fact which may cast some light 
 on this subject. In due time, a manuscript 
 attempt at a reply to my letter, was sent 
 after me to Philadelphia. My alternative 
 then became as follows, that is, according 
 to your reasoning — I must reply to the 
 Baltimore layman, or be silent. The for- 
 mer I had pledged myself not to do, the 
 latter would be by construction, and al- 
 most by confession, a surrender of my 
 principles, as incapable of defence. What 
 then could I do? Honour forbade meto pub- 
 lish his communications; consistency and 
 common sense forbade me to reply to them. 
 The only course which remained for me, 
 therefore, was to publish my own letter, 
 and thus transfer the discussion to a respon- 
 sible author, if any such should choose to 
 take it up. Yet when I do this, you claim 
 the public sympathy as an injured defender 
 of your faith, against the unprovoked at- 
 tacks of a presuming Protestant! But 
 sometimes an objector's consistency is best 
 discovered by comparing him with himself. 
 I have heretofore barely alluded to your 
 
 ) 
 
 publication, last autumn, in the U. S. Ga- 
 zette. Before you saw what you term my 
 challenge, you took occasion in reply to an 
 article from the Editor of the Philadel- 
 phian, to speak in the following terms of 
 Protestant ministers. "And what can they, 
 [the Roman Catholic Priests,] what can the 
 public think, when they see the shepherds, 
 who are all remarkable for their pastoral 
 solicitude, so long as the flock is healthy, the 
 pastures pleasant, and the fleece luxuriant, 
 abandoning their post, when disease begins 
 to spread desolation in the fold." And 
 again, "How comes it then, that these ob- 
 jects, [cholera patients,] have been so gene- 
 rally forsaken by the Protestant clergy? It 
 is not long since I read an account of eight 
 missionaries, that is two missionaries, (the 
 rest being wives and children,) embarking 
 for the conversion of the distant heathen. 
 The conversion of a single Gentoo, is bla- 
 zoned over the land, as a triumph of Chris- 
 tianity, and a victory above all value of 
 money and labour, and how comes it that 
 the Protestant of Philadelphia, less fortu- 
 nate than the Gentoo of Hindostan, cannot 
 find a clergyman of his own persuasion, 
 who would whisper to him words of hope, 
 through the redemption of Jesus Christ, 
 from the moment that the fatal disease has 
 seized upon him. I do not say that this 
 was the case with all the Protestant clergy; 
 but I do say it of some." 
 
 You will not understand me as intending 
 at all, to defend the article to which you re- 
 ply, or to find fault with you for answering 
 it. But I present to you for your conside- 
 ration, your most ungenerous, and unjust, 
 and injurious aspersions of Protestant min- 
 isters. And is it true then, that the body 
 of Protestant ministers, Episcopal, Bap- 
 tist, Methodist Episcopal, Presbyterian, 
 Congregational, &c. "generally," "though 
 not all," forsook the dying sufferers, after 
 having lived on the fat of the land, and 
 the sweat of the people's faces, when in 
 prosperity and health ? And is it true that 
 these Protestants, with all their missionary 
 efforts, are so base, so hypocritical as this? 
 If you can prove your charges, then we de- 
 serve your most faithful exposure, with all 
 the reprehension and infamy, which your 
 statements, if well founded, are fitted to 
 produce. But my principal object in this 
 reference is, to show what liberties you 
 
( 
 
 XI 
 
 ) 
 
 take with Protestants, in contrast with your 
 strictures on and complaints of my letter, 
 published in the Christian Advocate; I 
 need not add that the very frame-work of 
 your periodical publications, involves the 
 scheme of aggression on the religion of Pro- 
 testants; that if we enter your places of 
 public worship, we are continually liable 
 to meet with the denunciations applied to 
 heretics alone; and that between propa- 
 gandisrn and intolerance, in all countries 
 where your worship is established by law, 
 Protestants have no very enviable lot. 
 Let not the odium then attendant on un- 
 provoked attacks be levelled at me; and if 
 at the proper time, I sustain with suitable 
 evidence, the statements made in the Chris- 
 tian Advocate, may I not claim the univer- 
 sal privilege of pleading justification in the 
 proof of facts? You will scarcely look for 
 me to enter on this proof now. 
 
 As to archbishop Usher, however, you can 
 hardly imagine that I wished to adduce his 
 opinion of your doctrine as authority in 
 your Church. You know however, that he 
 has written on this subject, and stands high 
 with Protestants. It was his quotations 
 from the catechism of the council of Trent, 
 &c. (having the originals before him, which 
 I had not at the time,) which I intended to 
 refer to as authority in your Church. But 
 by some strange error, a prince among 
 Protestants was made a Romanist, a mis- 
 take which corrects itself, and does him 
 only injustice. It is to the catechism we 
 wished to refer — quoted by him. You 
 mistake me when you suppose, that the 
 reason of my insisting on an answer to 
 my published letter, was my impression 
 that it was so very conclusive as to preclude 
 reply. I thought that the candid, natural, 
 honourable course, for a scholar, a gentle- 
 man, and a Christian to pursue, and having 
 heard of you as one of the most distinguish- 
 ed ministers of your church, supposed you 
 the more likely to concur in so obvious a 
 suggestion. It is also at a great sacrifice 
 
 on my part, that I now conform to your 
 wishes, and enter on the present mode of 
 controversy. A connected discussion, 
 either oral, or from the press, would have 
 been more convenient to me, on all ac- 
 counts. Yet I have waved my rights; I 
 have in chief part adopted your rules, I 
 have conceded to you the choice of ques- 
 tions, in the two general propositions sug- 
 gested as the basis of investigation: and you 
 are to commence the discussion, and I am 
 to defend the Protestant faith, though you 
 call yourself the challenged person; and 
 while mine is the life of a traveller, yours 
 is one of sanctuary quietude, and literary 
 leisure. Yet still I meet you with hearty 
 satisfaction, having it as my chief source of 
 regret, that whilst American Protestant 
 Christians present a galaxy of great and 
 good men, abundantly qualified to defend 
 our precious faith, this momentous contro- 
 versy has fallen into such poor hands as 
 mine. 
 
 I fully reciprocate the wish that we may 
 be enabled to pursue our investigation, in 
 the right spirit and to the best ends. I 
 shall affect no false charity; I pray that the 
 God of truth and love, may imbue us with 
 that which is true! 
 
 I have only to add that I admit no infal- 
 lible rule of faith, or judge of controversy, 
 but the revealed will of God. What that 
 revealed will is, according to previous ar- 
 rangement between us, is the question with 
 which you are now to open the controversy. 
 The delayed receipt of your last letter, it 
 having reached me only the evening before 
 I left Philadelphia for this city, is my apolo- 
 gy for a corresponding delay in sending 
 this. 
 
 I remain yours, respectfully, 
 
 John Breckinridge. 
 
 P. S. In the event of inevitable inter- 
 ruptions, I shall claim the indulgence men- 
 tioned in a former letter, of a temporary 
 suspension of the discussion. 
 
CONTROVERSY N°. 1. 
 
 RUIiES. 
 
 The undersigned agreeing to have an amicable discussion of the great points of relig- 
 ious controversy, between Protestants and Roman Catholics, do hereby bind them- 
 selves to the observance of the following rules: — 
 
 1. The parties shall write and publish, alternately, in the weekly religious paper 
 called The Presbyterian, and a Roman Catholic paper to be furnished by the first of 
 January. It being understood that the communications shall be published after the 
 following plan: — One party opening the first week, the other party replying the next 
 week, and every piece to be republished in the immediate succeeding number of the 
 Roman Catholic paper. The communications not to exceed four columns of The 
 Presbyterian, nor to continue beyond six months, without consent of parties. 
 
 2. The parties agree that there is an infallible Rule of Faith established by Christ, to 
 guide us in matters of religion, for the purpose of determining disputes in the Church 
 of Christ. 
 
 3. They moreover agree, that after giving their views of the Rule of Faith, they 
 shall proceed to discuss the question, "Is the Protestant religion, the religion of 
 Christ?" 
 
 4. The parties agree respectively, to adhere strictly to the subject of discussion, for 
 the time being, and to admit no second question, until the first shall have been ex- 
 hausted. Each party shall be the judge when he is done with a subject, and shall be 
 at liberty to occupy his time with a second topic, when he has done with the first, 
 leaving to the other party the liberty of continuing to review the abandoned topic, as 
 long as he shall choose ; subject, however, to be answered, if he introduce new 
 matter. 
 
 5. Mr. Hughes to open the discussion, and Mr. Breckinridge to follow, according 
 to the dictates of his own judgment. 
 
 JOHN BRECKINRIDGE, 
 JOHN HUGHES. 
 Philadelphia, December 14th, 1S33. 
 
 Rule of Faith. 
 
 January 21, 1833. 
 To the Rev. John Breckinridge. 
 
 Rev. Sir, — I am extremely happy to have 
 this opportunity, not of my own seeking, to 
 submit to your consideration and that of our 
 readers^ the reasons which prove the truth of 
 the Catholic Religion, and the tendency of 
 every other system to weaken the principles 
 and sap the foundation of Christianity itself. 
 In doing this, however, I shall be careful to 
 abstain from the use of gross or insulting 
 epithets. I shall make no appeal to preju- 
 dice or passion — but availing myself of those 
 advantages which are peculiar to the cause of 
 truth — I shall address your reason, through 
 the medium of rational argument founded upon 
 
 B 
 
 solid principles and indisputable facts. I 
 shall merely premise in addition to what I have 
 stated, that I discriminate between the false 
 doctrines of modern sects and the individuals 
 whose misfortune it is to have been educated in 
 the belief of them, without a knowledge and 
 sometimes without even a suspicion of their er- 
 roneousness. Ignorance of truth is criminal, 
 only when it is voluntary, and when men 
 through party-attachments, prejudice or hu- 
 man respect dread the consequences of inves- 
 tigation. — But even then, God alone is the 
 judge before whose tribunal they shall stand 
 or fall. I judge no man — be the sect or de- 
 nomination to which he belongs what it may. 
 When we reflect that there was a time 
 
il 
 
 when the multitude of believers had but one 
 heart and one soul, and contrast that period 
 with the conflict of opinions, and the rivalship 
 of creeds which have produced the present dis- 
 tracted condition of the Christian family, the 
 lover of truth may find enough to make him 
 weep for charity. Then, there was one Lord, 
 one faith, one baptism; constituting the unity 
 of spirit in the bond of peace. Now, the 
 baptism, the faiHCfand the Lord himself are 
 become so many topics of dispute, watch- 
 words of division and signals of contradic- 
 tion. Men under pretence of reforming his 
 church, have tampered with the integrity of 
 Christian belief, and either blind or despe- 
 rately indifferent to the consequences, have 
 burst the ligament which bound the doc- 
 trines of Christianity together, and left them 
 defenceless against the invading spirit of in- 
 fidelity. The ancient land-marks of the 
 Christian's belief have been removed — the 
 works of the citadel have been broken down, 
 and the breach once made, Religion has been 
 robbed, as far as it was in the power of man's 
 perverted ingenuity to rob her, of the very 
 privilege and principle of self-preservation. 
 
 What is the cause of this unhappy state of 
 things? What is the prolific principle that 
 has produced such a harvest of creeds, in 
 which the wheat of sound doctrines is scarce- 
 ly perceptible amidst the tares and cockle of 
 delusion? That principle, Rev. Sir, is pri- 
 vate interpretation. The Presbyterian Church 
 like every other church that has adopted it, 
 is too weak to sustain its pressure, and is 
 consequently falling apart, under its opera- 
 tion. That principle, or as it is regarded 
 among Protestants, that privilege, is destruc- 
 tive of unity, by making doctrine like mat- 
 ter, infinitely divisible. Let a sect be com- 
 posed of only three individuals, and, if pri- 
 vate interpretation be adopted as the cement 
 of religious union, they will not long cling 
 together. But the confessions of faith by 
 which Protestants endeavour to preserve the 
 unity of spirit in the bond of peace, is a prac- 
 tical proof that they themselves do not regard 
 private interpretation as conservative of truth. 
 Let it not be said that these remarks warrant 
 the charge that the Catholic Religion is hostile 
 to the dissemination and perusal of the holy 
 Scriptures. I protest against such an infer- 
 ence; all that I want to establish is contained 
 in the spirit and letter of St. Peter's declara- 
 tion, that " no prophecy of Scripture is of 
 any private interpretation." 
 
 Now the Protestant " rule of faith" utter- 
 ly reverses this declaration, and makes all 
 Scripture of every private interpretation. The 
 
 Protestant rule of faith, is, if I am not mis- 
 taken (and if I be, I will thank you for cor- 
 rection) the Bible alone. 
 
 "The Bible alone," then, is, you suppose, 
 " that infallible rule of faith established by 
 Christ, to guide us in matters of religion, for 
 the purpose of determining disputes in the 
 church of Christ," to the existence of which 
 we have both subscribed our names. Allow 
 me, Rev. Sir, here to remark, that whether 
 you chose to recognise, or to deny the exis- 
 tence of an " infallible rule of faith," was to 
 me, a matter of utter indifference. The cause 
 of truth would have been vindicated as much 
 by the denial, as it can be by the admission. 
 In the former case you would have reduced 
 the religion of Christ to a matter of opinion, 
 and this is precisely what you do, not by ad- 
 mitting its existence, for in this you were 
 right, but by restricting it as Protestants are 
 obliged to do, to the Bible alone. 
 
 You have sufficiently defined the rule of 
 faith by telling us that it was established by 
 Christ, "for the purpose of guiding us in 
 matters of religion and of determining dis- 
 putes in his church." Now it is altogether 
 inponsistent with our belief of the personal 
 character and attributes of Jesus Christ, to 
 suppose that he would have established this 
 " rule of faith," as a vieans, without having 
 rendered it competent to the end, for which it 
 was established. As a rule, therefore, it must 
 be practically as well as theoretically infalli- 
 ble. Otherwise it would be incompetent to the 
 end for which it was established, and could 
 neither "guide us in matters of religion, nor 
 determine our disputes." It would be a 
 mockery ; more worthy of the Arabian impos- 
 tor, than of the Son of God. The " infalli- 
 ble rule of faith" then, which you have ad- 
 mitted in our regulations for this controversy, 
 must be infallible, not only in itself, but in 
 its application to the purposes of its establish- 
 ment, so as to give those who abide by its 
 decision an infallible certainty that they abide 
 in the doctrines of Christ. 
 
 Let us now examine whether the Protestant 
 rule of faith — the Bible alone — is competent 
 by practical application, to the end for which 
 such a guide was established by the Saviour 
 of men. In other words, let us see whether 
 your definition of that rule, as a Protestant, 
 does not conflict with with your admission of 
 its existence as a Christian. I shall conduct 
 the examination on the principles already 
 laid down, which you are at liberty to refute 
 if you can, but which, if you do not refute, 
 shall be looked upon as conceded, — for I wish 
 you to be advised, that in the whole contro- 
 
versy, every inch of ground which is not dis- 
 puted by you, shall be looked upon, as so 
 much given up to the cause of Catholicity and 
 truth. And at the same time, I have to re- 
 quest of you, as an honorable adversary that 
 in attempting a refutation, you will take up 
 my arguments in my own words and accord- 
 ing to their context and meaning. 
 
 The question then is this: Is the Bible 
 alone, that practical rule of faith, established 
 by Christ, to guide us in matters of religion 
 and to determine disputes in his Church?" 
 
 If it is not, then it will follow, that the 
 whole Protestant system, that is, the system 
 of all who adopt the Bible alone to '-guide 
 them in matters of religion," hinges on a 
 principle which is vicious and defective. I 
 will now proceed to state the reasons which 
 should make it manifest to every unprejudi- 
 ced mind, that the Bible alone, is not, and 
 cannot be that infallible rule established by 
 Christ for the purpose of determining dis- 
 putes in his Church. These reasons I will 
 lay down in distinct paragraphs in order to 
 make them convenient for the purposes of 
 reference, and to bring them more within 
 the reach of refutation, number for number. 
 
 I. The Rule of faith adopted by Protes- j 
 tants, is the Bible alone — and that rule you 
 admit, was established by Christ, and infalli- 
 ble. The Bible includes all the books of the 
 Old and New Testament, acknowledged by 
 the Protestant canon of Scripture. Now if 
 Christ established the rule of faith, it certain- 
 ly was not the Bible, for it is an historical 
 fact, that no part of the New Testament was 
 written for several years, and some of it, not 
 until more than half a century after Christ's 
 ascension into heaven. How could the Bible 
 alone, then, be a rule of faith to those Chris- 
 tians who lived, and believed, and died in the 
 first century, before the Bible was written ? 
 Had they no infallible rule of faith — for they 
 had not the Bible ? Or did Christ establish 
 ttoo rules, one for them and another for us ? 
 And if he did, show us the evidence of the 
 fact, from the Bible alone. 
 
 II. The belief that the Bible alone is the 
 infallible rule of faith, is not only an article, 
 but a fundamental article of Protestantism. 
 Now as it is the peculiar boast, of Protestants 
 that they believe nothing but what is contain- 
 ed in the Bible, I ask you to point the chap- 
 ter and verse which says, that the "Bible 
 alone is the infallible rule of faith established 
 by Christ to guide us in matters of religion, 
 and to determine disputes." If there is no 
 such text, then it follows that the Protes- 
 tant rule, is a mere gratuitous assumption, 
 
 unauthorised by die very document from 
 which they profess to derive all their doc- 
 trine. This assumption is the pedestal on 
 which their system stands, and I ask what 
 supports the peder'al itself? You will tell 
 me that " Scripture is profitable, for reproof," 
 &c. I admit it, but between that, and its 
 being the only rule of faith there is a wide 
 difference. You will tell me that the Jews 
 were recommended by ci' r Saviour, and the 
 Beraeans by his apostle to read the Scriptures; 
 I admit it, but all that goes no farther than to 
 prove that they are profitable, &c. St. Paul 
 commends his disciple for having been ac- 
 quainted with the Scripture from his child- 
 hood; I admit it, but St. Peter tells us that 
 there are persons who wrest the Scriptures to 
 their own destruction. Where then, I repeat 
 the question, is the Scriptural warrant, for 
 making the (t Bible alone" our rule of faith ? 
 
 III. What do you mean by the Bible 
 alone ? Is it the Bible on the shelf of your 
 library? Or is it the Bible as you peruse it ? 
 The former cannot be your rule of faith, and 
 the latter is not the Bible alone, but you and 
 the Bible together. Do you then, Rev. Sir, 
 look upon yourself and the Bible together as 
 constituting that infallible rule established 
 by Christ ? 
 
 IV. The Bible alone, cannot be our rule of 
 faith, because we are bound as Christians to 
 believe that the Bible is an authentic and in- 
 spired book; and this I defy any one to prove 
 from the Bible alone. 
 
 V. The Redeemer of the world never in- 
 tended that the Bible alone should be the 
 rule of faith — because, it was not universally 
 known until the end of the fifth century, 
 what books, were to be regarded as inspired 
 Scripture — consequently the Christians of the 
 preceding ages were destitute of that infalli- 
 ble rule which you admit was established by 
 Christ; or if they possessed a rule at all, it 
 certainly was not the Bible alone. Besides, 
 consider the millions who believed in Christ, 
 and could not read, or could not possess 
 themselves of a Bible, before printing was in- 
 vented and since, were they on this account — 
 are Protestants now who cannot read, desti- 
 tute of a rule of faith? 
 
 VI. The Protestant rule of faith is not the 
 infallible rule established by Christ — for, the 
 object and end of that rule, was to " deter- 
 mine disputes in his Church;" and it is an 
 undeniable fact that whilst this false rule has 
 given rise to interminable controversy among 
 the sects that have adopted it; — since the ori- 
 gin of Christianity, not so much as one single 
 
"dispute" has been determined by the Bible 
 alone! 
 
 VII. The Bible alone, or the Bible operat- 
 ed upon by private interpretation, has given 
 rise to all the heresies that exist. The Soci- 
 nian, the Universalist, the- Swedenborgian 
 have as good a right to understand its mean- 
 ing as you. They protest against the doc- 
 trines of the Catholic Church as you do; they 
 have the same rule of faith, the Bible alone, 
 and is theirs the infallible guide appointed by 
 Christ? His ride you admit, was infallible — 
 can you say as much of theirs? His rule was 
 conservative of unity in his doctrine. Is 
 yours? 
 
 VIII. Do you not admit that in holding the 
 Presbyterian doctrine you may be in error? 
 If so, what confidence have you in the infalli- 
 bility of your guide? If so — then you must 
 admit the possibility of the Socinian's being- 
 right? especially as he follows the principle 
 which you recommend to all, as "the infalli- 
 ble rule of faith, established by Christ to 
 guide us in matters of religion" — the Bible 
 alone. Now I ask, is it consistent for you to 
 exclude the Socinian from the pale of Chris- 
 tianity, whilst you are compelled to admit by 
 your own rule, that your belief may be false 
 and his may be true! I say you are compelled 
 as a consistent Protestant to make this ad- 
 mission — and I am prepared to prove it. 
 
 IX. If the Bible alone be the rule of faith, 
 it must be the Bible according to each one's 
 interpretation. Now, Rev. Sir, let me sup- 
 pose a case to illustrate my meaning. I will 
 imagine four Presbyterian clergymen reading 
 the Bible — yourself being included in the 
 number. The one becomes persuaded that 
 Unitarianism, is the doctrine of the Bible. 
 The other, that it is universal salvation; — 
 the third that the doctrine of Swedenborg, is 
 the true doctrine, according to Scripture, — I 
 ask you whether these brethren would not be 
 bound before God as honest men, to quit your 
 church and embrace respectively these differ- 
 ent systems, which according to the Protestant 
 rule of faith are found (relatively to them) in 
 the Bible? I say they would — and I call you 
 for the proof of the contrary. But this is not 
 all. What if a ray of divine light should 
 break in, upon your own mind — what if the 
 scales of prejudice should fall from your eyes 
 in the perusal of the sacred page, and you should 
 see or imagine you saw, the evidence that Christ 
 established a Church to which he commu- 
 nicated the attribute of infallibility, and that 
 this church can be no other than, — shall I say 
 it? — the Roman Catholic Church — I ask 
 again, under such a persuasion would you not 
 
 yourself be bound before God, to embrace the 
 doctrines of that Church — even at the risk of 
 being called an idolater. I say you would. 
 I mention these various operations of your 
 ride of faith, to show that the Redeemer ne- 
 ver did establish — " to guide us in matters 
 of religion and determine disputes in his 
 Church" — a principle which in application, 
 is found to work the destruction, instead of 
 the accomplishment of the ends for which it 
 was instituted. For these reasons, then, I 
 say it is impossible that the "infallible 
 rule of faith" established by Christ should be 
 the Bible alone. — And consequently that the 
 Protestant rule is false. 
 
 X. The doctrines of Christ were delivered 
 to mankind, and believed as positive truths, 
 or facts, about which there could be no 
 ground for disputation. Now the object for 
 which an "infallible rule of faith was estab- 
 lished" by our Saviour, was to guard these 
 eternal and unchangeable truths, or facts, 
 from being confounded with, or lost in the 
 erring speculations of men, who, he foresaw, 
 would endeavour to supplant him, by sub- 
 stituting their opinions for his doctrine, and 
 teaching error in his name. And this being 
 the case, is it not as clear as noon-day, that 
 the Protestant rule is not the rule established 
 by Christ. Why ? Because instead of teach- 
 ing the doctrines of Christ as positive truths, 
 facts, it merely submits them to its votaries 
 as opinions, held by the preacher^ agreed to 
 by those who drew up the confession of faith, 
 and supposed to be contained in the Bible. 
 But supposed by whom ? by the members of 
 the sect. And supposed how long ? just un- 
 til a change comes over the spirit of private 
 interpretation. Sir, the most vital tenet of 
 Christianity, the Divinity of Jesus Christ, if 
 brought in contact with the Protestant rule of 
 faith, will be dissolved by the very touch, into 
 a matter of speculation and mere human opi- 
 nion, whereas Jesus Christ never inculcated 
 the belief of an opinion. Therefore the Pro- 
 testant rule of faith so far from being the foun- 
 tain of infallible assurance as to what doc- 
 trines we should believe, is on the contrary 
 the very parent of uncertainty and cannot 
 consequently be that "infallible rule estab- 
 lished by Christ, to guide us in matters of 
 religion, and to determine disputes in his 
 Church." 
 
 I might still multiply these arguments, 
 but it is unnecessary. The conclusions are 
 fairly drawn, and I hold myself prepared to 
 prove the premises and vindicate the reason- 
 ing whenever they are called in dispute. 
 The question is not how many great and 
 
5 
 
 good men have been involved in the same 
 delusion as yourself with regard to the rule 
 of faith. The question is not how many 
 brilliant minds have been warped, and turned 
 aside from rectitude of judgment on the 
 subject of religion, by adopting or inherit- 
 ing from birth and education, a principle 
 of guidance in religion, which principle, 
 when examined is found to be in itself repug- 
 nant to reason, unauthorized by Revelation, 
 and in its practical consequences utterly 
 subversive of the doctrines of Christianity, 
 by reducing them to the uncertainty of mere 
 opinion. But the question is, what is " that 
 infallible rule established by Christ to guide 
 us in matters of religion, for the purpose of 
 determining disputes in the Church of 
 Christ," — whose existence you have recog- 
 nized ? 
 
 The cause of truth requires that you should 
 meet my arguments and refute them, article 
 for article. What course you will adopt to 
 accomplish this, it is difficult for me to con- 
 ceive. But I am satisfied that our readers 
 will not be contented with that sliding sys- 
 tem of controversial tactics by which the op- 
 ponents of the true religion, are accustomed 
 to "slur the notes" of an argument, which 
 they cannot answer. One part of this sys- 
 tem is, to draw consequences from our lan- 
 guage which we never intended, and then re- 
 fute their own deductions, instead of taking 
 up the real difficulty, and grappling with the 
 reasons by which it is sustained. Another is, 
 to appeal to party feelings, and touch the 
 string of prejudice against the Catholic reli- 
 gion. I know that there are individuals, in 
 every Protestant denomination, who are not 
 to be operated on by any or all the resources 
 of evasion. There are men of every denomi- 
 nation, who with a candid, honest, and im- 
 partial mind, will judge our arguments ac- 
 cording to their intrinsic evidence — I ask no 
 more. 
 
 The importance of determining the ques- 
 tion of the rule of faith must be manifest to 
 all who have reflected on the subject. In 
 controversy, it is like the standard of weights 
 and measures used in the disposal of mer- 
 chandise; whenever the merchant uses false 
 standards, he is certain to cheat his custom- 
 ers or himself. It is then, Rev. Sir, useless 
 for you to condemn the doctrines of the 
 Catholic church until you shall have proved 
 that the rule by which you judge them, is 
 the infallible rule. The doctrines of Chris- 
 tianity have been regarded by the Catholic 
 church from the beginning, as fixed stars in 
 the firmanent of Revelation. She ascertain- 
 
 ed and certified their existence by the same 
 infallible rule, (or if I be allowed to continue 
 the figure,) the same telescope which she re- 
 ceived from Jesus Christ himself, as the true, 
 and only true medium of observation. By 
 this means she knew them from the com- 
 mencement, by this means she defined more 
 clearly in her general councils, their exist- 
 ence, relative position, and influence, as 
 occasion required, — and by this means also, 
 she was enabled to detect the "new lights," 
 which men in every age attempted to plant in 
 her firmament. Thus it was, that amidst the 
 contending elements of heresy, on the right 
 hand and on the left, she has pursued the even 
 tenor of her way, imparting to all nations, and 
 to all generations, as she passed the knowledge 
 of the doctrines which her founder, Christ, 
 commanded her to teach and preach to every 
 creature. Some fifteen hundred years after 
 her establishment, a few individuals rise up 
 in the might of private opinion, and assert 
 that the church had fallen into error, begin 
 to teach new doctrines, and reject others 
 which had always been believed. This act 
 is what is called in history by the specious 
 name of Reformation. At first they pro- 
 fessed their willingness to abide by the de- 
 cision of the church, touching their opinions, 
 but as soon as the church by applying the 
 proper medium of infallible discernment had 
 pronounced their opinions to be contrary to 
 the doctrines of Christ, as soon as she had 
 refused to raise their "new lights" to the 
 dignity of fixed stars in the heavens of be- 
 lief — from that moment, it was determined 
 that they should declare themselves inde- 
 pendent of the church, and that they should 
 fabricate a " telescope" of their own. They 
 have done so, but neither could this deter- 
 mine what were the fixed and immutable 
 doctrines of Christianity. The German Re- 
 former wished all men to see as he saw — but 
 the medium of observation which was correct 
 at Wirtemberg, was found to be deceitful at 
 Geneva, and thus every man who felt himself 
 called upon to labour in the Reformation, 
 began by making his own telescope. And 
 not only this ; every individual is furnished 
 with a pocket spy-glass — by which he has a 
 right to judge the doctrine of his minister, 
 and see whether it is conformable to the dis- 
 coveries of the great telescope, contained in 
 the "Confession of Faith" — to judge of the 
 confession itself, and see whether it is con- 
 formable to the Bible — and to judge of the 
 Bible and see whether it is conformable to 
 his — spy-glass — that is, private interpreta- 
 tion. 
 
6 
 
 Thus, Rev, Sir, thus it was that you judg- 
 ed of the Catholic doctrines of Christianity 
 in your letter which gave occasion to this 
 controversy. You say it is our faith that is 
 contrary to the doctrines of Christ; I say it is 
 not our faith, but your spy-glass; and I pro- 
 test against your mensuration of either Ca- 
 tholic or Protestant doctrine, until you shall 
 have proved that your instrument of measur- 
 ment, is the "infallible rule of faith estab- 
 lished by Christ,'' as expressed in our articles 
 of agreement. Now the Westminster Con- 
 fession of Faith, to which, some will contend 
 that you pay greater deference than to the 
 Bible itself, declares that "the infallible rule 
 of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture 
 itself." But be it remembered that this is the 
 enactment not of the Bible, but of a number 
 of men, assembled at Westminster, Anno 
 Domini 1647. by order of Parliament, to 
 make a religion for the united kingdoms of 
 great Britain and Ireland. And I leave it 
 to any man of common sense, if this rule of 
 interpretation, which they call infallible is not 
 a mere sophism — seeing that the scripture to 
 be interpreted and the Scripture by ivhich it 
 is to be interpreted are both equally subjected 
 to the pocket-glass of the reader's private in- 
 terpretation. Would it not be absurd to say 
 that the laws of this commonwealth expound 
 their own meaning, without a judge? The 
 same Confession of Faith says that " the su- 
 preme judge by which all controversies of re- 
 ligion are to be determined, can be no other 
 but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scrip- 
 tures." But this is only begging the question 
 and does not reach the difficulty: — Seeing 
 that the subject of dispute turns precisely on 
 this question, what does the Holy Spirit say? — 
 " speaking in the Scriptures." 
 
 You will observe, Rev. Sir, that I have 
 said nothing on the subject otthe Catholic rule 
 of faith — which, however, cannot but be con- 
 siderably, though indirectly strengthened, if 
 my arguments against the Protestant principle 
 cannot be met by evidences stronger on the 
 other side, than those I have put forth. It 
 only remains for you to show that the Protes- 
 tant rule of faith, is that " infallible rule es- 
 tablished by Christ to guide us in matters of 
 religion and to determine disputes in his 
 Church." 
 
 The Scriptures are indeed the inspired word 
 of God; as such they have been guarded and 
 vindicated by the church. God forbid that 
 I should ascribe to them, the errors of those 
 who claim to walk under their guidance. 
 The only object I have had in view, is to 
 show that the rule of faith adopted by Pro- 
 
 testants, is a rule which will lead infallibly 
 to the abuse of the Scriptures, and to the des- 
 truction of the revealed doctrines of Christi- 
 anity. The Bible alone, in other words, 
 private interpretation may serve the purpose 
 of the Presbyterian against the Catholic, but 
 it will equally serve the purpose of the Soci- 
 nian against both. 
 
 In the course of this letter I have spoken with 
 entire freedom of the principles of Protestant 
 doctrine. If any one should be offended at 
 this, I beg such a person to remember that 
 you invited me to the discussion; and that 
 having accepted the invitation, it would not 
 be generous to find fault with me for speak- 
 ing the truth, and the whole truth, provided 
 I give facts and reasoning to prove that I 
 speak nothing but the truth. 
 
 Yours, very respectfully, 
 
 Jno. Hughes. 
 
 P. S. In your last letter, published under 
 the head of private correspondence, you intro- 
 duced several topics which are certainly for- 
 eign to the occasion of this controversy. The 
 first is, quotations from your letter in the 
 Christian Advocate, to show that you were 
 obliged to answer the difficulties presented 
 to you in the Baltimore manuscript. Now 
 in reference to this, I have already stated 
 that I professed to know nothing of the 
 matter, until your letter published in August 
 and September made it public, that you had 
 challenged, " Priests and Bishops," to this 
 discussion, the whole field of controversy. 
 
 The second is, that you represent me as 
 having, in a letter addressed to the Editor of 
 the Philadelphian, arraigned the clergy of 
 some half a dozen of Protestant denomina- 
 tions for manifesting a spirit of retreat 
 during the Cholera. This may of course en- 
 list the feelings of those clergymen against 
 me as a public accuser; but I appeal to the 
 letter itself and to the recollection of this 
 community to say whether I preferred any 
 charge of my own against them. On the 
 contrary, I took up the charges as they 
 had been preferred, by a correspondent of 
 the Philadelphian signed " a Presbyterian," 
 against the Protestant clergy, for abandoning 
 their posts at such a time. It was in the act 
 of replying to these charges of his correspon- 
 dent, by the Editor, that the unfortunate 
 insinuation was made against the moral purity 
 of the Catholic clergy, which after all, may 
 have been a lapsus pennse. This being the 
 case, how could you represent me as the per- 
 son framing accusations against the clergy- 
 
men of all the denominations mentioned 
 somewhat ostentatiously, in your last letter? 
 Now, however, I assert, that the testimony 
 of the Physicians who attended in the Cho- 
 lera hospitals, and who periled their lives in 
 the duties of their profession, would go far 
 to establish the charge as suggested by " a 
 Presbyterian." 
 
 Lastly you take great pains to show in all 
 your letters how much you have to do, and 
 how much leisure " sanctuary quietude," re- 
 mains on my hands, intimating thereby the 
 advantages which my situation gives me over 
 you in the conducting of this controversy. 
 Be assured, Rev. Sir, that if I thought the 
 public could be interested in the detail of my 
 avocations, I also, could make out a tolerable 
 
 list of duties; enough perhaps to turn the 
 scales of comparison. But, to make your 
 mind easy on the subject of your official oc- 
 cupations, I beg to state that I am prepared, 
 if God give me health, to sustain the Catho- 
 lic argument against any or all the clergymen 
 of the Synod or General Assembly, provided 
 he or they write loith your signature and ad- 
 here to the rules. I make this remark not 
 by way of boasting, but because you allude 
 to, and dwell as I think, too emphatically on 
 the multitude of your official duties. My 
 confidence is not in my own abilities, that 
 would be a poor and pitiful reliance, but it is 
 in my cause; — truth, and her eternal eviden- 
 ces. J N0 . Hughes. 
 
CONTROVERSY N°. 2. 
 
 Rule of Faith. 
 
 New York, February 2d, 1833. 
 
 To the Rev. John Hughes. 
 
 Sir, — It is one of my principles neither to 
 seek nor to shun controversy. Of the origin 
 of this discussion the public will judge; and 
 I am willing to abide by its impartial deci- 
 sion. In the work of the ministry, it has 
 been and still is my happiness, to enjoy the 
 most peaceable and pleasant communion with 
 my brethren of those denominations of Chris- 
 tians, whom Protestants are accustomed to 
 call evangelical. As controversy is now 
 clearly my duty, I think myself happy that 
 it relates. to a system, against which all such 
 Protestants are united, and with whose rise 
 or final overthrow, in the opinion of them all, 
 the most precious hopes, and the highest in- 
 terests of men and nations, as well as the 
 supreme honour of Jesus Christ, are insepa- 
 rably blended. 
 
 And now in the outset, I would inquire by 
 what right you say, " In this whole contro- 
 versy, every inch of ground which is not dis- 
 puted by you shall be looked upon as so 
 much given up to the cause of Catholicity 
 and truth." Is it then presupposed that 
 you are the representative of the universal 
 church in this matter? Is the residuum of 
 truth with you ? — But passing this, I only 
 remark that, whatever you may arrogate, I 
 shall confine myself as far as possible, to 
 prominent points, and hope to show so clearly 
 your fallacy in them, that what may be left, 
 will not be worth contending for. I shall of 
 course pursue my own order in replying to 
 your strictures and queries. But where you 
 repeat, I shall not be expected to answer 
 twice the same thing, and where you confuse 
 the question before U3 for want of order, you 
 must not expect me to follow your example. 
 
 The first point for discussion is the Rule 
 of Faith. It is agreed that "there is an in- 
 fallible rule of faith established by Christ, to 
 guide us in matters of religion, for the pur- 
 pose of determining disputes in the church of 
 Christ." I regret that you did not define your 
 own rule of faith. Ours is "The Word of 
 God as contained in the Scriptures of the 
 Old and New Testaments." We own no 
 
 judge of controversies but God. Your rule 
 of faith is "the Old and New Testaments, 
 with the books called Apocrypha, as contained 
 in the old Vulgate Latin Edition, and un- 
 written traditions interpreted by a visible, in- 
 fallible judge of controversies, according to 
 the unanimous consent of the fathers." (See 
 council of Trent, 4th Sess. Decree on Tra- 
 dition and the Scriptures; and Creed of Pope 
 Pius IT.) 
 
 You introduce your attack on our rule, by 
 the broad assumption, that the principle 
 of private interpretation has been the cause 
 of all the divisions, heresies, and other 
 evils, which distract and weaken the church 
 of Christ. You bring against it 2 Pet. i. 20, 
 "No prophecy of the Scripture is of any 
 private interpretation," and you say, "Now 
 the Protestant rule of faith utterly reverses 
 this declaration, and makes all Scripture of 
 every private interpretation." In this you 
 follow your standards, certainly; for the 
 Catechism of Pius IV. refers to the same pas- 
 sage of Scripture in answer to the question, 
 " Why may not every particular Christian 
 have liberty to interpret the Scripture ac- 
 cording to his own private judgment?" &c. 
 &c. The exposition given by the Pope is an 
 infallible commentary, and on Peter's Epis- 
 tle. But what says the passage. "Know- 
 ing this first that no prophecy of the Scrip- 
 ture is of any private interpretation. For 
 the prophecy came not in old time by the 
 will ot man, but holy men of God spake as 
 they were moved by the Holy Ghost." — 
 (vs. 20, 21. English translation.) Here we 
 remark, 1. That Peter tells the people, in a 
 previous verse, that they do well to take heed 
 unto the more sure word of prophecy. 2. It is 
 important to be noticed by you that it is the 
 prophecy of the Scripture, not the Scripture, 
 that is obscure — 3. Should your interpretation 
 be correct, the apostle is made to argue thus — 
 " The Scriptures are infallibly revealed or 
 inspired, and ye do well that ye take heed to 
 them, therefore they are obscure, too obscure 
 for private explanation." A strange infer- 
 ence, and one forcibly against yourself — for 
 you contend for the clearness of your church's 
 
10 
 
 interpretations, because they are infallibly 
 guided by God. 4. The vulgate is the only 
 authorized version in your church. Yet you 
 and the catechism of your church, follow 
 here, our English translation ! The reason 
 is obvious. It appears to favour you. The 
 vulgate is "Prophetia Scripturre propria in- 
 terpretatione, non fit." "The prophecy of 
 Scripture is not made by a man's own inter- 
 pretation;" or "no prophecy of Scripture 
 is its own interpreter" — if you please. Here 
 the interpretation refers to prophecy — and to 
 the prophets, not to Scripture at large, nor to 
 the reader, at all. As if he had said — Pro- 
 phets do not prophecy their own inventions, 
 nor are their predictions to be taken singly; 
 or in an insulated way — but every prophecy 
 is dictated by the Holy Ghost as a part of a 
 whole, as a link in the great chain of prophe- 
 cies. And yet an infallible judge, followed 
 by a distinguished priest, would make this 
 passage go against " private interpretation" 
 of the Bible ! It is almost as defective a use 
 of Scripture as one once made, (he was a 
 Protestant,) who was arrested in the act of 
 striking another, by the timely recollection 
 of Paul's injunction to Timothy, "Lay 
 hands suddenly on no man." It is here re- 
 markable that the Apostle Peter, (claimed 
 by you as the I. Roman Pontiff,) in his last 
 epistle, bidding farewell to the church before 
 his decease, and looking down with a shep- 
 herd's love, and a prophet's eye into future 
 ages, while giving an infallible rule for 
 determining the sense of prophecies, (See 
 Horsely on this place) says not one word 
 about an infallible judge. Yet surely had 
 there been one, there could not have been so 
 fit a man, or so fit a place to make it known. 
 In the course of your remarks, you seem 
 to claim merit to your rule, from particular 
 difficulties charged by you on the Protestant 
 rule, yet yours may be chargeable with the 
 same, or equal, or still greater difficulties. 
 You profess to bring one of these formally to 
 view in the 10th head; yet as this is a sort of 
 subtle thread that runs through your argu- 
 ment, let us cut it here, and thus disentangle 
 the subject from that error. Take then for 
 example the charge of uncertainty, brought 
 against us at the close of that 10th head, as 
 follows, " The Protestant rule of faith, so far 
 from being the fountain of infallible assur- 
 ance, as to what doctrines we should believe, 
 is on the contrary the very parent of uncer- 
 tainty, and cannot consequently be that " in- 
 fallible rule established by Christ, to guide 
 us in matters of religion, and to determine 
 disputes in his church." Now let us look at 
 
 your rule. If you have an infallible, visible 
 judge of controversy, how do you get at the 
 proof of his infallibility? Is he not appoint- 
 ed by Christ? You say he is. Then you 
 find the proof of it in the sacred Scriptures 
 of course. How then do you interpret those 
 Scriptures in discovering that there is such a 
 judge? Not infallibly, for the existence of 
 any infallible judge is yet to be proved. And 
 as regards his existence you are left, as you 
 must admit, to decide from Scripture by your 
 own unaided reason. Your judgment on the 
 subject is formed upon the same principles as 
 ours. Can you then claim any more certain- 
 ty for your opinion than we for ours? If you 
 can, show it, if not, your argument against 
 our rule, if sound, destroys your own. 
 
 Again, when you are satisfied by private, 
 fallible judgment, that there is an infallible 
 judge, you must seek the true church, for in 
 it alone is he to be found. Then how do you 
 identify the true church? By the word of 
 God, as you acknowledge. You find out the 
 notes of the true church. Of these notes Bel- 
 larmine numbers fifteen. These are all to be 
 proved from Scripture. By whom? By fallible 
 men, (for the infallible judge is yet to be 
 found;) by private interpretation; for the pub- 
 lic oracle is yet to be discovered after you 
 have searched out from the word of God the 
 raotes of the true church, and applied them to 
 find that oracle. Then having found him 
 you go back to ask of him, what the word of 
 God means. Now is not this uncertain, and 
 fallible? Yet this is the foundation on which 
 your system of infallibility rests. It is more 
 uncertain than our rule, by one remove. We 
 go directly to the Bible for all our doctrines 
 and there stop. But you being fallible, take 
 the Bible to find the infallible judge ; and 
 then return with him to learn what the Bible 
 means. But when you have got the decrees, 
 confessions, bulls, &c. of this infallible judge, 
 are they better or more clear than our Bible? 
 Can your judge be more lucid than our Lord 
 and Saviour Jesus Christ? And after you 
 have gotten these infallible judgments do not 
 they also need an interpreter as much as the 
 Bible? So palpable is the defect here that 
 your writers own that you have no infallibili- 
 ty but only strong probability, " prudential 
 motives," and " moral certainty" in find- 
 ing out the true church, and the infallible 
 judge in her. The Rev. Mr. M'Guire in 
 "the discussion,'' &c. page 134, owns "that 
 the catholic has only to exercise his private 
 judgment upon the Scripture-proofs of the 
 authority of the church: that once established, 
 the Catholic is enabled to make an act of 
 
11 
 
 faith upon divine authority." Once estab- 
 lished. But how establish it? Ah, here is the 
 fatal gap! A house without a foundation! If 
 " private judgment" must find out your infal- 
 lible judge why may it not also find out, what 
 we need to guide us to God? May we not 
 as certainly determine the authority of the 
 Bible and its true meaning, as you the notes 
 of the church, and the infallible judge? 
 May we not be as certain of "the divinity of 
 Jesus Christ" as you of the true church? 
 May we not rest as securely on the infal- 
 libility of this great and only head of the 
 church, and of his inspired apostles, as you 
 on the infallibility of your judge of contro- 
 versies? If, without infallibility, you can 
 reach an infallible judge, may we not with- 
 out it also reach certainty and safety? 
 
 I. But though there are other points of so- 
 phistry which I had wished to expose on the 
 threshhold, I will for want of space, pass to 
 meet your objections. The first is " the Bi- 
 ble is the Protestant rule of faith. But the 
 Bible was not written until more than half 
 a century after Christ's death — therefore the 
 Bible alone could not have been the only 
 rule of faith established by Christ." (The 
 reader is referred to the entire paragraph.) 
 Do you mean then to say that the Bible was 
 not written until fifty years after Christ's 
 death. A very small part of the New Tes- 
 tament was not. But it is a strong figure of 
 speech to say the Bible was not written. 
 The Old Testament canon was sanctioned 
 by Christ and his apostles. Before the New 
 Testament was written, and during the con- 
 tinuance of Christ and his apostles on earth, 
 the Old Testament with their inspired in- 
 structions, whether spoken or written, at- 
 tested by miracles, was the infallible rule of 
 faith. Before the death of the last Apostle, 
 the entire New Testament was written. 
 Now you will hardly say that the paper, ink, 
 type, lids, &c. &c. of the Bible, make the 
 Revelation, though they record it. If not, 
 then all who had the Old Testament and the 
 inspired instructions of Christ and his apos- 
 tles, had (essentially) our rule of faith — and 
 if you proye yourself inspired by the same 
 miracles they gave, we will take you too for 
 our infallible guides. But they were to 
 have no such successors, and their writings 
 were intended to preserve and perpetuate 
 their infallible instructions. Hence, either 
 the Apostles did notwrile the same doctrines 
 which Christ and they spoke, or else we have 
 the same rule of faith with those who died 
 before all the New Testament was written. 
 
 II. You call for the " Scriptural warrant 
 
 for making the Bible alone the rule of faith" 
 and require "chapter and verse." You concede 
 that "the Scriptures are indeed the inspired 
 word of God and as such have been guarded 
 and vindicated by the Church." What then 
 are the Scriptures? — A revelation from God 
 to man, written by inspired men — for the use 
 of the race — containing infinitely important 
 communications in which all are interested, 
 addressed to the reason, conscience and af- 
 fections of men — and as clearly intelligible 
 (or will you dispute this?) as other books. 
 
 What then can these Scriptures be but our 
 ride of faith, and, as they are inspired, an in- 
 fallible rule? And if no specific statement 
 to the contrary be found in them, they must 
 of course be regarded as the only one. Here 
 then I remark, 1. The presumption from the 
 admitted fact of its being a revelation is, that 
 the Bible is our only infallible rule of faith. 
 2. If it be not so, it is the duty of those who 
 deny it to prove their statement. You claim 
 a. prescriptive right, to dictate to man what this 
 revelation means, and what they shall believe. 
 This is "a dominion over their faith" that 
 Paul the inspired author of a large part of the 
 New Testament, disclaims — (2. Cor. i. 24.) 
 It is a claim abhorrent from reason, at war with 
 the rights of conscience, and a usurpation of 
 the prerogative of God. If not, you ought in 
 all propriety to prove it, it being a most unu- 
 sual claim. 3. The only adequate proof that 
 can be given of it will be a miracle — con- 
 vincing the very senses as well as reasons of 
 men, that you have a power from God to 
 rule our faith, and if it need be, add new 
 Scriptures (see John iii. 3.) I am happy to 
 know that your church concedes this, by her 
 pretended miracles, while her utter failure to 
 work them explodes all claim to infallibility. 
 Christ has thus attested his mission and his 
 claims: so did his inspired apostles. You 
 claim to succeed them in these respects. 
 Then give the same proof of your claim. Until 
 you do, the world cannotadmit the pretension. 
 It is absurd and most presumptuous. 4. But 
 what proof have you from the Bible " chap- 
 ter and verse" of such a right viz. " that your 
 church has in her, a human infallible judge 
 of controversies that the book called Apoch- 
 rypha are part of the word of God, that " un- 
 written traditions" are of equal authority 
 with the Bible, and that all these "interpret- 
 ed according to the unanimous consent of the 
 Fathers" make the true rule of faith? Pro- 
 duce it " chapter and verse or else your rule 
 is a mere assumption." 
 
 Here we might safely rest this head, for 
 you are bound up inextricably. — But, 5. We 
 
12 
 
 have proof, "chapter and verse" of what 
 you require, and though not ipsissima verba, 
 the very words you prescribe, yet equivalent 
 words. See then, Isaiah viii. 20. " To the 
 law and to the testimony, if they speak not 
 according to them, it is because there is no 
 light in them." 2 Tim. iii. 15, 17. "And 
 that from a child thou hast known the Holy 
 Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise 
 unto salvation, through faith which is in 
 Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by in- 
 spiration of God, and is profitable for doc- 
 trine, for reproof, for correction, tor instruc- 
 tion in righteousness, that the man of God 
 may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto 
 all good works." You have given us a gar- 
 bled extract from this passage, comprised in 
 only four words. Here you have it in full. 
 Here is 1. The Holy Scripture, all of which 
 is inspired and therefore infallible. 2. It is 
 able to make wise to salvation — without any 
 human judge or help, through faith in Christ 
 Jesus. 3. It answers all the ends of a divine 
 revelation, " is profitable," and adequate 
 " for doctrine," " for reproof" or confutation 
 as to all sin, error, &c &c. " for correction," 
 " for instruction in righteousness." Is any 
 thing wanting here? 4. By it the minister 
 of Christ, " the man of God," as well as the 
 private Christian, "may be perfect," "tho- 
 roughly furnished" without any but the 
 Holy Spirit's teaching, "unto all good works." 
 5. Timothy was assured of all this; and 
 needing no change, " should continue in 
 these things." If this does not constitute 
 an infallible rule, for all uses, whether " de- 
 termining disputes," or "guiding us in mat- 
 ters of religion,'' I am at a loss to imagine 
 what does. Here then the word of God is 
 the "very standard" which you justly say, 
 it is so important to settle; and it is fully 
 and infallibly sufficient as a rule of faith. 
 
 III. A rule of faith supposes a God to 
 give and a mind to receive and use it. My 
 God, my Bible and my mind are therefore 
 supposed, in my use of this rule. Now for 
 your argument. It is profound indeed! 
 It runs thus: — The Bible alone, ' on the 
 shelf," is one. A man reads it: that makes 
 two; therefore the Bible alone is no rule of 
 faith. And again: — The reader is fallible — 
 the reader and the Bible make the rule of 
 Protestants, therefore the rule is fallible! 
 Such logic, dear Sir, will not soon assert 
 your claim to infallibility. 
 
 IV. Under this head you say that the Bi- 
 ble alone cannot be the rule of faith because 
 we are all bound as Christians to believe that 
 t\\e Bible is an authentic and inspired book, and 
 
 you defy any one to prove this from the Bible. 
 So are we required to believe in the existence 
 of a God, yet you do not go to the Bible 
 tor the proof of this great doctrine. It 
 is presupposed from the very existence of 
 things. Just so, the authenticity of the sa- 
 cred volume is assumed at the outset when it 
 is admitted as a revelation and a rule of faith. 
 And yet you demand a proof of its being authen- 
 tic &c. from itself, or deny its being the alone 
 rule of faith! Suppose an infidel were to ar- 
 gue thus with you : Your revelation demands 
 of you a belief of a Deity, but by the Bible 
 alone the fact of his existence cannot be pro- 
 ved, therefore your revelation is defective.'' 
 You would laugh him to scorn. How then 
 will Protestants regard your application of 
 the same reasoning to overturn their rule of 
 faith? Admitting it to be, as you do, a 
 Revelation from God, you ask for that proof 
 of its authenticity, &c. which is inseparably 
 connected with and presupposed in the very 
 existence of a revelation ! Your latent mean- 
 ing in all that paragraph is, that we need the 
 church to tell us what is Bible and what is 
 not. Thus, by the true church, you would 
 prove the authenticity of the Bible. And 
 how do you verify the true chnrch ? By the 
 marks — by the Bible. You will prove the 
 church by the Bible, and then the Bible by 
 the church; and thus your argument will run 
 in a constant circle, proving nothing but its 
 own absurdity. 
 
 V. Here you argue, (see the head,) that 
 it was not universally known, until the 
 end of the fifth century, what books were to 
 be regarded as inspired Scriptures, — there- 
 fore, before that time, there was no infallible 
 rule, or if there was, it was not the Bible 
 alone. I reply, if there had been an infallible 
 living judge of controversy in the church at this 
 time, who was authorized as you say your 
 church is, to settle what books were " inspir- 
 ed Scripture," then how comes it, that it 
 was not universally known, which they were 
 for five hundred years? But if there were 
 no such infallible judge, what becomes of your 
 rule of faith? You say in the 4th head, " we 
 are bound as Christians to believe the Bible 
 is authentic and inspired," and again that 
 " the doctrines of Christianity have been re- 
 garded by the Catholic Church, from the be- 
 ginning as fixed stars in the firmament of reve- 
 lation." " She has ascertained and certified 
 their existence, from the commencement," &tc. 
 therefore it follows, that thechurch knew from 
 the beginning which books were authentic, 
 and taught as (one of her doctrines) which 
 those books were. When you say then, they 
 
13 
 
 were not known, you contradict yourself. If 
 you cover your retreat under the word " uni- 
 versally," then either the church concealed 
 what she knew, or wherever the church was 
 known, this was known. But I deny that there 
 was this uncertainty about the canon of Scrip- 
 ture until the end of the fifth century. Some 
 contend that it was settled by the apostle John. 
 Origen A. D. 210, Eusebius in 315, Atha- 
 nasius in 315, Cyril, 340, Council of Laodi- 
 cea, 364, &c. &c. give catalogues of the 
 inspired books. Most of them give an exact 
 catalogue of the New Testament. Some who 
 were certain as to the rest, were doubtful 
 only as to four of these many books. In the 
 mean time, the churches had "all the books;" 
 and these doubts of some, did not make it 
 less truly the real and full rule. How 
 strange then that you should speak of the 
 Bible at large, as uncertain until near the 
 end of the fifth century, when all the books 
 of the Old, and all of the New Testament, 
 except four, were certainly known before the 
 death of the Apostle John. As to those who 
 lived before the "art of printing was in- 
 vented," and those who " cannot read," it is 
 an unworthy quibble; for I suppose you will 
 not deny that in each case, they could as 
 well understand the fallible interpretation of 
 Scripture by a Protestant preacher, as the 
 fallible interpretation of your decrees of 
 councils, bulls, &c, by a Romanist? 
 
 VI. and VII. You say the Bible alone, or 
 the Bible and private interpretation have set- 
 tled no disputes, but promoted them. They 
 have also promoted heresy. But the infalli- 
 ble rule of faith is designed to settle disputes 
 and promote unity. Therefore the Bible 
 alone cannot be the infallible rule of faith. 
 Poor Bible! what a transgressor thou hast 
 been! How right was it for the Council of 
 Trent to lay thee on the shelf! To all 
 you say on this point I answer, your rule 
 has worked worse than ours, to say the 
 least, for you have either put an end to 
 disputes by force, and so wanted not a 
 rule but a ruler, or driven off church after 
 church, and nation after nation from you. 
 How did you settle the dispute with the 
 Waldenses and Albigenses? How, with the 
 Greek church, and how with the Reformers? 
 Again, you argue from the abuse of a thing 
 against its perfection — now when we say the 
 Bible is an infallible rule of faith and com- 
 petent to settle disputes, we mean that it is 
 a sufficient, not a compulsory means — nor 
 do we say that it is incapable of abuse. Will 
 you say this of your rule ? Has it not been 
 abused? When a rule is abused, it is the 
 
 fault of men, not of the Bible. This you ad- 
 mit when you say that an infallible rule must 
 " give to those who abide by its decision, an 
 infallible certainty," &jx. So we say. But 
 what if they will not abide. ? Is there any 
 remedy? I know of none but the Inquisi- 
 tion and the like. If you are willing to take 
 this ground, you are welcome to it. Once 
 more — your argument would lead to this, 
 that as no rule which can be abused is infal- 
 lible, and some men will abuse the best 
 rules, therefore a rule cannot be infallible. 
 
 Your VHIth & IXth heads are only chan- 
 ges rung on the same fallacious reasoning ex- 
 posed above. (The reader will please exam- 
 ine them.) The sum of the argument is 
 this — "Do you not admit, that in holding 
 Presbyterian doctrine, you may be in error — 
 if so, what confidence have you in the infalli- 
 bility of your guides — then you are com- 
 pelled to admit by your own rule that you 
 may be wrong, and the Unitarian right." I 
 answer do you not admit that you may be 
 wrong in finding out your infallible church ? 
 Then what certainty is there, and what con- 
 fidence have you; in the infallibility of your 
 guides ? Again — Joannah Southcoat claimed 
 to be infallible — and so the Shakers — now 
 as they use your rule of faith, no less than 
 Unitarians ours, may they not be right, and 
 you wrong ? Yet on such logic hangs your 
 argument. 
 
 In your IXth head you apply the above. 
 You suppose four Presbyterian preachers,(and 
 include me in the number,) one becomes Uni- 
 tarian—another S wedenborgian— and , I happy, 
 honoured I, become a Papist, by light break- 
 ing in on my dark soul. Now we must of 
 course disperse, and jointhese various people. 
 Hence, as under our rule we may do this, that 
 rule "\oorks destruction," and is not infalli- 
 ble. Let me consummate this felicitous illus- 
 tration. We are told in Genebrard's Chron- 
 icles, A. D. 904. "that for 150 years, fifty 
 Popes had been apostate, rather than apos- 
 tolical." There is then no lack of subjects. 
 For the first take Pope Liberius, who be- 
 came Arian: then Pope Honorius, a Heretic, 
 who was condemned by a council: Pope Mar- 
 cellinus, an Idolater. You, Sir, may be the 
 fourth — with your faith unshaken, and on the 
 high road to the Vatican and the Triple 
 crown. Now ought not one of these to join 
 the Arians; another the Swedenborgians; 
 another the Gentile Idolaters; and would 
 not this "work destruction?" Yet this is 
 the operation of your rule, or at least it is in 
 spite of your rule, which must therefore, 
 on your own reasoning, be defective. I 
 
14 
 
 could apply your argument to your councils 
 too; but I forbear. 
 
 X. The argument on certainty, I have 
 answered in the introduction. 
 
 And now, Sir, having waded through the 
 queries, which you have so magisterially 
 propounded to me, I would propose to your 
 consideration the following difficulties, to 
 which I also expect a prompt reply. 
 
 1. You prove your church infallible as a 
 judge of controversies, by true notes or 
 marks which are very numerous. They em- 
 brace sanctity of doctrine, agreement in doc- 
 trine with the primitive church, &c. &c. 
 It presupposes much knowledge of Scrip- 
 ture to find them out. Now you must 
 find out all these notes, to get at the 
 true church; and in her to find the infallible 
 judge. The question then is, are you in- 
 fallible in finding out these notes? Is it 
 not by private, or at least fallible judg- 
 ment? Then as your infallibility is built on 
 fallible judgment, is it not an empty name, 
 and a presumptuous pretension? 
 
 2. As to the judge of controversies, you 
 say in the fourth column, " would it not be 
 absurd to say, that the laws of this common- 
 wealth expound their own meaning, without 
 a judse? Now let us look at this illustra 
 
 Bible, if translated by Catholic (Roman) au- 
 thors. " But if any one have the presump- 
 tion to read or possess it, without such a 
 written permission, he shall not receive abso- 
 lution, until he has first delivered up such 
 Bible,'" &c. Booksellers selling to men with- 
 out license were liable to penalties. The liber- 
 ty of the press also is directly violated in that 
 same document. Not only in Rome, but " in 
 other places" the vicar or inquisitor or other 
 authorised person must examine, approve and 
 permit a book to be published! Does this 
 seem like friendship to the discussion of the 
 Scriptures and of general knowledge? 
 
 4. Your living judge of controversies being 
 infallible, your system ought to be uniform 
 and unchangeable, admitting of no new doc- 
 trines and no contradictions — and this you 
 allow when you say, " Your doctrines have 
 been from the beginning, as fixed stars in the 
 firmaments of Revelation," and the church 
 "knew them," by the infallible rule of judg- 
 ment "from the beginning-" I give only a 
 few examples of heresy and variation, and in- 
 novation in doctrine, to disprove this asser- 
 tion. 
 
 In the fourth century, Liberius, the Pope, 
 signed the Arian creed — and the great body 
 of the clergy became Arian. Hilary called 
 his confession the "Arian Perfidy." Arian- 
 
 tion. The judge in the commonwealth must ism was sanctioned by the Papal Church, that 
 be of neither party. But your judge of con- is, by the Pontiff, a general council, and the 
 troversies is always a party in the case, un- collective clergy. 1 need not refer to Hono- 
 less you contend with some, that he is above ! rius, who in the seventh century was an ac 
 law. The civil judge binds not the con- 
 science; for though he deprive me of my 
 property, the law does not require me 
 
 the law does not require me to 
 think w"ith him; but your judge lords it over 
 the conscience, which none can rightly do but 
 God. The civil judge is easily found out; 
 but can you identify your infallible judge ? 
 Is it the Pope, or a general council, or both 
 united, or the church at large ? What would 
 a, civil judge be worth, whom nobody could 
 find? 
 
 3. You say in your first column, that your 
 church is " not hostile to the dissemination 
 and perusal of the Holy Scriptures." Yet 
 the 4th Rule of the "Expurgatory Index," 
 under the authority of the Council of Trent, 
 and the Pope, says in so many words, " In- 
 asmuch as it is manifest from experience, that 
 if the Holy Bible translated into the vulgar 
 tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every 
 one, the temerity of men will cause more 
 evil than good to arise from it" — and it goes 
 on to say that permission may be given in 
 writing by bishops or inquisitors, to such as 
 priests or confessors recommend, to read the 
 
 knowledged and condemned heretic 
 
 As to the Pope's supremacy, there are no 
 less than three systems in your church. 
 Some contend for a mere presidency; such 
 are Du Pin, Rigathius, Filaster, Gibert and 
 Paolo. The councils of Pisa, Constance and 
 Basil, sustained this view. Others make 
 him an unlimited monarch, civil and eccle- 
 siastical. This is the Italian school, and the 
 Jesuits agree with them. The councils of 
 Florence, l.ateran and Trent, patronized 
 this system. Another system set him by the 
 side of God. The canon law in the gloss, 
 denominates jhe Pope, 'the Lord God.' 
 Bellarmine says, [4. 5. ] " Si papa erraret, 
 praecipiendo vitia," &c. " If the Pope should 
 err in commanding vices, and prohibiting vir- 
 tues, the church would be bound to believe 
 vices to be virtues, and virtues to be vices." 
 These views were largely patronized. 
 
 As to the seat of infallibility in the church, 
 there is neither union nor uniformity. There 
 are no less than four systems on this subject, 
 stoutly advocated in different ages, by wri- 
 ters, popes, and councils; and your church 
 
15 
 
 is not now united upon it. One system 
 places infallibilty in the Pope; another in a 
 general council,' a third in the two united; 
 and the fourth in the church collective. 
 
 You are not agreed among yourselves even 
 which are the general councils. As to image 
 worship, there are three parties. (Bellar- 
 mine 2. 20.) One party allows the use of 
 them, — another the lower worship — a third, 
 the real divine worship of them. The coun- 
 cil of Nice, says Bellarmine, agreed with the 
 second. The ups and downs of images in 
 the church, for a whole century I not need 
 here detail. 
 
 As to the validity of oaths, — The third 
 General Council of the Lateran, 16th Canon, 
 says, "An oath contrary to ecclesiastical 
 utility is perjury — not an oath." Labb. 13. 
 426. The 4th Lateran, a general council, in 
 A. D. 1215, 3d canon, " freed the subjects 
 of such sovereigns as embraced heresy, from 
 their fealty." Labb. 13. 934. The guilty ce- 
 lebrity of the Council of Constance, I need 
 not dwell on. — Delahogue, Tract, de euch. 
 p. 214. art. 2, says, that denying the cup to the 
 laity did not begin until the 12th century. 
 Now, it is an approved doctrine of the Church 
 of Rome. 
 
 Lastly — In the letter from Bononia by 
 the three bishops to Pope Julius the 3d., 
 Sept. 20th, 1553, "on the way to establish 
 the Church of Rome," are these confessions: 
 " This is a downright Lutheran maxim, that 
 it is not lawful to depart in the least degree 
 from the things that were used among the 
 Apostles. But who of us doth not every 
 day often depart from them ? Indeed in our 
 churches we scarcely retain the least shadow 
 of doctrine and discipline which flourished 
 in the times of the Apostles ; but have 
 brought in quite another of our own." (More 
 of this hereafter.) See Preservative against 
 Popery, vol. 1. p. 88. 
 
 Amidst such heresies, variations, corrup- 
 tions and novelties of doctrine and worship, 
 where is your infallible judge of controver- 
 sies ? 
 
 5. Your rule of faith requires you, as your 
 oath of office binds you, to interpret "un- 
 written traditions" and the Bible, according 
 to the "unanimous consent of the fathers." 
 Now, I ask, is there any such unanimous 
 consent ? If not, how can your rule be ap- 
 plied ? If there be, will you make it ap- 
 pear? 
 
 6. The Apocryphal books, as we call them, 
 were excluded from the canon ot the Jews. 
 They were not recognised as canonical by 
 Christ or his apostles; nor by the earliest 
 
 fathers. They do not claim to be inspired 
 
 they are unworthy of credit, except as eccle- 
 siastical histories. Yet you introduce them 
 into the canon — what proof have you of then- 
 claim to tlii" ?— i * " -*"•* 
 
 7. What right has the Church of Rome to 
 make " unwritten traditions" a part of the 
 rule of faith ? Why have they been left un- 
 written if they are known ? Can she trace 
 this mass of human inventions up to the 
 teachings ot the Lord, and his inspired 
 apostles ? If not, how can you require us to 
 believe them? Why not record them, that 
 we may know them, and that they may be 
 preserved ? 
 
 8. Your rule of faith usurps the preroga- 
 tive of Jesus Christ, " sitting in the temple of 
 God," " as God." For God alone can dic- 
 tate what we are to believe. He tells us "to 
 call no man master." " If we must believe 
 what the church believes," then we are no 
 longer at liberty to inquire, and think, or 
 even believe; for belief is on evidence, not 
 dictation. 
 
 Your judge has taught as infallible doc- 
 rines things which violate the natural senses, 
 and thus undermine the evidence from mira- 
 cles in support of revelation itself— as for ex- 
 ample — Transubstantiation. It is also ab- 
 horrent to true religion not to say every 
 reverent feeling, that a priest can make 
 his God, then sacrifice him, then give him 
 to the people, then worship him, and then eat 
 him. 
 
 10. Finally the system which includes an 
 infallible living judge of controversies, to 
 guide us in matters of religion, and to regu- 
 late not only faith, but worship and morals, 
 ought not to be corrupt in its tendency or to- 
 lerate corruptions in morals and manners. 
 Now if I can show this to be the tendency of 
 your rule in operation, it must prove the rule 
 not only vicious but ruinous, and therefore 
 not infallible. I will refer you to a memo- 
 rable letter written to Paul 3d, by nine dis- 
 tinguished prelates of Rome, England, Brech- 
 dusium, Verona, &c. &c, shortly before the 
 Reformation, on the state of the church and 
 the need of Reformation. They mention 
 abuses as follows — Ordaining uneducated 
 youth, of evil manners — Simony, as being 
 general — Pastors withdrawing from their 
 flocks, which were intrusted to hirelings — 
 Clergymen guiUy of sins, and then by ex- 
 emption from penalty— The orders of the Re- 
 ligious so"Hegenerate that monasteries ought 
 to be abolished — Sacrileges committed with 
 the nuns in most monasteries — Rome espe- 
 cially corrupt, though the "mother of the 
 
16 
 
 church, and the mistress of churches." " In 
 Jine," they say, " The name of Christ is for- 
 gotten by the nations, and by us the clergy, 
 and the vengeance of God which we deserve 
 is ready to fall on us!" "laslTif this be the 
 fruit of infallibility, or could be patronized by 
 a living infallible judge? 
 
 Now, Sir, if you will apply your teles- 
 cope to the Roman heavens, and narrow- 
 ly survey the permutations of the "stars" 
 you boast of as "fixed," you will find many 
 a shifting planet, and many a star, which in 
 apostolic days rose upon the church, quench- 
 ed from your horizon. 
 
 And these are the things which led " those 
 
 few individuals " as you call them, to assert 
 that your church was corrupt and needed 
 reform. And was there not a cause? 
 
 It sounds not a little strange, in the light of 
 these facts, which mark the growingcorruption 
 and successive collapses of your unchangeable 
 church to hear you talking of the " Presbyte- 
 rian church falling apart, under the pressure 
 of private interpretation!" Under what is 
 
 yours falling? We are willing to trust the 
 
 Presbyterian church in the hands of Jesus 
 Christ. Truth and liberty is her blessed ban- 
 ner. Yours, respectfully, 
 
 John Breckinridge. 
 
CONTROVERSY N°. 3. 
 
 KuSe of Faith. 
 
 Philadelphia, February 14, 1833. 
 
 To the Rev. John Breckinridge. 
 
 R ev . Sir, — On the evening of the 9th inst. 
 I had the pleasure of receiving your reply, 
 after a lapse of eighteen days from that, on 
 which I placed my first letter in the hands 
 of the Editor, with a request that he would 
 furnish you with a copy as soon as possible. 
 Our readers were generally disappointed, at 
 your not answering in order, according to the 
 time prescribed in our rules. It was admit- 
 ted, however, that you had reasons for pro- 
 crastinating : and many of those, who have 
 never r-eflected on the difficulty of the task, 
 accounted for the delay, by supposing that 
 you meant to overwhelm your adversary if 
 the energy of the onset— that you would 
 throw the whole strength of your cause, and 
 of your mind into your first paper, and thus 
 insure a prompt and triumphant vindication 
 of the Protestant rule of faith — a vindication, 
 which would not only refute, but extermi- 
 nate, all the arguments that had been, or 
 that might be raised against it. For my own 
 part, I had no such anticipations. But I 
 must confess, that I did expect something 
 more energetic and to the purpose. I have 
 read your letter carefully ; and although you 
 attempt to neutralize my reasoning by re- 
 criminations and glosses, which are ingenious 
 enough, still I am utterly unable to dis- 
 cover any thing, that reaches the difficulty, 
 or approaches the character of manly argu- 
 ment. Before I proceed to review those 
 Portions of it which relate to the subject of 
 iscussion " for the time being," (see rules,) 
 I shall make a few observations on certain 
 passages, which are, in my opinion, objec- 
 tionable, on other grounds, besides their 
 being foreign to the present topic of con- 
 troversy. 
 
 The first is your use of the words "Pa- 
 pist and Romanist." We learn from his- 
 tory, that the ancient Athenian laws speci- 
 fied, neither prohibition, nor penalty, for the 
 crime of parricide : — the legislator believing, 
 that the commission of it was impossible. 
 Influenced by a similar supposition, it never 
 occurred to me, in fixing the laws of this 
 
 D 
 
 controversy, to stipulate for the use of cour- 
 teous language. Your official standing, the 
 clerical character, and the courtesies of the 
 a-e in which we live, were pZedges, in my mind, 
 that you would use no other. 1 had, however, 
 in conversation, informed you, that the appel- 
 lation by which we choose to be called, is 
 Catholics, or Roman Catholics;— and I do 
 not perceive what good feelings are to be 
 oratified on your side, by preferring to either 
 of these, an epithet known to be offensive, 
 and which adds nothing, either to sense or 
 argument. Besides, you should, in my opi- 
 nion, recollect, that for nearly a hundred 
 vears past, the world has laughed at the lu- 
 dicrous picture of Presbyterianism, drawn 
 by the Protestant pencils of Dean Swift and 
 the author of Hudibras. If I wished to 
 employ unpalatable epithets, I have only to 
 consult their pages. But they are useless to 
 any cause, and I allude to the matter, mere- 
 ly to advise the reader, that I shall receive 
 the appellation of " Papist, Romanist, &c," 
 at your hand, with the express understand- 
 in"-, that thev are nicknames. 
 
 The next* passage, which I consider you 
 to have treated in a manner unbecoming the 
 pen of a clergyman, as well as the impor- 
 tance of the subject, is that in which you 
 allude to transubstantiation. I do not 
 mean now to violate the order of proceeding, 
 by saying one word in proof of that doctrine. 
 It is a doctrine, however, of great antiquity: 
 admitted, even by Protestant writers, to be 
 older, by many hundred years, than the sect 
 or denomination of which you are a minister: 
 it is a doctrine, sacred with the vast majority 
 of the Christian world at the present day, 
 and which they believe to be as old as Chris- 
 tianitv ; — and I submit to your own reflec- 
 tion, "and to that of our readers, whether 
 such a doctrine was not entitled to a more 
 »rave and dignified notice, than that which 
 you have been pleased to take of it — in tell- 
 in"- us "that a priest can make his God, 
 then sacrifice him, then give him to the people, 
 then worship him, and then eat him." There 
 is a tripping levity of phrase in this passage, 
 which your friends will regret for your own 
 
18 
 
 sake, quite as much as I can do for any other 
 motive. Be assured, Rev'd Sir, that Catho- 
 lics, however incredible it may appear, 
 claim the possession and exercise of reason, 
 no less than Protestants. If we are in dark- 
 ness, you may charitably undertake to en- 
 lighten us; but it must be by something more 
 solid and permanent, than the flash of abortive 
 wit and ridicule, with which you have thought 
 proper to visit the doctrine of transubstan- 
 tiation. Besides, I would not have the In- 
 fidel, who regards Christianity, as you do 
 the "real presence," to derive any acces- 
 sion of materials to his stock of sarcasm, 
 from the pages of this controversy. Volney 
 has an argument against Christianity, bear- 
 ing so near a resemblance to yours, that did 
 we not _ know the difference from other 
 sources, it would be difficult to say, whether 
 it is the infidel, that has imitated the Chris- 
 tian, or the Christian, that has borrowed 
 from the infidel:— So much are they like 
 children of the same family. 
 
 Volney is exposing the absurdity of belief 
 in the Trinity, the Incarnation and Divinity 
 of Jesus Christ. Volney was an infidel, and 
 we are not surprised to see him indulging a 
 vein of humour. " You make your God," 
 says he, " the well-beloved Son, born with- 
 out a mother; and then, as old as his father; 
 and then the son of a woman, who is at once 
 a virgin and a mother, and then you have 
 him killed, for the benefit of mankind." I 
 shall pass from this part of my subject, by ask- 
 ing you, whether Volney has not been quite 
 as witty, pungent, and conclusive against 
 Christ's Divinity, as you have been against 
 transubstantiation ? 
 
 The proverb says, that there is a time for 
 all things; and our rules of controversy, 
 lay it down, as most conducive to order, to 
 treat of but one thing at one time. We are 
 now, Rev'd Sir, discussing the " Rule of 
 'Faith,'' and " the parties agree respectively, 
 to adhere strictly to the subject of discussion 
 for the time being, and to admit no second 
 question, until the first shall have been ex- 
 hausted." With the recollection of this rule 
 fresh on my memory, judge of my surprise 
 at beholding the host of" second questions," 
 which you have contrived to marshal into the 
 very van of the contest. "The Expurgatory 
 Index," — "Pope Liberius." — "The Arian 
 heresy. " — "The Pope's Supremacy." — "Seat 
 of infallibility." — "General Councils.'' — 
 Validity of oaths." — "Letters from Bononia 
 by three Bishops," — "Traditions." — Apo- 
 cryphal Books," &c. 
 
 -Stiphelumque, Bromumque 
 
 Antimachumque, HeJimumque, Securiferumque 
 Pyracmon. 
 
 These subjects maybe more serviceable in 
 the rear as a body of reserve. You will thus 
 have an opportunity of reviewing, and pre- 
 paring them for action, when their turn shall 
 have come. There is, however, one topic, 
 which has a closer affinity to the subject now 
 under consideration, and which demands a 
 more proximate attention. It is your objec- 
 tions to the Catholic rule of faith. Now, the 
 state of the question, as laid down in my 
 first letter, required of you not to attack my 
 rule, by anticipation, but to defend your 
 own ; which, by the laws of the controversy 
 I was authorized to investigate. I had 
 placed the result of that investigation before 
 the public, in a few brief, plain, but solid 
 and practical arguments, which, I was well 
 aware, it would require something more than 
 the female theology of "Father Clement," 
 to shake from their foundations. But, be- 
 fore I proceed to review your attempt at a 
 r^ply to them, I take occasion to assure you, 
 that at a proper time, I shall defend the 
 Catholic rule with positive arguments, quite 
 as strong, as those already advanced in oppo- 
 sition to the Protestant principle. 
 
 In the mean time, the reader will please 
 to bear in mind, that Protestants profess to 
 be guided by one rule of faith, and that 
 Catholics not only profess to be, but are in 
 effect, guided by another. Now, as you have 
 agreed with me, that Christ established one, 
 and only one, rule of faith, " for the purpose 
 of guiding us in matters of religion, and 
 determining disputes in his church," — it 
 follows, as a necessary consequence, that 
 either the Catholics or the Protestants have 
 forsaken that true rule, and put themselves 
 under the guidance of a false one, which 
 Christ did not establish, and which is there- 
 fore, inadequate either to direct us in 
 matters of religion or to determine our dis- 
 putes. Deeming it more conducive to clear- 
 ness and perspicuity, to give either rule a 
 separate trial, I began by arraigning that 
 principle, which has been adopted by Pro- 
 testants. I stated that the "Bible alone," 
 as each individual understands it, is the Pro- 
 testant rule of faith, and you have not dis- 
 puted the correctness of the statement. Now if 
 you prove that this rule was actually establish- 
 ed by Christ — that it guides those who have 
 adopted it in matters of religion — that it deter- 
 mines their disputes, you will thereby simpli- 
 fy the investigation, and your friends may 
 congratulate you on an easy triumph when 
 
19 
 
 you come to examine the Catholic branch of 
 the inquiry. But if, on the other hand, I 
 prove by unanswerable argument, that the 
 Protestant rule fails on all these heads, then 
 it will follow, by the very tenor of our agree- 
 ment that the Catholic rule mud be the true rule 
 appointed by Christ. This however, I pledge 
 myself to prove by positive arguments, when 
 the question shall have come fairly under 
 discussion. At present, it is the duty of my 
 position to urge those facts and arguments, 
 which overthrow the Protestant rule of faith 
 — of yours, to answer them. I wish it to be 
 clearly understood, that I will not go aside 
 from the question now under consideration, 
 to answer any objection even against the 
 Catholic rule of faith, until the present topic 
 shall have been entirely disposed of. 
 
 The first sentence that arrests my atten- 
 tion in the foreground of your reply, is 
 the startling declaration, that you "own 
 no judge of controversies but God." Do 
 you not, Reverend Sir, perceive how flat- 
 ly this proposition contradicts the admission 
 of every rule of faith? If Christ has es- 
 tablished a rule of faith to " determine dis- 
 putes," — surely you will "own" that rule as 
 a judge of controversy— unless you can disco- 
 ver a distinction between "judging contro- 
 versies" and 'determining disputes^' — for my 
 part, I can see no distinction whatsoever. 
 You admit, on the one hand, an infallible rule 
 appointed for the express purpose of determin- 
 ing disputes; and, on the other, almost in the 
 same breath, you "disown" every judge of 
 controversy but God ! Protestants usually 
 profess to acknowledge the word of God as the 
 judge of controversy; and, as each minis- 
 ter possesses the right and the talent of 
 making the word of God decide in favour of 
 his own doctrine, the principle, I should 
 think, allows ample latitude for the. irrespon- 
 sible rovings of private opinion. But for you, 
 it seems, that even the word of God is too 
 restrictive ; — since you will "own no judge of 
 controversies but God himself." It is true 
 that he is the ultimate judge of all things, but to 
 say that he is the immediate judge of contro- 
 versy, by whom "disputes in the Church of 
 Christ are to be determined;" — is an asser- 
 tion that will be found novel in the annals of 
 polemical disputation. 
 
 In my introduction, speaking in reference 
 to private interpretation, I quoted the words 
 of St. Peter, in which he says that " no pro- 
 phecy of the Scripture is of any private inter- 
 pretation," and contrasted them with the prac- 
 tice of Protestants.who, in fact, make all Scrip- 
 ture and prophecy of Scripture, of every private 
 
 interpretation. By this remark, I intended 
 simply to show, that, if St. Peter meant what 
 his language so obviously expresses, he at least 
 was not disposed to leave the Scripture, or the 
 prophecy of Scripture, subject to thearbitrary 
 or capricious interpretation of each private in- 
 dividual. But it seems I was mistaken; — and 
 you, Reverend Sir, are kind enough to write 
 nearly a whole column of explanation, to in- 
 struct me, and our readers generally, how we 
 are tounderstand the text. That you felt the ne- 
 cessity of giving this explanation is a timely 
 hint, that either the Scripture is not, after 
 all, so plain as you are accustomed on other 
 occasions to assert, or else (what amounts to 
 the same) that we are not competent to under- 
 stand its meaning. But unless you claim for 
 yourself, either mental superiority, or some 
 small portion of that infallibility which you 
 deny to the whole church, I can see no reason 
 why you should pretend to understand the 
 passa« e better than my sel f, or than any of our 
 readers. You say that " it is important to be 
 noticed by me that it is the prophecy of 
 Scripture, and not the Scripture that is ob- 
 scure." Then, you admit that prophecy, at 
 least, is obscure. This is indeed a conces- 
 sion. But pray is not " prophecy" a part of 
 Scripture? and if it be, then we have your own 
 authority for believing that some part of Scrip- 
 ture is obscure. You next urge that, by my in- 
 terpretation the apostle is made to argue thus, 
 the Scriptures are infallibly revealed or 
 
 inspired, and ye do well that ye take heed to 
 them, therefore they are obscure, too obscure, 
 for private explanation." The premises, 
 dear Sir, are St. Peter's, but the conclusion 
 is your own. "The voice, indeed, is the voice 
 of Jacob, but the hands are the hands of 
 Esau." I would find a better conclusion in 
 the apostle's own words, " therefore, (as no 
 prophecy of Scripture is of any private inter- 
 pretation) you will not wrest it, as some do 
 also the other Scriptures, to yourown destruc- 
 tion." 2 Pet. iii. 16." I am not disposed to 
 dwell longer on this subject, but I must re- 
 mark, that, to my mind, your explanation of 
 the passage appears quite as obscure, as the 
 text itself. 
 
 As to the Latin quotation from the Vulgate, 
 it means precisely what is expressed in the 
 text as quoted above, and for which, I assure 
 you, I am not at all indebted to what you call 
 " our English translation." 
 
 As all the rest of your introduction con- 
 sists of premature objections against a rule of 
 faith, which is not yet under consideration, 
 I you will excuse me, if I pass them over, with 
 | a promise to refute them in their proper 
 
place. When we come to the Catholic rule, 
 I shall show you, how \vc /know the true 
 church, how the Scriptures designate her; 
 how we solve the vicious circle: how the 
 trufc church is distinguished by her divine 
 characteristics from all would be churches; — 
 and a great many other things with which it is 
 not wonderful, to find Protestants rather un- 
 acquainted. At present you are called upon 
 to vindicate the Protestant rule of faith — and 
 instead of defending your own position, you 
 attack ours. It seems to be the height of 
 your ambition to show that the Catholic sys- 
 tem involves as many difficulties, as the Pro- 
 testant system: but even if you succeeded, 
 the only consequence that would follow is, 
 that neither possesses the true rule. — 
 
 Now for the arguments. — 
 
 I. My first- argument against the Protes- 
 tant rule of faith was, that Christ never ap- 
 pointed it. The reasons by which I support- 
 ed this argument were simple facts. It is a 
 fact, that the Bible alone, interpreted by each 
 individual for himself, is the (nominal) rule 
 of faith, adopted by Protestants. It is a fact, 
 that Christ never appointed this rule; — be- 
 cause he never wrote any part of the Old or 
 New Testament himself;~he .never command 
 ed any part to be written by his apostles. It is 
 a fact, that what constitutes the Bible (accord- 
 ing to the Protestant canon of Stripture) was 
 not complete, until the close of the first cen- 
 tury; and consequently, it is a fact, that the 
 Protestant rule of faith did not exist in the 
 first century, and is therefore not the rule 
 which Christ established:— I call upon you to 
 deny one single proposition here stated as a 
 fact. 
 
 To supply this deficiency, you are pleased 
 to assign an origin to the Protestant rule of 
 faith, which, whilst it corresponds with these 
 facts, relinquishes all pretensions tothatrule's 
 having been established by Christ. You as- 
 sert that the " Old Testament," with the in- 
 structions of Christ and his Apostles, consti- 
 tute the rule of faith, from the demise of the 
 Synagogue, until just before the death of the 
 last Apostle, when the " entire New Testa- 
 ment was written," — and when, as you sup- 
 pose, the Protestantrule of faith went into ope- 
 ration. Your clerical brethren will, no doubt, 
 admire your candor in admitting that the 
 Protestant rule of faith, so far from having 
 been established by Christ, had not so much as 
 an existence, until the close of the first century ; 
 and the Jews will feel complimented, by the 
 acknowledgment that the "Old Testament" 
 was placed in the same chair of authority with 
 Christ and his Apostles, for the purpose of 
 
 determining the doctrines of Christianity, du- 
 ring the same period. Either admission, is a 
 concession of my argument, that the Bible 
 alone is not the rule of faith established by 
 Christ. 
 
 II. My second argument was, that "as 
 Protestants boast of believing nothing but 
 what is contained in the Bible, they are bound 
 to show some text of Scripture, to prove the 
 Bible alone is the rule of faith established by 
 Christ." This is the fundamental principle 
 of Protestantism. If this is not a divinely 
 revealed tenet of religion, then it follows, that 
 the Protestant rule of faith is precisely what 
 I said of it, in my former letter, a mere 'as- 
 sumptions—a thing taken for granted, without 
 proof or examination. It is easy to perceive 
 in your answer, that you were not insensible 
 to the strength of this position, nor to the fee- 
 bleness of its opposite: — Hence, instead of as- 
 sailing it, with that superiority of evidence 
 which Protestants associate with their belief, 
 you go round it, asking yourself questions and 
 answering them: " what then, you say, are the 
 Scriptures?" Permit me again, Rev. Sir, to 
 give the answer. They are the written word 
 of God. Are they the only rule of faith? they 
 themselves, from the beginning of Genesis to 
 the end of Revelation do not say that they are. 
 Why then do Protestants believe, that the 
 Bible alone is the rule of faith, when the Bible 
 itself does not say so? I leave you, Rev. 
 Sir, to answer this question. 
 
 But in fact your language indicates an 
 abandonment of the undertaking. You say 
 ingenuously, that the " presumption from the 
 admitted fact of the Bible's being a revela- 
 tion is, that it is the rule of faith." Now I ask 
 you, can that be the rule of faith appointed by 
 Christ, which, according toyour own acknow- 
 ledgment, rests upon a mere "presump- 
 tion?" A presumption is an unequivocal ba- 
 sis for the Protestant's belief in time, and his 
 hope in eternity!! 
 
 As to your subdivisions under this head, they 
 all belong to another part ot the subject, and 
 certainly do not prove, that the Protestant rule 
 of faith is authorized, by any single text of 
 the sacred writing. It is true you attempt 
 to strengthen the "presumption" by a text 
 of Scripture; — not from the Gospel, but from 
 the Prophet Isaiah viii. 20. " To the law and 
 to the testimony, if they speak not according 
 to them, it is because there is no light in 
 them." The prophet in this verse, was not 
 pointing out a rule of faith, but reminding 
 the people that it was forbidden in the land, 
 (Deut. xviii. 10,) to consult false oracles 6 
 which was natural enough. But to infer that 
 
21 
 
 this text constitutes a divine warrant for the 
 Protestant rule of faith, is indulging private 
 interpretations, with a vengeance. The next 
 passage that is brought forward, is that in 
 which St. Paul approves Timothy, (2 Tim. 
 iii. 15. \7) for his knowledge of the Scripture. 
 You first quote the passage entire — and then, 
 as if conscious of its inconclusiveness as to 
 the Protestant rule of faith, you take it apart, 
 and weave, from the fragments, a chain of rea- 
 soning favourable to your " presumption," but 
 in which, be it noted, that for every link fur- 
 nished by the Apostle;— two are added, of your 
 own fabrication. Allow me to quote a spe- 
 cimen. "The Scriptures are able to make 
 wise unto salvation," says the text; " with- 
 out any human judge or help," adds Mr. 
 Breckinridge. But, Sir, if this addition be 
 true, what will become of the clergy, who 
 live by fudging M and helping" to explain 
 the meaning of Scripture. Will they not say, 
 in the words of another text, " a man's ene- 
 mies are those of his household." But, so far 
 as the Scripture is concerned, it is manifest 
 that the " presumption," on which the Pro- 
 testant rule of faith depends, must remain 
 what it is. 
 
 III. My third argument was, — that the Bi- 
 ble alone, is a misnomer in Theology, — in as 
 much, as we can know nothing of it except 
 through the medium of interpretation. And, 
 as this medium is, in all cases, confessedly 
 fallible, according to your rule of faith, it fol- 
 lows necessarily, that no Protestant can be 
 certain, whether the doctrines which he be- 
 lieves, and on which he grounds his hope of 
 salvation, are contained in the Bible. Be as- 
 sured, Rev. Sir, that our readers will find 
 something more " profound" in this argument 
 than you have seen fit to acknowledge. You 
 say " my God, my Bible, and my mind are 
 supposed in myr\x\e of faith:" precisely, — and 
 for that reason it is, that the opinions and pre- 
 judices of your " mind," receive a fallacious 
 authority with the people, by being put forth 
 and accepted, as emanating from the pure 
 word of God, the Bible alone/ Has not the 
 Episcopalian, the Baptist, the Methodist, the 
 Moravian, the Swedenborgian, the Unitarian, 
 the Arminian, and the Universalist, each " his 
 God, his Bible, and his mind?" — and will you 
 for a moment, pretend to say that they are 
 guided by the rule of faith which you and 
 they equally profess to follow, the Bible 
 alone? It is not the Bible alone;— but the Bi- 
 ble, twisted into harmony with the Confession 
 of Faith, — viewed through the Westminster 
 Telescope, — which constitutes your rule of 
 faith. As to the silly argument which you are 
 
 pleased to ascribe to me, under this head, I 
 must beg leave to disown it. It is the child of 
 Presbyterian "logic," and is quite too young 
 to sustain my " claim to infallibility." 
 
 IV. My fourth argument was, that the 
 Protestant rule of faith actually undermines 
 the authority of the Scriptures, by extin- 
 guishing the proofs of their authenticity and 
 inspiration, and consequently terminates, in 
 moral suicide. Just imagine to yourself an 
 ordinary will or testament, written but 
 twenty years ago; — purporting to be the 
 last will and testament of a wealthy de- 
 ceased relative, and designating you as 
 heir, but without either signature or pro- 
 bate; — and ask yourself what it would be 
 worth? Could such a document establish its 
 own authenticity ? And yet, this is precisely 
 the situation to which the Protestant rule of 
 faith reduces the Scriptures, in rejecting the 
 collateral testimony of the church, by which, 
 and by which alone, their authenticity could 
 have been established. St. Augustine, of 
 whom Presbyterians are sometimes wont to 
 speak with respect, declared that it was the 
 testimony of the church which moved him to 
 believe in the Scriptures. But noiv, the or- 
 der of belief is "reformed." Men pick up 
 (pardon the phrase) the sacred volume, as 
 they find it, floating on the sea of two thou- 
 sand years, and by one great, but gratui- 
 tous, act of belief, which flings all inter- 
 mediate church authority and tradition to 
 the winds, they say "the Bible is the Bible, 
 and we are its interpreters," every man for 
 himself. 
 
 Is it not a fact, Rev'd Sir, that Protestant- 
 ism rejects tradition and adopts the Bible 
 alone as its rule of faith? and if so, what 
 other testimony is left in the universe to es- 
 tablish either the authenticity or inspiration 
 of the Bible? When you say, therefore, that 
 my latent meaning in all this argument is, that 
 we "need the church to tell us what is 
 Bible and what is not," you express my 
 meaning exactly, and it is "latent" no longer. 
 It is now incumbent on you to show how a 
 Protestant, by the Bible alone, can be as- 
 sured that the Scriptures are authentic and 
 inspired. 
 
 V. My fifth argument was, that Christ 
 neither established nor intended the Bible 
 alone to be the rule of faith, because it was 
 not universally known until the end of 
 the fifth century, what books, were to be 
 regarded as inspired Scripture. The argu- 
 ment which you here raise against the 
 church, for not making known what books 
 were Scripture, until the period referred 
 
22 
 
 to, I shall answer in its proper place. In 
 the mean time, the fact is an everlasting proof, 
 that the Bible alone was not the primitive rule 
 of Christian faith. You have given authority 
 indeed, to prove that some of the books of 
 Scripture were certain; this I never denied; 
 but you have admitted, that even as late as the 
 Council of Laodicea, 364, some were doubt- 
 ful, and this is quite sufficient for my argu- 
 ment. These some prove that the Protestant 
 rule of faitli was not complete, even "at the 
 death of the last apostle," nor for 264 years 
 afterwards, and consequently was not estab- 
 lished by Christ: therefore, it is a false rule. 
 But besides, the condition of the world 
 at that period, renders it absurd to suppose 
 that the Bible alone was even thought of as 
 the rule of faith, 1st; — because of the multi- 
 tude of languages into which it would have 
 been necessary to translate the Bible: 2d, be- 
 cause of the multitude of pens necessary to 
 transcribe copies, so as to furnish believers 
 with a rule of faith: 3d, because of the multi- 
 tude of schools and scholmasters necessary 
 to teach the people of every nation how to 
 read. And this is the argument which you 
 call a "quibble!" 
 
 VI. My sixth argument was, that as the 
 true rule of faith was established "to determine 
 disputes in the church of Christ, v it cannot be 
 the Protestant rule, because, it is a fact. 
 that, since the beginning of Christianity un- 
 til the present hour, no dispute has ever been 
 determined by that rule, the Bible alone. 
 Are you then still prepared to say, that a rule 
 which, in no single instance, has accomplish- 
 ed the end of its institution, is the rule ap- 
 pointed by Christ? Does the Bible " deter- 
 mine the dispute" between you and the 
 Episcopalians on the institution of bishops — 
 between you and the learned editor of the 
 Christian Index, on the subject of Infant 
 Baptism — between you and the Unitarian on 
 the divinity of Jesus Christ — between you 
 and your Rev. Brethren of the Second Pres- 
 bytery in your own church? 
 
 VII. My seventh argument was, that the 
 Protestant rule of faith so far from " deter- 
 mining any dispute,'' has given rise to all the 
 heresies that exist. By that rule the Bible 
 is made to prove the divinity of Christ in 
 one pulpit, and to overthrow the belief of it 
 in another;— to prove the eternity of torments, 
 and the non-existence of Hell: — And can 
 that be the rule appointed by Christ, which 
 gives the same warrant of authority to him 
 that " plants, and to him that plucks up that 
 which had been planted?" Is there a more 
 palpable proof of this argument, than the 
 
 multitude of sects and the endless contradict 
 tions among Protestants, on subjects of doc- 
 trine? After stating this argument, you turn 
 round and exclaim "Poor Bible, what a 
 transgressor thou hast been !" and then 
 avenge yourself on my reasoning, by saying 
 that "our rule has worked worse than yours." 
 That is not now the question. Neither do I 
 charge the "transgression" on the Bible, as 
 you insinuate. God forbid! But I assert 
 boldly, that it is not the abuse, but the use of 
 the Protestant rule of faith, which has pro- 
 duced all the sects that claim to be guided 
 by it. It is indeed the abuse of the Bible; — 
 but the regular use of the rule. 
 
 VIII. My eighth argument was, that the 
 Socinian has the same persuasion of being 
 right in his belief, that you have in yours. 
 And consequently that you are both under 
 the guidance of a principle, which can im- 
 part certainty to neither. But you yourself 
 have admitted that the true rule of faith, 
 "must give to those, who abide by its decisions 
 an infallible certainty :" and therefore, teju- 
 dice, your rule is not the true one: since un- 
 der its operation, the Divinity of Jesus Christ, 
 agitated between you and the Socinian, be- 
 comes a doubtful tenet, on which each of 
 you may entertain or express his opinions, but 
 nothing more. You have not even attempted 
 to wrestle with this argument. 
 
 As to the assertion that "Joanna South- 
 cote and the Shakers, use our rule of faith;" 
 it is a piece of information, with which, I be- 
 lieve history was altogether unacquainted be- 
 fore. I deny the fact, however; and I should 
 be sorry to see my " logic hanging" on any 
 such admission. 
 
 IX. My ninth argument was, as you say, 
 a practical illustration of the above. In or- 
 der to make it clear, I supposed by (hypothe- 
 sis,) that the Presbyterian doctrine was the 
 true doctrine of the'Bible. I supposed four 
 clergymen of that denomination, no matter 
 who, in searching the Scriptures, to become 
 persuaded that Unitarianism, Univeralism, 
 Swedenborgianism, or Catholicity is the reli- 
 gion of the Bible. I asked you whether, in that 
 case, they would not be bound before God, to 
 quit the true religion of Christ, represented 
 by the Presbyterian church, and embrace the 
 heresies; — and whether, in doing this, they 
 would not act in strict conformity with the 
 Protestant rule of faith ? I say they would: 
 and I submit to your own reason, and that of 
 our readers, whether a rule, which would thus 
 drive men from the true faith, and compel 
 them to embrace heresy, is likely to be that 
 infallible rule, "which Jesus Christ estab- 
 
23 
 
 lished to guide us in matter of religion, and 
 to determine disputes in his church." Gene- 
 brard's ''Chronicles" will not, I assure you, 
 furnish you a solution of the difficulty. 
 
 X. My tenth argument was, that the doc- 
 trines of Christ were delivered to mankind as 
 positive truths, facts, about which there 
 could be no grounds for disputation. That the 
 object for which an infallible, rule of faith was 
 established, was to guard those eternal and 
 unchangeable truths of God, from being lost, 
 or confounded with the opinions of men. 
 From this I argued, that the Protestant rule 
 of faith is not the rule which Christ ap- 
 pointed : — Because every doctrine which is 
 tried by the Protestant rule, is changed by 
 the very test, from a fact or positive truth, into 
 a mere opinion. What is it that has so multi- 
 plied creeds among Protestants? What is it 
 that has never ceased to evolve one sect out of 
 another from the days of the " Reformation," 
 so called? It is the Protestant rule of faith. 
 Why is it that Protestants are in everlasting 
 controversies among themselves? It is be- 
 cause their rule of faith has robbed them, all 
 alike, of certainty, as to the truth of their res- 
 pective doctrines. What is the character of 
 their warfare ? It is the battle of opinions, 
 about the meaning of the Bible, in which the 
 privilege of private interpretation furnishes 
 the Unitarian and the Universalist, with the 
 same weapons, which it bestows upon the 
 Presbyterian and Baptist. Now Sir, I again 
 assert, that Christ never inculcated the be- 
 lief of an opinion/ I assert, on the other 
 hand, that the human mind, under the influ- 
 ence of the Protestant rule of faith, never 
 has held, and never can hold, one single 
 doctrine of Christianity, except by the du- 
 bious tenure of opinion — and 1 challenge you 
 to disprove either of these assertions. 
 
 You say you have refuted this argument 
 in your introduction, but I appeal even to our 
 Protestant readers, whether, from the begin- 
 ning to the end of your letter, they will not 
 look in vain, for a refutation. You have indeed, 
 attempted to show that Catholics are equally 
 destitute ot certainty, but when we come to 
 speak of the Catholic rule of faith, I shall 
 show how easy it is to prove the contrary. 
 
 As the rest of your letter is "about every 
 " you cannot expect me to notice it, since 
 
 thins 
 
 we are both equally forbidden by our rules, to 
 travel out of the subject "under discussion for 
 the time being." This is, perhaps, a circum- 
 stance which, on the whole, you ought not to 
 regret? as it will give you an opportunity of 
 reviewing your authorities. Remember that 
 Archbishop Usher was a Protestant, and yet 
 
 you once quoted him to prove that Catholics 
 are idolaters: — and, added, addressing the 
 young lady in Baltimore, "of Usher's au- 
 thority among Romanists we need not speak." 
 However, you have since explained it, as some 
 strange mistake of printing. It was indeed 
 very strange; and such mistakes ought to be 
 guarded against in future, for your authorities, 
 as well as arguments, are, henceforward, to be 
 under the inspection of many a scrutinizing 
 eye. But for the present, I shall not pluck out 
 a single gem of authority, nor controvert a sin- 
 gle proposition in the multifarious matter of 
 your epistle. When the time shall have come, 
 however, J bind myself to prove that several 
 of the former are spurious, and several of the 
 latter, false. 
 
 The actual question now under considera- 
 tion is, The Protestant rule of faith. It 
 cries out for a defender — for one, who will 
 prove it to be "Infallible; established by 
 Christ; competent to guide us in matters of re- 
 ligion; and to determine disputes in his 
 Church." It demands to be vindicated by its 
 own evidences, which cannot be wanting, if 
 it was established by Christ — and it scorns 
 to triumph by the harad, which, instead of 
 protecting it with the shield of its own evi- 
 dences, strikes at a defenceless rival. Think 
 you, Reverend Sir, that I accepted this con- 
 troversy, for the pleasure of playing a mere 
 polemical chess-game with him, who offered 
 it? God forbid ! I accepted it with a view to 
 drive the ploughshare of reason, evidence, 
 and argument, through the radical delusion, 
 the "origo malorum," of Protestantism. I 
 reflected that possibly, in the inscrutable 
 providence of God, the salvation of souls 
 might depend on this controversy — and look- 
 ing, I trust, with some portion of the charity 
 of Christ, at the wanderings of my Protestant 
 brethren, I determined to expose the funda- 
 mental delusion, by which, since the unhappy 
 separation, they have followed their clergy, 
 their parents, their prejudices; — whilst all 
 three, perhaps, conspired to persuade them 
 into the erroneous supposition, that they were 
 following forsooth, the "pure" word of God, 
 the "Bible alone." 
 
 Now, sir, I again request you to " adhere 
 strictly to the subject of discussion for the time 
 being," as we have agreed in our rules; — to 
 prove, if you can, the " Protestant rule of 
 faith," and, by close, positive, and pertinent 
 arguments, to overthrow, article for article, 
 those which have been laid down against it, 
 whilst I remain, 
 
 Very respectfully, &c. &c. 
 
 Jno. Hughes. 
 
CONTROVERSY.... ..N°. 4. 
 
 Rule of Faith. 
 
 New York, 18th February, 1833. 
 To the Rev. John Hughes, 
 
 Sir, — It would appear from your exulta- 
 tion at the delay of my reply, that you were 
 writing against time. I assure you that the 
 force of your reasoning did not occasion that 
 delay; as I think my answer sufficiently 
 evinces. "When you gravely attempt to turn 
 such an event to your own advantage, it must 
 convince the public of the weakness of your 
 cause; and it will more fully explain to you 
 the reason and propriety of my bringing so 
 distinctly to view, in our preliminary corres- 
 pondence, the nature of my occupation. If 
 I had been in Philadelphia, at the press, my 
 reply would have appeared in its proper or- 
 der as to time. As, however, you seem to 
 intimate that there is merit in despatch, let 
 me inform you that I have to day, [the 18th 
 February,] received your letter, No. 3; and 
 that the time allowed me for reply, extends 
 only to Thursday the 21st, when the manu- 
 script must be mailed, in order to be in sea- 
 son for the next paper. 
 
 In regard to the terms " Papist and Ro- 
 manist," which you call " nicknames," it is 
 proper here to remark, that truth requires 
 their use. You assume the rank and name 
 of "Catholic," that is, "the universal 
 Church," and all who are not in communion 
 with you are heretics, doomed to perdition 
 by your anathema, now in full force, unless 
 they repent and return. You beg the ques- 
 tion, therefore, which is now in discussion, by 
 the very name. Roman Catholic, in strict 
 speech is an absurdity, being equivalent to 
 "particular universal." Protestants, as 
 members of the universal Church, claim to 
 be catholic; and it is as proper to call you 
 "Papists," as us "Protestants." The one 
 name defines those who hold to the supre- 
 macy of the Pope; the other those who pro- 
 test against that system. If you are Roman- 
 Catholics, we are Protestant-Catholics. I 
 regard names then as signs of things; and 
 use them for truth, not reproach. I shall feel 
 no pang if you)call me heretic, "for after the 
 way you call heresy, so worship I the God 
 of my fathers;" and with this explanation, I 
 
 E 
 
 will hereafter endeavour to oblige you in the 
 use of names. 
 
 What you say of Volney is not eve-nan illus- 
 tration, much less an argument; for it is not 
 true that the doctrine of the Saviour's divini- 
 ty contradicts our senses, or that He was in 
 any way made, or his divinity destroyed by 
 man; all of which are true, if transubstantia- 
 tion be true. The ribaldry of Volney is one 
 thing, and the exposure of bad theology is 
 another. I meant no reproaches in what I 
 said. But it seems impossible to define this 
 doctrine without offending those who hold it. 
 Perhaps you are not aware that John Huss 
 wrote against the following sentiment of a 
 Bohemian Priest: "that a Priest before he 
 says Mass is the Son of God, but afterward 
 he is the father of God, and the creator of 
 his bodv-'' I charge nothing evil to the in- 
 tentions of those who hold this doctrine; I 
 only show its inconsistencies and its tenden- 
 cies. 
 
 But to proceed — The candid reader must 
 be forcibly struck with the peculiar manner 
 in which you pass by every argument brought 
 by me, against your rule of faith. Thus you. 
 say, "We are discussing the rule of faith; and 
 the parties agree to adhere strictly to the sub- 
 ject of discussion for the time being, and to ad- 
 mit of no second question until the first shall 
 have been exhausted." And again you say, 
 "Now the state of the question, as laid down 
 in my first letter, required you not to attack 
 my rule by anticipation, but to defend your 
 own." This indeed is strange reasoning. 
 Is not the whole subject of the rule of faith 
 before us ? And does it lose its oneness, by 
 applying the principles of right reasoning to 
 your rule, while I answer your objections to 
 mine? But the following paragraph ex- 
 plains your design in this course. " If I 
 prove by unanswerable argument, that the 
 Protestant rule fails, in all these heads, then 
 it will follow, by the very tenor of our agree- 
 ment, that the Catholic rule must be the 
 true rule appointed by Christ." This is 
 saying, in other words, that your Church is 
 the residuary legatee of truth. If the Sa- 
 maritans are wrong, then must the Jews be 
 
Sfl 
 
 right? It is like the claim once set up by a 
 wily shepherd. All the flocks of the surround- 
 ing fields met at the brook on a summer's 
 evening. The lambs were tender, and were 
 not yet marked with the several shepherds' 
 marks. When the flocks were separated, he 
 claimed all the lambs. The others expostu- 
 lated, one saving this is mine, and another, 
 this is mine. But he replied, "each of you 
 have a mark for your sheep; these lambs have 
 no mark upon them, and cannot be yours; 
 therefore, they are mine." In the spirit of 
 this extraordinary plan of argument, you con- 
 tinue in this, as in your former letter, to keep 
 your own rule wholly out of view; and you de- 
 cline, in so many words, to answer my many 
 objections to it. By this expressive silence, 
 you for the present at least, give up your rule 
 as indefensible. While you thus pass by all 
 discussion of it, the inference is irresistible, 
 that your hope of success rests upon the plan, 
 of keeping out of view the defects of your 
 system; and in seeking to perplex the gene- 
 ral question before the public mind, by scho- 
 lastic subtilties, when the subject calls for 
 manly argument. 
 
 In view of these things, I feel myself called 
 on to pursue, in the first place, the line of dis- 
 cussion with which I closed my former letter. 
 This course is on every account demanded ; 
 for your letter of the 14th inst. is only a sec- 
 ond edition, head for head, of that already 
 answered by me. 
 
 I. I have shown that your rule is not in- 
 fallible. I will now prove that it is the pa- 
 rent of UNCERTAINTY. 
 
 1. The authorised version of the Bible is in 
 Latin, as well as the prayers, &c. of the 
 church service. The Vulgate, with all its er- 
 rors, was adopted by the Council of Trent as 
 authentic and correct ; yet a corrected edition 
 was ordered by the same council, and it was 
 printed under the care of the Pope, and pub- 
 lished with his Bull, prohibiting any altera- 
 tion in it. But so many errors were de- 
 tected in it, that the edition was suppressed! 
 These are statements you will hardly deny. 
 2. The ponderous acts, decisions, &c. of the 
 infallible church are deposited in the follow- 
 ing works, and in an unknown tongue. 
 Archbishop Manse's Councils, 31 vols, folio ; 
 Great Book of Bulls, 8 vols, folio; Acta 
 Sanctorum, 51 vols, folio; Decretals, about 
 10 vols, folio; total 100 folio volumes, and 
 then 35 folio volumes of the Fathers, whose 
 unanimous consent is a part of the testimony. 
 These are the fountain, but who of the people 
 can get at it? What is drawn thence, is 
 transfused through the fallible and uncertain 
 
 minds of innumerable priests, before it reach- 
 es the people. Yet these are the helps to un- 
 derstand the Bible! 3. The Church of Rome 
 is utterly silent about many doctrines ; as 
 whether the Virgin Mary was born sinless. 
 There have been fierce contests about it in 
 your communion. But the oracle is dumb. 
 Every Protestant child can decide this ques- 
 tion. As to the very seat of the boasted in- 
 fallibility, she was silent at Trent, and is 
 now divided and ^uncertain ; and so of some 
 other doctrines. 4. According to the doc- 
 trine of intention, [see Council of Trent, 
 Sess. 7. Canon ll.j the efficacy of the sacra- 
 ments depends on the intention of the officiat- 
 ing minister; some of these sacraments, of 
 which you make seven, are necessary in order 
 to salvation, and all of them necessary in 
 their places, to certain states in life. Thus 
 marriage is not valid, if performed without 
 the intention of the priest. Baptism and 
 penance are not valid without his intention ; 
 and on these depend salvation. But who 
 can be certain of the intention of the Priest ? 
 If the Bishop who ordained that Priest lack- 
 ed intention in the act, then the ordination is 
 invalid, and, of course, all that priest's acts 
 are invalid. But who can be certain that in 
 this chain of ages some link is not wanting? 
 Who then can be certain of salvation in the 
 Romish Church? Yet the Duke of Brunswick 
 assigning his fifty reasons for becoming a 
 Roman Catholic, says, "The Catholics, to 
 whom I spoke concerning my conversion, as- 
 sured me that if I were damned for embrac- 
 ing the Catholic Faith, they were ready to 
 answer for me at the day of judgment, and to 
 take my damnation upon themselves; an as- 
 surance I could never extort from the minis- 
 ters of any other sect, in case I should live 
 and die in their religion." While such dar- 
 ing impiety discovers the absence of all right 
 feeling, it also evinces a desperation peculiar 
 to a cause, which needs propping at any price. 
 Now if these statements be put together, they 
 will show that your system is shrouded in un- 
 certainty. But you contend in the first and 
 second editions of your 10th head, "that a 
 rule which is the parent of uncertainty, can- 
 not be that infallible rule established by 
 Christ, to guide us in matters of religion." 
 
 II. The unwarrantable liberties of your 
 church with the word of God, show her falli- 
 ble to a deplorable degree. 1st. We have 
 seen on a former occasion the liberty taken 
 by your church in adding to the word of God 
 the Apocryphal books and unwritten tradi- 
 tions. 2d. We see how she takes away from 
 the Bible by her treatmerit of the Decalogue. 
 
27 
 
 The catechism of the Council of Trent re- 
 peats only four words of the second com- 
 mandment, and closes with an expressive el 
 extern. A strange way to give a divine law, 
 especially to a people, who are deprived by 
 the church of the word of G«d! The version 
 used in the Highlands of Scotland (by author- 
 ity) mutilates it almost in the same way. 
 The version used in Ireland entirely omits 
 the second commandment! The Doway 
 Catechism is wiser, as it was to circulate 
 where the omission would not be borne; but 
 it plainly perverts the commandment " thou 
 shatt not adore nor worship images," where- 
 as the true translation is, " thou shalt not bow- 
 down thyself to them, nor serve them." The 
 reason for the change is very plain. 3d. The 
 evidence adduced in proof of the sacrament of 
 extreme unction by the Council of Trent, is no 
 less than a literary, or, if you please, a pious 
 fraud; and I am prepared to prove it. The 
 Rhenish and Bordeaux translations have been 
 signalized by their numerous and glaring 
 frauds. -4th. Your church has added to the 
 word of God newarticlesof faith, and even new 
 sacraments to the institutions of Jesus Christ. 
 Leo X. condemned Luther for saying, it is 
 not in the power of the church or the Pope 
 to constitute new articles of faith. Divers 
 writers, as the Abbot of Panormo, Ancona, 
 &c, contend that the Pope is the measure 
 and rule of faith, and can make new articles. 
 The Bull of Pius IV. appended to the de- 
 crees of the Council of Trent, makes a new 
 creed — including many new articles of faith, 
 to be sworn to by all ecclesiastics; and all 
 are cursed who reject them. Among these 
 innovations, brought in at different times, 
 was transubstantiation, as young as A. D. 
 1215 — Purgatory— depriving the people of 
 the cup in the Eucharist — Indulgences — the 
 worship of images — prayer in an unknown 
 tongue. It is of this that some one has re- 
 marked, that your faith, like the new moon, is 
 crescent, with this difference, however, (let 
 me add,) that it is not, like hers, the growth 
 of light. Bellarminewe suppose means this 
 when he says of one article, '•'•fere de fide" 
 (de concil. auth. 1. 2. c. 17. s. 1.) " almost a 
 matter of faith;" a probationer for a seat in 
 the creed! If this be not "teaching for 
 doctrines the commandments of men, and 
 making void the law of God by your tradi- 
 tions," I know not what is. How true 
 it is that " Borne was not built in a day.'' 
 Here then your church both innovates upon the 
 doctrine, and usurps the rights of God ; and 
 by this, she proves herself both fallible and 
 guilty before God. 
 
 III. Your rule, if observed, requires im- 
 plicit faith in the decretals and interpretations 
 of fallible men, which is subversive of the very 
 nature and end of religion in the soul. Faith 
 supposes knowledge, conviction on evidence, 
 and trust in God, founded on a belief of di- 
 vine truth. But your rule requires uncon- 
 ditional submission to the dicta of the church, 
 in the lump. The " Carbonaria fides," 
 or faith of the collier, is the very faith re- 
 quired. It is as follows: "When asked, 
 "What do you believe? He answered, "I 
 believe what the church believes." "What 
 does the church believe?" Answer — " What 
 /believe." "Then what do you and the church 
 together believe?" Ans. " We both believe 
 the same thing." This is the grand Catho- 
 licon for believing every thing without know- 
 ing any thing. In this soil grew the maxim 
 that " ignorance is the mother of devotion." 
 It is believing by proxy, or rather not believ- 
 ing at all, in the true sense. Here is the se- 
 cret of the u nity of your church. That this is 
 not my bare assertion may be seen in the creed 
 of Pope Pius IV. when it is said, "I admit 
 the Holy Scripture according to the sense 
 which the Holy mother Church, (whose right 
 it is to judge of the true meaning and inter- 
 pretation of the sacred Scriptures,) hath held 
 and doth hold." The catechism also de- 
 clares, that we avoid the damnation of our 
 souls, "by taking the meaning and interpre- 
 tation of the Scriptures from the same hand, 
 from which we received the book*itself, that 
 is the church." (chap. 2. ques. 2.) Now I 
 argue from these facts, that the operation of 
 your rule is to annihilate inquiry, knowledge, 
 and faith, properly so called; and shows it to 
 be a most vicious and fallible rule. 
 
 IV. The means which have been resorted 
 to by your church in support of her ride, 
 most clearly show that she is fallible, and 
 that your rule is utterly indefensible. I men- 
 tion only a few specimens. 1st. We have 
 seen (in my Illrd head, letter No. 2,) that 
 by supreme, binding, infallible law, the cir- 
 culation and perusal of the Scriptures are 
 restricted as follows : No layman has a 
 right to read the Bible without permission 
 from a priest; and then, no Bible not trans- 
 lated by a Roman Catholic. The priest is 
 the exclusive judge of the question, whether 
 or not he is fit to read the Roman transla- 
 tion. Even if permitted to read it, he is by 
 no means to think for himself, but as the 
 church thinks. If he reads without license, 
 he cannot get absolution of sin, until he do- 
 livers up his Bible — that is, for the time, he 
 is under the curse of unpardoned sin. And 
 
28 
 
 all this is on the assumed ground that God's 
 word will injure the great mass of men if 
 hey read it. Again, all printers selling to 
 those not licensed to read, are to lose the 
 edition printed, and otherwise to be dealt 
 with; — and all this is now binding on all, as 
 well American citizens, as others: and those 
 who reject these laws are anathematised 
 heretics. £d. A permanent committee, styled 
 the " Congregation of the Index," has charge, 
 by authority, of the work of watching the 
 press, and prohibiting the reading of any 
 books they disapprove. "Their Index, " 
 which enrols these books has swelled to a 
 great volume. The American reader will 
 be surprised to hear that Locke, Bacon, Sir 
 Matthew Hale, Addison, Robertson, (Charles 
 V.) Walton, (Polyglott) Saurin, Young, 
 (Night Thoughts,) are actually prohibited; 
 some wholly; others in chief part ! (See the 
 10 " Rules of the Index," approved by 
 Pope Pius IV.) 3d. Beside this, Pope Cle- 
 ment VIII. in the year 1595, published a de- 
 cree that all Roman Catholic authors written 
 since 1515 (the era of the Reformation,) 
 should be corrected so as not merely to blot 
 out doctrines not approved, but to add what 
 was necessary. These are his very words: 
 "In libris catholicorum recentiorum., qui 
 post annum christians salutis 1515 conscripti 
 sint, si id quod corrigendum occurrit, paucis 
 demptis aut additis emendare posse videatur, 
 id correctores faciendum curent; sin minus, 
 omnino deleatur." And worse than all, the 
 process of expurgation has reached even to 
 the "Fathers." Johannes Pappus and Fran- 
 ciscus Junius published an edition of an In- 
 dex Expurgatorius, prepared by the Inquisi- 
 tors, under a commission from the king of 
 Spain. From that it appears, that the works 
 of Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Augustine had 
 passages purged from them, which were sup- 
 posed to be unfriendly to the Roman Catho- 
 lic Faith. Such passages for example as 
 these are struck out,* "there is no merit but 
 what is given us by Christ." "God alone 
 is to be worshipped," (see Bishop Taylor's 
 dissuasive from Popery, chap. 1. for further 
 reference.) Now we say, that by such a 
 process, we may prove any thing we please. 
 The church which restricts the use of the 
 Scriptures; which sits enthroned upon the 
 ruins of human liberty; which forbids men 
 to read, to print, and even to think, except 
 as she shall dictate; which amends, changes, 
 and tortures the writings of the living and 
 the dead, and in support of her system, ven- 
 tures to approach with her reforming hand 
 even the testimony of antiquity — has evinced 
 
 to all men that she is not a safe depository 
 of the truth; that she is utterly fallible; that 
 she does by these acts confess and prove it; 
 and however she may by such means trans- 
 mute all things that she touches into her own 
 image, the Lord of truth never appointed 
 such a guide to his people's faith. 
 
 V. Allow me next to say, that your rule, 
 when in full and proper force, is incompatible 
 with civil liberty and the rights of nations. 
 Your system, with the Pope at its head, is a 
 species of universal monarchy, civil and reli- 
 gious, extending to the. whole world. As 
 the vicar of Christ, he claims to be head of 
 the church and of the state, wherever there 
 is either on earth. Now, for the proof: 
 1st. This right has been distinctly claimed. 
 Pope Innocent III., says, "The church, my 
 spouse, is not married to me without bring- 
 ing me a dowry. She hath given me the 
 mitre for the priesthood, and the crown for 
 the kingdom — making me Lieutenant of Him 
 who hath written on his vesture and on his 
 thigh, King of kings and Lord of lords. I 
 enjoy the plenitude of power, that others 
 may say of me next to God, Out of his full- 
 ness we have received.^ (Itinerar. Ital. part 
 2. de coron. Rom. Pon.) I know no equal 
 to this blasphemy but the ravings of a mad- 
 man who once said, in my hearing, that he 
 had been appointed by God commander-in- 
 chief of the celestial hosts! The reader will 
 please compare with the above, John i. 16. 
 The Bull of Clement V. for crowning the 
 Emperor Henry, contains the distinct as- 
 sumption of universal temporal empire; so 
 do also the twenty-seven sayings of Gregory 
 VII.; Clement VI. claims the samei so does 
 the canon law, the Gregorian Epistles, Mar- 
 tin V., Boniface VIII. &c; not to mention 
 Bellarmine, and a number of other writers in 
 your church, who contend for the same rights. 
 But not only have Roman Catholic writers 
 and Popes contended for temporal jurisdic- 
 tion over nations, but Councils and General 
 Councils, whose authority you all acknow- 
 ledge, have clone the same; as I am abun- 
 dantly prepared to prove if you deny it. 
 2d. This claim has been on divers occasions 
 carried into practical operation, so as to leave 
 no doubt as to what it means. The Pope's 
 have taxed nation after nation for the spirit- 
 ual treasury at Rome, so that " Peters 
 pence'' became a by-word to express the 
 tyranny of Rome. They have deposed 
 princes and set others up in their stead; 
 they have cut asunder the very bonds of so- 
 ciety by absolving subjects from the oath of 
 allegiance to heretical princes; they have re- 
 
39 
 
 quired princes to exterminate their subjects, 
 and encouraged subjects to destroy their 
 princes; and under this broad claim, they 
 have even given away kingdoms to foreign 
 princes, and have made crowns and nations 
 their play-things and their toys. It is a cu- 
 rious fact to an American citizen, that Spain 
 and Portugal have a universal grant from the 
 Pope of the two Americas. 3d. Institutions 
 have been erected and encouraged throughout 
 the world, wherever they would be tolerated, 
 and systematic and legalized persecutions 
 have from age to age been carried on, to sus- 
 tain this system of universal empire. At the 
 very name of the Inquisition, some of the 
 nations of Europe still tremble; and the 
 heart of every civilized man is moved with 
 mingled indignation and horror. This is a 
 painful, but necessary topic. I will not 
 here enlarge on it, but stand prepared with 
 abundant facts to substantiate my statements, 
 if you deny them. Now the reasoning from 
 these facts against your rule is irresistible. 
 God has made all men free, and all nations 
 are endowed with the inalienable rights of 
 self-government; and He who has said, 
 "My kingdom is not of this world," has 
 also said, "Render unto Caesar the things 
 that are Caesar's." The church therefore 
 which claims these powers is at war with the 
 Bible; and the rule of faith under which she 
 holds these doctrines, and practises these 
 usurpations, must be, in the strongest sense, 
 a fallible and misguiding rule. If Roman 
 Catholics reject these principles, as every 
 true American must, and as I doubt not 
 multitudes of your people in this country and 
 Great Britain do, then where is your infalli- 
 bility? But you say the church is infallible, 
 and her system unchangeably fixed. I call 
 on you then for a defence. 
 
 Once more. The effect of your rule cf 
 faith is to corrupt the worship of God, and to 
 engender abundant superstitions. Idolatry, 
 (excuse the word,) is enthroned in the temple 
 of God, by the bulls of popes, and the decrees 
 of Councils ; and is practically illustrated 
 every day in the worship of the church. The 
 spirituality of religion is lost amidst a crowd 
 of images and relics; of interceding saints, 
 and human inventions: and ignorance per- 
 petuates what your erring rule has legalized. 
 Need I point you to exorcisms and incanta- 
 tions, to prayers to the saints, and worship of 
 the Virgin Mary, to holy water, and the bap- 
 tism of bells, to pilgrimages, and penances, 
 and the crowd of superstitions which are en- 
 couraged in your church in confirmation of 
 my statements? Who would believe it, if it 
 
 had not been seen, that in the nineteenth 
 century of the Christian era, there is a great 
 anniversary day, set apart in " Rome, the 
 mother and mistress of churches," for bless- 
 ing all the horses and asses and other beasts 
 of that great city, whilst the same pontiff 
 who sanctions such a system, publicly de- 
 nounces Bible Societies, as the organizations 
 and servants of the devil? I ask. if this is 
 the product of infallible guidance; or if the 
 rule which sanctions, teaches, and perpetu- 
 ates such things, can have been given us by 
 God to direct us in matters of religion ? 
 
 I would superadd these heads to those con- 
 tained in my former letter; and must wait 
 in expectation of your redeeming the pledge 
 to answer them hereafter. In the mean time 
 that you may have no ground of complaint, 
 even in appearance, I will close by briefly 
 noticing your second edition of the ten Heads 
 against our rule of faith. As to all you 
 say about my denying the word of God to be 
 a judge of controversies, our readers will 
 judge whether you have not attempted to 
 blind them by sophistry, rather than convince 
 them by argument. You knew that I spoke 
 of God as the Ruler, the Bible as the Rule. 
 God is the judge and the only judge, proper- 
 ly so called. The Bible contains the record 
 of his infallible judgments. It is God speak- 
 ing to man. Again, you so evidently and 
 consciously labour to disentangle yourself 
 from my exposure of your use of 2 Peter i. 
 20. (on private interpretation,) that I am 
 entirely willing to leave the subject to speak 
 for itself, without another word. 
 
 Here allow me to remark, that in your two 
 letters, rvhichfwo are one, your current reason- 
 ing is this: There are certain defects which 
 no infallible rule can have, the Protestant rule 
 has these; therefore, it is not infallible. Now 
 I have shown, (so clearly that you pre- 
 tend not to refute it.) that these defects are 
 inherent in your rule; therefore, at every step, 
 your own blows return upon your own cause. 
 The force of this reasoning is irresistible, if 
 you were honest in using it; for it is your own 
 reasoning. Yet when the blow rebounds, 
 you cry out, this logic was to destroy the 
 Protestant rule, not mine. I was not talking 
 of my rule! You press me to keep to the 
 point. What is the point? The rule of faith. 
 Only do not touch Mr. Hughes' rule of faith. 
 But I not only thus exposed your rule of 
 faith, I also defended our own rule from point 
 to point. Let us summarily review these old 
 acquaintances. 
 
 I. " Christ never appointed the Protes- 
 tant rule." " Christ never wrote any part of 
 
30 
 
 the Old or New Testament, and never com- 
 manded any part to be written by his apos- 
 tles." (1.) Let us apply this to your rule. 
 Christ never wrote or commanded his apos- 
 tles to write the Apocryphal books, or un- 
 written traditions ; therefore, Christ never 
 appointed them as a part of the rule of faith. 
 (2.) Either the prophets and apostles were 
 moved by inspiration when they wrote, or 
 they were not. If they were, then they wrote 
 by divine authority. But you do not deny 
 that they were. Hence your statement is 
 false, and if it proves any thing, it is that the 
 Bible is not God's word. Your next proof is 
 that the "Protestant rule of faith did not 
 exist till the end of the first century." Now 
 this is a mere play on words. I say that 
 the Divine Revelation is our only rule of 
 faith. The Bible contains that Revelation 
 finally made out. The precise equivalent to 
 this existed while Christ and his apostles 
 were on earth, viz. the Old Testament and 
 their infallible instructions. Before inspira- 
 tion ceased, the Bible was completed. I will 
 carry out your argument. The Bible is a 
 printed book; but at the death of John, the art 
 of printing being unknown, the word of God 
 was written with pens, therefore the Bible 
 is not God's word. In the latter part of this 
 head, you virtually deny that the Old Testa- 
 ment is of equal authority with the New. 
 Is this so? 
 
 II. You call for " Scripture warrant" 
 that the Bible is the rule of faith. We re- 
 ply as before, 1. The presumption., (prior to 
 the proof,) always is, that the Bible alone is 
 the rule of faith. I ask, will you join the 
 Infidel and say, that the presumption is the 
 other way ? 2. If any thing else is to be 
 added to the Bible, those who say so are 
 bound to prove it. Hence the attack on the 
 pretensions of your rule is the fair order of 
 discussion. Feeling this to be a sore spot, 
 you cover it up. 3. The only admissible 
 proof, as God tells us, is a miracle. Well, 
 therefore, may you shift and turn and be si- 
 lent, to shun a call you cannot meet. The 
 only reply you make to this reasoning is to 
 charge me with saying, that " the Protestant 
 Rule is founded on presumption;" a misre- 
 presentation so glaring, that unwilling to dis- 
 trust your candour, I must charge it on your 
 cause. 4. I then gave you Scripture war- 
 rant for our rule, which you cannot torture 
 so as to weaken its direct proof. I will ad- 
 duce more Scripture proofs in connexion 
 with which the reader will please to exa- 
 mine 2 Tim. iii. 14, 17. and Isaiah viii. 20. 
 In John vii. 17, we are tanght that obedi- 
 
 ence gives certainty to doctrinal know- 
 ledge. From 1 Peter i. 23. 1 Thess. ii. 
 13. James i. 18, that the Bible in the hands 
 of the Holy Spirit, is the instrument of con- 
 verting the soul. John xvii. 17. The Bible 
 is the means of sanctification. Eph. vi. 17. 
 Hebrews iv. 12. It is the great power of 
 God. Gal. i. 8. It is the rule by which 
 even Apostles are to be tested, (though the 
 Pope refuses.) 1 John iv. 1 — 3. It is the 
 people's rule to try the spirits; no infallible 
 Judge is named. John xii. 48. It is the 
 rule of judgment at the great day. John xx. 
 30 — 33. One Gospel is sufficient to give 
 eternal life. Luke xvi. 29 — 31. Nothing, no, 
 not a miracle can convince those who reject 
 it. Rev. xxii. 18. Awful judgments, (I beg 
 vou to look narrowly at this,) are denounced 
 against those who tamper with even a part 
 of the Bible. The church who would mend 
 this rule, is entitled to the epitaph of him 
 who was destroyed by the nostrums of quacks, 
 and directed to be written on his tomb, 
 " I was well — I wanted to be better — and 
 here I am." 
 
 III. You argue "as the Bible is known 
 through the medium of interpretation, and as 
 the Protestant medium is fallible, therefore, 
 the rule is fallible." 1. I reply, until you 
 prove your infallibility, which you have not 
 yet done, you are in a much worse case than 
 we, as your Apocrypha, unwritten Tradi- 
 tions, and one hundred folios, with "all the 
 Fathers," exceed in number our Bible, since 
 you have to interpret all these, to get at the 
 true sense. 2. Your reasoning, reduced to 
 form, is this; every rule, (say one for mea- 
 suring distances,) is handled by men; but 
 men are fallible — therefore every rule is 
 false — and cannot measure infallibly — or, in 
 other words, none but an infallible man can 
 use the Bible. Is not the following reason- 
 ing just as good ? Either it rains, or it does 
 not rain — if it rains, it does not rain — if it 
 does not rain, it rains. Then does it rain, 
 or not rain ? 
 
 IV. You say the Bible cannot prove its 
 own authenticity and inspiration; therefore, 
 it alone cannot be the rule of faith. We re- 
 ply — l. The inspiration of Scripture may be 
 proved from prophecy, from its contents, 
 &c. 2. On the question, 'are these the au- 
 thentic or genuine books which they profess 
 to be, ? you confound the proof of a thing with 
 the matter of it; as if you had said, a twelve 
 inch rule is not a true rule, unless it can 
 prove itself. This is absurd. Your illus- 
 tration of the will is every how faulty. The 
 testator is Christ — the Bible is the will — the 
 
31 
 
 church is the heir. Who is the court before 
 whom the proof is to be laid? Why the 
 church, you say. But who gives it authori- 
 ty ? The church. No — the testator, for the 
 church is heir. Who is the witness ? The 
 church again. — Yet with this figure you 
 would prove your point! Now the case is 
 this. Here is a will. We want witnesses to 
 prove that the testator made the will — not to 
 give it authority: that comes from the tes- 
 tator. So it is precisely with the Bible. 
 The church does not give it authority; the 
 Bible gives authority to the church. The 
 testimony of those who lived in the Apostles' 
 days is what we want. Jewish writers tes- 
 tify, Heathen writers testify, and Christian 
 writers testify, that this is the Book of God. 
 If you call this tradition, then it is the tradi- 
 tion of written testimony; it is the tradition 
 of universal antiquity; it is such tradition as 
 falsifies your unwritten traditions, your apo- 
 cryphal books, and your judge of controver- 
 sies. If this be not so, will you tell me when 
 and where the church authority settled the 
 canon? — In a word, if the church of Rome 
 had never existed, the proof would have been 
 entire. 
 
 V. You are constrained to admit here that 
 you make a misstatement in the former letter 
 of one entire century .' You also misinterpret 
 my statement as to " sacred books" being 
 doubtful. I said "some" (not books, but 
 men) were doubtful, as to four of the many 
 books. In the mean time the churches had 
 u all the books," and these doubts of some, 
 (men, not books,) did not make it less truly, 
 the real and full rule. Of course, besides 
 the distrust occasioned by such unfairness, 
 your conclusion that the canon was so long 
 uncertain, drawn from this perversion, falls 
 to the ground. I also refer the reader un- 
 der this head, to the contradiction I have 
 there exposed, to which you render no re- 
 ply. You assume that the church knew ; and 
 yet argue against our rule, that it was not 
 known. Now which is true ? If the former, 
 your reasoning is false ; if the latter, your rule 
 is fallible. 
 
 VI. & VII. There are two methods of set- 
 tling disputes ; reason and force. You take | 
 
 the latter; we the former. There are two 
 rules, the Bible and the church of Home. 
 You assert that the Bible has failed, and thus 
 make your church better than Christ and his 
 apostles. I call for your proof. As to here- 
 sy, Augustine, whom you claim and quote, 
 mentions eighty-eight heresies, down to his 
 time ! I will in due season give you more of 
 your own history on this topic. 
 
 VIII. & IX. You have " slurred the notes," 
 to use your own expression, and made no re- 
 ply to me. 1. 1 have proved, (see introduction 
 to former letter,) that by confession of Roman 
 Catholics, they are as uncertain as Protes- 
 tants. 2. I have proved in this letter, (see 
 head on uncertainty,) that you are wholly un- 
 certain: — and now, 3. You have at last to 
 adopt our rule, or give up the question. For 
 you get at the proof of your infallible rule by 
 fallible men ; and you get the proof entirely 
 from the Bible. Is not this then making the 
 Bible interpreted by fallible men, your rule 
 of faith ! 
 
 And now Sir, in closing this letter, I wish 
 you to know that I will not be diverted from 
 the fair and full discussion of the whole sub- 
 ject, viz. the rule of faith. Common sense 
 demands it; and the third and fifth articles 
 in our agreement justify it. I wish you also 
 to understand, that all I say is to be applied 
 to your system, and not to your people. In 
 this country especially, that Proteus-system 
 conforms itself as much as possible to the 
 advance of the age, and the genius of a free 
 and thinking people. You must go to Spain, 
 to South America, to Rome, to see your sys- 
 tem. The people here know not the half. 
 It is in spite of being Roman Catholics — not 
 in consequence of it, that you number the 
 good and wise among your people. 
 
 Your challenge to our whole church pro- 
 vokes a smile among us. — When I need any 
 aid to meet your calls, I will tell you so. I 
 am, I own, among the most insufficient of 
 the sons of that venerated church to which I 
 belong; but she feels as if no mighty shield 
 were needed to quench your arrows, and 
 cover her sacred bosom from your assaults. 
 I remain yours, &c. 
 
 John Breckinridge. 
 
CONTROVERSY... ...N°. 5. 
 
 Rule of Faith. 
 
 February 28, 1833. 
 To the Rev. John Breckinridge. 
 
 Rev. Sir, — I am delighted to find that the 
 pressure of your "official duties" has not 
 prevented you, in this instance, from reply- 
 ing to my letter, within the time prescribed. 
 But writing and reasoning are not the same 
 thing; — and if you had replied not merely to 
 my letter, but to my arguments against the 
 Protestant rule of faith, you would, in my 
 humble opinion, have rendered a better ser- 
 vice to the cause in which you are engaged, 
 at the same expense of postage and of press- 
 work. The. rapidity of transportation, as 
 well as of composition, has probably con- 
 tributed its share to the confusion, in which 
 the topic returns from New York. When I 
 last had the pleasure ot addressing you, I re- 
 quested you, by the respect you entertain for 
 your own signature at the head of this letter, 
 to confine yourself to the actual " subject of 
 discusrionfor the time being, and to bring for- 
 ward no second question, until the first shall 
 have been exhaust erf.'' The reader, who 
 will take the trouble to cast his eye over the 
 first two or three columns of your reply, will 
 perceive with what elaborate fidelity you 
 have violated your own regulation. I can 
 hardly think of a subject, that has been omit- 
 ted in your enumeration; — except original 
 sin, the foreknowledge of God, and the cov- 
 enant of election. It would seem, that you 
 had copied the whole theological index — the 
 entire table of contents. For my own part, 
 1 do not find the space allowed us, ample 
 enough for the multiplied evidences, apper- 
 taining to the single question at issue be- 
 tween us. It is true the fifth rule allows 
 you to " follow me according to the dictates 
 of your own judgment." But the fifth rule 
 cannot warrant the violation of those which 
 precede it. Your judgment, in this case, 
 seems to prefer the instinctive, but wily logic 
 of the bird, which is observed to quit the 
 nest at the first approach of the truant school- 
 boy, and to flutter about in every other di- 
 rection. For having adopted this course, I 
 am willing to grant you the merit of sagacity. 
 If the Protestant rule of faith is founded nei- 
 
 F 
 
 ther on reason, nor revelation, but on a ma- 
 nifest delusion, which prejudice alone has 
 consecrated, then you did well to abandon 
 its defence. This will account for the im- 
 patience of your pen, and your premature 
 attack on the Catholic rule, in which, by in- 
 troducing the old catalogue of " questions," 
 you seem determined to bear me down, if 
 not by the quality of your reasoning, at least 
 by the quantity and confusion of your mat- 
 ter. 
 
 You are, indeed, correct in saying, that 
 the rule of faith is the subject of discussion. 
 And although I asked you to meet me in the 
 investigation of the Protestant principle /2rs£, 
 as the natural order of proceeding: yet I am 
 candid enough to admit your right to deny 
 this request. The argument of comparison 
 seems to be your favourite — and the Pana- 
 cea of religion, which you have provided for 
 the acknowledged infirmities of the Protes- 
 tant rule of faith, is the everlasting assertion, 
 that "our rule works worse than yours." 
 Since, however, you insist upon it, that both 
 shall be placed side by side, for simultane- 
 ous investigation and comparison, I shall 
 proceed to comply with the requisition. 
 
 " The parties agree that there is cm infalli- 
 ble rule of faith, established by Christ, to 
 guide us in matters of religion, and to deter- 
 mine disputes in his Church.''' This, Rev'd 
 Sir, is the standard, by which, according to 
 your own agreement, the true rule ot Chris- 
 tian belief is to be determined. Now the 
 professed principle of Protestantism is "the 
 Bible alone, interpreted by each individual 
 for himself." (If I mistake the Protestant 
 rule, I request you to correct me.) I have 
 given, under ten distinct heads, the reasons, 
 which make it manifest to my mind, that the 
 Protestant principle, though specious in its 
 theory, and flattering to the self-sufficiency 
 of the human mind, is found to be a delusion 
 in practice, and does not correspond, in a 
 single property, with the definition of the 
 rule instituted by the Redeemer of men. 
 The Protestant principle is flattering to hu- 
 man pride, by teaching the most unlearned 
 individual, that God has given him a Bible 
 
34 
 
 and an understanding, and that, by the ap- 
 plication of the one to the other, he cannot be 
 deceived, since it is the Almighty himself 
 that speaks in the text. -But who speaks in 
 the understanding? — By this principle, how- 
 ever, he is bound to frame his own creed ; 
 and though all Christendom should agree in 
 pronouncing his belief a heresy, he is bound 
 to hold, that all Christendom is in error, and 
 that he alone is right, since he follows the 
 infallible word of God, the Bible alone! 
 This principle is the more delusive and 
 dangerous, because it carries with it a seem- 
 ing air of respect and reverence for the in- 
 spired writings; whilst in fact there is not 
 a text in the sacred volume, which it does 
 not give up to be broken on the wheel of 
 private interpretation. It entirely overlooks 
 the distinction, that it is not the book, but 
 the true meaning of the book, which consti- 
 tutes the word of God. It is thus, that Pro- 
 testants by following out their own rule 
 of faith to its legitimate consequences, have 
 walked, under the pretended guidance of 
 the Bible alone, into the doctrines of Soci- 
 nianism. This has been called "the grand 
 heresy of the Reformation;" — but how bit- 
 terly may its professors retort on their Pro- 
 testant brethren of other denominations. 
 "You have proclaimed," they may say, "that 
 since the Reformation every man has the 
 right to interpret the Scripture for himself, 
 and when we exercise this right, you stig- 
 matize us with the brand of heresy ! You 
 are truly consistent, Gentlemen ! You tell 
 us to interpret the sacred record for our- 
 selves, and when we follow your advice, we 
 are heretics, forsooth." Can this, then Rev'd 
 Sir, be the rule appointed by Christ? But 
 you will ask me, as usual, in what is the 
 Catholic principle better? And it is but 
 reasonable, that I should endeavour to satisfy 
 your inquiry. 
 
 Our rule of faith is laid down in the apos- 
 tles' creed. " I believe in the Holy Catholic 
 Church." This rule, you perceive, does not 
 exclude, but comprises the belief of the Holy 
 Scriptures. By the Church, I understand, 
 that visible society of Christians, composed 
 of the people, who are taught, and the Pas- 
 tors who teach, by virtue of a certain divine 
 commission, recorded in the 28th chapter of 
 St. Matthew, addressed to the apostles and 
 their legitimate successors, " until the end of 
 the world." " Go ye, therefore, teach all 
 nations: baptizing them in the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; 
 Teaching them to observe all things whatso- 
 ever I have commanded you: and, behold lam 
 
 with you all days, even to the consummation 
 of the world." 19. 20. By consulting the pa- 
 ges of the New Testament, not as an inspir- 
 ed book, if you choose, but as an authentic 
 historical document, in which sense it is ad- 
 mitted even by Deists, I find that Jesus 
 Christ proved the divinity of his mission and 
 of his doctrine by evidences, which it required 
 the power of the Deity to exhibit. Alter 
 having thus proved himself to be infallible, 
 he required that men should believe his doc- 
 trines under pain of eternal ruin. " He, 
 that believeth not, shall be condemned. 
 Mark xvi. 16. Now, you have agreed, that 
 the rule, by which our belief is to be guided, 
 was appointed by Christ himself, and is there- 
 fore infallible — since it would be blasphemy 
 to say, that Christ has appointed a principle 
 of guidance, capable of leading astray. In 
 my first argument against the pretension of the 
 Protestant rule of faith, I showed that Christ 
 did not establish it. That he did establish the 
 Ccttholic rule, is what I shall now proceed to 
 demonstrate. 
 
 I. In the commission referred to above, 
 all nations and all days, even to the end of 
 the world, are included. Therefore the ful- 
 filment of the Saviour's injunction, required 
 that the apostles should have successors in 
 the ministry of " teaching;" since the term of 
 human life, which remained to them, bore no 
 proportion of the extent of the " commission," 
 which was limited only by the boundaries of 
 the universe — " all nations" — and of time — 
 "all days, even to the consummation of the 
 world.'''' I defy you, Rev. Sir, to detect er- 
 ror, either in the premises or conclusion of 
 this reasoning. Since, then, Christ appoint- 
 ed a perpetual succession of pastors in his 
 Church, for the purpose of "teaching all na- 
 tions," during '•'■all days," it is not by exercis- 
 ing an unfounded or arbitrary prerogative,but 
 in simple obedience to the injunction of Je- 
 sus Christ, that Catholics hearken to the 
 voice of the. church, and the teaching of its 
 pastors. I called on you in a former letter, 
 to show that Christ established the Protestant 
 rule; and those, who never before suspect- 
 ed the delusion of that principle, must have 
 been disappointed, and pained at the lame 
 manner, in which you endeavour to escape 
 from the difficulty. They were obliged to sup- 
 pose, that the "commission," instead of ex- 
 tending to " all nations and all limes" as 
 Christ had said, expired with the apostles; 
 — and to suppose that every believer had the 
 inspired instructions of some one of the 
 "twelve," and a copy of the Old Testa- 
 ment; — and to suppose that the latter, toge- 
 
35 
 
 ther with the last " apostle," (after the death 
 of the others,) constituted what you call "the 
 equivalent to the Protestant rule of faith," 
 during the interval between the ascension ol 
 Christ and the death of St. John.— And, final- 
 ly, they were obliged to suppose, that from 
 the moment of his decease, all living authori- 
 ty of "teaching" \Vas supplanted, by placing 
 the Bible alone in the hands of each individu- 
 al; leaving him to infer, that the dreams of 
 private interpretation constitute the rule of 
 Christian belief, appointed by the Saviour 
 himself'/ And all this on your authority! — 
 And all this, in opposition to testimony, which 
 Protestants profess to respect. For, besides 
 the "commission to teagh^ the Son of God 
 has declared to the same effect, " I will pray 
 the Father, and he shall give you another com- 
 forter, that he may abide with you forever, 
 the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost, whom 
 the Father will send in my name: He shall 
 teach youallthings,&ud bring all things toyour 
 remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto 
 you." John xiv. 16, 26. " He, that heareth 
 you, heareth me." Luke x. 16. In the same 
 manner has he pledged his veracity, that "the 
 gates of hell shall not prevail against his 
 Church"— that, "He himself will abide with 
 it forever" — and St. Paul tells us, that 
 "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the 
 word of God" — and that Christ has "given 
 some apostles, and some prophets, and some 
 evangelists, and some pastors a.\d teachers, 
 for the perfecting of the saints, for the work 
 of the ministry." Eph. iv. 11. The same 
 apostle elsewhere says of the church, that it 
 is "the pillar and ground of truth." Will you, 
 then, Rev. Sir, impugn the veracity of the Sa- 
 viour, by asserting, that when, in these texts, 
 he said " for ever,' * he meant only "till the 
 death of the last apostle?" If you say so, 
 the Universalist will comprehend the value 
 of the admission; and he will borrow your 
 key to explain everlasting punishment. 
 
 The question is not now, Rev. Sir, whe- 
 ther it is to the pastors of the Roman Catho- 
 lic church, or to those of the Protestant 
 churches, that belongs the inheritance of 
 this divine commission and of these immortal 
 promises. The question is not now, what 
 are the marks of the true church; — but the 
 question is the true ride of faith. The texts 
 of Scripture adduced above, prove that the 
 Catholic principle has the first property of 
 the true rule; viz. " it was established by 
 Christ." But this is not all. To prove 
 that, in the primitive church, these texts 
 were understood in the sense in which I 
 have used them, I will take the liberty of 
 
 quoting briefly the testimony of two credible 
 witnesses. St. Irenaeus, the disciple of St. 
 Polycarp, says: "supposing the apostles had 
 not left us the Scriptures, ought we not, still 
 to have followed the ordinance of tradition, 
 which they consigned to those to whom they 
 committed the churches ? It is this ordi- 
 nance of traditions, which many nations of 
 barbarians, believing in Christ, follow, with- 
 out the use of letters or ink." I ten. adv. 
 hseres. L. iv. C. 64. Tertullian, who lived 
 two hundred years after Christ, says in his 
 book of Prescription, pp. 36, 37: " that doc- 
 trine is evidently true, which was first deliv- 
 ererf. — n the contrary, that is false, which is 
 of a later date. This maxim stands immove- 
 able against the attempts of all late heresies. 
 Let such, then, produce the origin of thei? 
 churches: let them show the succession ofj 
 their bishops from the apostles or their disci- 
 ples. If you live near Italy, you see be- 
 fore your eyes the Roman Church. HappyJ 
 church! to which the apostles left the in-" 
 heritance of doctrines with their blood fl 
 Where Peter was crucified, like his master; 
 where Paul was beheaded like the Baptist. 
 If this be so, it is plain, as we have said, that 
 heretics are not to be allowed to appeal to 
 the Scripture, since they have no claim to 
 it." Similar to this is the testimony of St.' 
 Vincent, of Lerius, in the fifth century. "II 
 never was," says he, " or is, or will be law- 
 ful for Catholic Christians to teach any doc- 
 trine, except that which they once received: 
 and it ever was, and is, and will be their 
 duty, to condemn those, who do so. Do the 
 heretics, then, appeal to the Scriptures? 
 Certainly they do, and this with the utmost 
 confidence. You will see them running has- 
 tily through the different books of Holy Writ, 
 those of Moses, Kings, the Psalms, the Gos- 
 pels, &c. At home and abroad, in their dis- 
 courses and in their writings, they hardly 
 produce a sentence, which is not crowded 
 with the words of Scripture .Let us re- 
 member, however, that Satan transformed 
 himself into an ang;el of light. If he could 
 turn the Scriptures (referring to St. Matt. iv. 
 6.) against the Lord of Majesty, what, use 
 may he not make of them, against us poor 
 mortals.. ....Finally," he continues, "the di- 
 vine text is to be interpreted according to the 
 tradition of the Catholic Church." Now, let 
 me inform you, that the word " tradition,'' 
 in all these passages, means simply, the doc- 
 trines transmitted from the apostles, in the 
 ministry of teaching by the Pastors of the 
 church. 
 
 The next evidence I shall produce in sup- 
 
36 
 
 port of the Catholic rule of faith, and against 
 the Protestant principle, is derived from a 
 source, which I am sure you will respect. It 
 is the doctrine and practice of your own 
 church, laid down in the Westninster Con- 
 fession. 
 
 The first is the Baptism of infants; sanc- 
 tioned by the " teaching" of the Pastors of 
 the Church, but certainly not susceptible of 
 .proof by any text of sacred Scripture. (Page 
 159.) The second is the violation of the Sab- 
 bath, commanded by God to be sanctified 
 (Exod. xx. 8.) and the substitution of Sunday 
 {without the authority of any single text of 
 Scripture; but in accordance with the con- 
 stant " teaching" of the Pastors of the church 
 f(page 132.) The third is, in the mutual pro- 
 mises exacted botli from the minister and the 
 congregation in the ceremony of ordaining, 
 when the former is obliged to promise " sub- 
 mission to the discipline of the church," and 
 the latter, both " obedience and submission 
 unto the new minister, as having rule over 
 them in the Lord." (page 590.) Is there any 
 scriptural evidence to show that St. Paul re- 
 quired such promises, from either Titus or 
 Timothy, previous to ordination? I use this 
 reference not as an argument, but rather as a 
 commentary; which, considering its source, is 
 ■ no small compliment to the Catholic rule of 
 'faith, at the expense of your own. I may 
 add also, that in the year 1729, the Synod of 
 Philadelphia passed an act, called the "adopt- 
 in^ act," by which not only candidates, but 
 professed ministers, were " obliged} 9 to adopt 
 the Westminster Confession, as containing 
 the summary of scriptural doctrine," — by 
 way, I suppose, of proving the sufficiency of 
 the " Bible alone; interpreted by each indi- 
 vidual for himself." (See Dr. Miller's 2d and 
 6th letters to Presbyterians.) 
 
 My first conclusion, then, is, that the Ca- 
 tholic rule of fath was instituted by Christ; 
 that it is the rule, which prevailed, except 
 amon" - the deluded votaries of heresy, in all 
 the former ages of the Christian Church — 
 and finally, thatit is the principle to which the 
 Presbyterians are obliged to have recourse, 
 on a variety of occasions. The reader of 
 course, must judge, whether the facts and 
 the reasoning authorize this first conclusion. 
 II. Is it infallible? If the foregoing con- 
 clusion be correct, it must be infallible, ac- 
 cording to your own definition — since "it 
 was established by Christ." At this stage 
 of the comparison and investigation of the two 
 rules, let us pause and com pare notes. You say 
 that the Scriptures are infallible: and I agree 
 with you entirely in this belief. — But, then, you 
 
 will agree with me, that the infallibility of the 
 Scripture consists in the sense and not in the 
 ink, binding or paper of which the volume is 
 composed. Itself declares that "the letter 
 killelh, but the spirit giveth life.'' The Pro- 
 testant principle, therefore, is not rational, for 
 this reason, that, although the Book be in 
 every case infallible, the private interpreta- 
 tion of the book is, in every case, confessedly 
 the reverse. If you hear a Unitarian quote 
 Scripture, to prove that Jesus Christ was a 
 very good man, but ■nothing more; — a Sweden- 
 borgian, to prove that this " very good man" 
 was Jehovah the eternal God, and that the 
 idea of two other distinct persons in the Deity 
 is an error; — if you hear the Episcopalian 
 quoting it to establish the distinction between 
 bishops and presbyters, — the Universalist, — 
 indulging his charity, for the honour of the 
 Almighty, and the comfort of the human 
 race, — quoting it, to disprove the existence 
 of a deyil or a hell, which he regards as su- 
 perstitions, that not even the light of the 
 Reformation was capable of expelling — what 
 do you say in all these cases? You say that 
 the individual has, indeed, the ink, paper, 
 book and even the wo?-ds of Scripture, but 
 that the sense and true meaning are wanting. 
 Then — every thing is wanting. Where 
 then, I would ask, is the security on which 
 either they or you can depend, unless the in- 
 terpretation, as well as the text, be infallible? 
 But this you have given up — and methinks 
 I hear you solving the difficulty by the all- 
 potent interrogatory: " in what is your rule 
 better?" 
 
 It is better in this; that according to our 
 rule, the Scripture, so far as doctrine and 
 morals are concerned, has but one sense and 
 one meaning, through all the ages of the 
 church, and all the nations of the earth. With 
 us, it is a principle of religion and of common 
 sense, that the Holy Ghost does not contra- 
 dict himself either in the Scripture, or in the 
 interpretation of it; and consequently the 
 meaning is the same noiv, that it was before 
 the Reformation, and up to the days, when 
 the church received the Divine Book, from the 
 hands of its inspired authors. But you will 
 say we are forbidden to read the Scriptures. 
 Indeed, Sir, we are. not. But if they were 
 liable to the same abuse, by our rule, as they 
 are by yours, we should not only accept, but 
 even solicit the prohibition. 
 
 Here you will say, or rather you have said 
 in your objections, that our rule is also fal- 
 lible, "in as much as I can never be more 
 certain, in learning the doctrines of the 
 church, than you are in your interpretation 
 
37 
 
 of the Bible." To this I reply, that I can— 
 and I will show you in what way. Accord- 
 ing to the Catholic rule of faith, the doc- 
 trines of Christianity are not ubstruct specu- 
 lations; they .are " positive truths, facts," 
 unchanged and unchangeable, as they came 
 from the lips of 'Jesus Christ and his inspired 
 apostles. But, being public truths, or facts, 
 they were taught by the pastors of the 
 church, and believed by the people in all 
 countries, and in every century since the 
 establishment of the church. Consequently, 
 I can verify them with the same certainty, 
 which I have that such an event as the batile 
 of Waterloo, the decapitation of Charles I., 
 or the Council of Nice, took place in the 
 world. In neither case is a divine, or per- 
 sonal infallibility necessary. When I say 
 that 2 and 4 make 6; — that Charles X. was 
 expelled from France; — that Luther had a 
 misunderstanding with Leo X. ; — that John 
 Huss was burned to death at Constance, and 
 Michael Servetus in Geneva; — I assert pro- 
 positions " which are infallibly true. But 
 when I take up the words of Jesus Christ, 
 » This is my body," and assert their meaning 
 to be " this is not my body;" the case is en- 
 tirely changed. And why? Because, in this 
 I utter a mere speculative proposition — an 
 opinion. Now according to the Protestant 
 rule of faith, every text of Scripture, con- 
 nected ivith doctrine, must go through such 
 an ordeal of speculation: and is it to be 
 wondered at, that, under the guidance of 
 such a principle, men should be divided oft' 
 into parties and opinions; for, and against, 
 every doctrine; — from the " washing of feet," 
 up to the Saviour's divinity? The situa- 
 tion of a Catholic is very different: — when 
 he is a child, he is instructed in the summary 
 of the Christian doctrine, by his parents and 
 his catechism. This is the order of nature 
 as well as of religion. When he grows up, 
 he finds his immediate pastor inculcating, 
 and developing from the pulpit, the same 
 dogmas of belief, which were laid down in 
 his catechism. He finds his pastor teaching 
 the same doctrines, which are taught by all 
 the other pastors, monks, friars, doctors, 
 cardinals, bishops, including the Pope — 
 and believed, by all the Catholic people and 
 pastors in the whole universe! If he be a 
 gentleman of leisure and fortune, and fond 
 of travelling, he may visit France, Scotland. 
 Germany, Greece, Spain, Egypt, Palestine, 
 China, Italy, Ireland, Peru, Canada, and our 
 own Republic — and in every island, and on 
 every continent, in every country under 
 heaven, he will find the pastors of the Catho- 
 
 lic church teaching, and the people, with the 
 pastors, believing identically the same doc- 
 trines. If he be a scholar, the pages of uni- 
 versal history are before him. He may con- 
 sult antiquity, and he will find that the doc- 
 trines, which are noiv taught by the pastors, 
 and believed by both pastors and people, 
 were taught, and believed by pastors and peo- 
 ple, in every age since the birth of Christiani- 
 ty. If he be a linguist and a biblical critic, 
 he may consult the writings of the fathers, 
 and the sacred volume, either in the original 
 text, or as we have it, and he will find that 
 Jesus Christ made the promises of infallibility 
 to the succession of teaching, and, not to tvri- 
 ting, reading or private interpretation. 
 
 But what, you ask, if he be a " Collier?" 
 Why, in that case, his mother will have taught 
 him the Lord's prayer; the angelical saluta- 
 tion, commonly called the '•Hail Mary!"— and 
 the Apostle's Creed, in which he says, " I 
 believe in the Holy Catholic church'' — a pro- 
 fession of faith, which includes every article, 
 believed (with more accuracy of conception, 
 indeed, and distinctness of definition) by the 
 most learned doctor or bishop of the church. 
 But besides, his mother will have taught him 
 to make the sign of the cross, in the name of 
 the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to signify, 
 by this sign, his faith in the redemption of 
 Christ on the cross; and by the words, his 
 belief in the adorable Trinity — and now, I 
 will send him down to the wines, at the age 
 of ten years, furnished with a more orthodox 
 creed, than some of your Protestant ministers 
 profess, after having " worked" by the Pro- 
 testant rule of faith for forty years. Neither 
 God, nor common sense requires him to read 
 the 101 folios, which you have been pleased 
 to compile for his use. 
 
 But if he be a Protestant " Collier," what 
 then ? He must wait until he is able to regu- 
 late his belief according to the "Bible alone." 
 Of course, he must read all — to make the rule 
 complete. But if some passages seem to 
 contradict others? Why, then he has to 
 compare parallel passages, and explain one 
 text by another. But he cannot read. Then 
 he must hear it read. The first chapter of 
 the Gospel of St. John, is not more than half 
 finished, when he exclaims, " I am a poor 
 uneducated man, and I really do not under- 
 stand what you read. Just tell me in plain 
 language, what the book says." " It says, 
 that Infant Baptism is sufficient," replies my 
 learned opponent. — "No, retorts the Bap- 
 tist, you must believe and be baptized, and 
 that by immersion."— "The Baptism of the 
 spirit is sufficient," says the Quaker — " Why 
 
38 
 
 Gentlemen," cries out the Collier, " you star- 
 tle me! " You must repent and avoid hell," 
 continues the Methodist. "There is no hell 
 in the Bible," says the Universaiist, " it is 
 a bug-bear invented by priestcraft." — " You 
 must worship Christ," says the Lutheran. 
 "If you do," says the Unitarian, "you will 
 commit idolatry; for Christ is nothing more 
 than a mere creature, according to the Scrip- 
 tures — the Father alone is God." — " Oh ! how 
 you blaspheme," exclaims the Swedenbor- 
 gian, " The Son alone constitutes the Deity; 
 The Father" — "Stop, Gentlemen," inter- 
 rupts the Collier; "pray whence did you get 
 this book?'' — " From the Saviour of the 
 world," answer all. — "And for what pur- 
 pose?" — " Why, as an infallible rule of 
 faith," says Mr. Breckinridge, " to guide vs 
 in matters of religion, and to determine disputss 
 in the Church of Christ." — " But by what rule 
 doyou interpret it?" — "We are Protestants," 
 answer all, "and the Bible alone, interpreted 
 by each individual ' for himself,' is our rule 
 of faith." — " Well, Gentlemen, I am, as you 
 perceive, a plain, uneducated Collier; but if 
 God has given me an ounce of common un- 
 derstanding, whereby to form a judgment, 
 my judgment, from what I have seen and 
 heard, is this — either, that Jesus Christ was 
 a juggler ; or, that your rule of faith is false; 
 — or, that I am deranged. You are all 
 learned men — and yuu will select whichever 
 of these three alternatives you may prefer. 
 Farewell." 
 
 The case of the Collier is one, that has an 
 important bearing on the general question, 
 and I am glad you reminded me of it. It 
 furnishes the illustration, and proves the 
 truth of a remark I made at the commence- 
 ment of my first letter — that the " tendency 
 of the Protestant principle of private inter- 
 pretation is to sap the foundations of the 
 Christian religion." Will you, then, Rev'd 
 Sir, still sav, that admitting your rule to 
 work badly, "ours works worse?" 
 
 Having disposed of the Collier, I must now 
 proceed to answer the objections, so called, 
 which you have brought forward against the 
 Catholic rule of Faith. " Their name is Le- 
 gion." If the toregoing/acte and reasoning of I 
 this letter be correct, however, then the lar- 
 gest portion of the brood has already been 
 " eaten up," in the arguments. The rest are 
 founded on a misco7iceplion of the real state 
 of the question, and disappear as soon as 
 they are understood. 
 
 1st. Then, it is a principle of our belief, 
 that the dogmas of our Church were original- 
 ly revealed by Christ, and taught by his apos- 
 
 tles: that these dogmas, or articles of faith, and 
 morals, are the only objects for the definition 
 and transmission of which, in the "teaching of 
 the Pastors," the divine promise of infallibili- 
 ty is recorded in the Scripture, claimed by the 
 church, or necessary iw the preservation of re- 
 vealed truth. The obstinate rejection of one or 
 more of these articles of faith — by following 
 private opinion, in opposition to the teaching 
 and belief of the whole church, is what consti- 
 tutes the crime of heresy; and the man who 
 acts thus, ceases to belong to our communion. 
 But as the individual has no right to reject what 
 has been always, and is everywhere taught 
 and believed, — so neither does the church 
 claim, nor has she ever exercised the right of 
 creating, or imposing on him the belief of new 
 articles of faith. You mistake, then, Rev. 
 Sir, the language of definition for the words of 
 creation, wheneveryou say that any of our doc- 
 trines, began in " such a year," or in " such 
 a century:" until which time it had been, as 
 you suppose, "a probationer for a seat in the 
 creed." However, in thus confounding the de- 
 finition, with the creation, of doctrine, you on- 
 ly follow the example of a learned Protestant, 
 and they say, a very benevolentand moral man 
 — I mean Dr. Priestly. In his " History of 
 early opinions," he argues, that the Divinity 
 of Christ, never dreamt of, as he supposes, 
 in the life of the apostles, " crept in" as an 
 "opinion" a short time afterwards, spread 
 silently, and waxed strong, until it was 
 finally enacted into an article of faith in the 
 council of Nice, A. D. 325. 
 
 2d. Besides doctrines — articles of faith — 
 and morals — which are immutable, there is 
 discipline, for which infallibility is neither 
 claimed nor necessary. Discipline is different 
 from doctrine; it may be adapted to the cir- 
 cumstances of different ages and countries. 
 It is the mere livery of faith; and obvious as is 
 the distinction, we have heard Protestant Doc- 
 tors, if they can detect a single button, more 
 or less in Spain or Italy, than they have 
 been accustomed to see in our own country, 
 exclaim, " Lo ! what has become of the 
 boasted infallibility?" Answer — It is watch- 
 ing, as a guardian angel, by the side of those 
 "positive truths," " facts," "doctrines," 
 which Jesus Christ revealed to his apostles, 
 and commanded them lo teach to " all na- 
 tions," in "all days," even to the end of the 
 world. — Discipline may vary — doctrine is 
 always the same — just as a man may change 
 his garment, without forfeiting his personal 
 identity. 
 
 3d. There are besides doctrine and discip- 
 line, opinions: — but they are not about the 
 
39 
 
 "Divinity of Christ," or the "real pre- 
 sence.'' They are on questions, concerning 
 which no positive revelation lias been giv- 
 en by the Saviour, or preached by the apos- 
 tles. That these opinions have been warm- 
 ly and uselessly discussed and agitated, is 
 a fact that 1 am as willing to proclaim, as 
 you are. Catholics may hold either side 
 in any of these opinions, without ceas- 
 ing to be Catholics — precisely because they 
 are opinions, and not doctrines, This dis- 
 tinction is not new. St. Augustine referred 
 to it, when he said, " In necessariis unitas; 
 in non ?iecesssariis libcrtas ; in omnibus, 
 tharitas" "In matters of faith, unity; in 
 matters not of faith, liberty; in all matters, 
 charily." 
 
 4th. There are besides these, local customs 
 and habits, peculiar to different countries and 
 ages. 
 
 Now, Rev. Sir, I defy human ingenuity, 
 to extract from all you have written, one sin- 
 gle genuine argument against the Catholic 
 rule of faith. You present, indeed, in each 
 of your letters, a crowd of assertions against 
 local customs and free opinions of Catholics: 
 against the discipline or doctrines of the 
 church, with which doctrines alone is the in- 
 fallibility of the Catholic rule of faith con- 
 nected;) and condemning our doctrines by 
 your confessedly fallible principle of gui- 
 dance, you arrive at the easy conclusion, that 
 our rule of faith is not the true rule! Have 
 you attempted to show, that it did corres- 
 pond with your own definition of the true 
 rule? — That it was not "established by 
 Christ?" — That it is not competent "to guide 
 us in matters of religion" — or "to deter- 
 mine disputes in the Church of Christ?" 
 No! And yet, this definition is the true 
 standard, by which we have both agreed to 
 compare the Catholic and the Protestant 
 rules; and to determine which of the two is 
 the false, and which is the true principle of 
 guidance, in ascertaining the doctrines of 
 Christ, as distinguished from the opinions of 
 men. This is the standard, with which / 
 compared the Protestant rule of faith — when 
 I proved in my former letters, that the one 
 has not a single property, in common with 
 the other. This I proved in ten distinct 
 propositions, supported by facts and argu- 
 ments, to which, as laid down in my last let- 
 ter, I beg leave to refer the reader. He will 
 perceive that you never take up my argu- 
 ment, as it has been arranged by myself — but 
 having moulded it, into a manageable shape, 
 you refute the creature of distortion, but leave 
 
 the difficulty, unsolved. Allow me to give 
 a specimen from your last epistle. 
 
 VI. VII. " There are two methods of set- 
 tling disputes, reason and force: you take 
 the latter; we the former. There are two 
 rules, the Bible and the Church of Rome. 
 You assert that the Bible has failed, and thus 
 make your church better than Christ 
 and his Apostles." Indeed, Rev'd Sir, 
 I should be sorry to be guilty of either the 
 argument, or the blasphemy. Let the reader 
 compare this, with my own arguments, VI. 
 and VII. and I have no doubt but he will ac- 
 quit me of the charge. What opinion he 
 may form of the cause which required it, or 
 the individual by whom it is preferred, it is 
 not for me to determine. The other weak- 
 nesses of your attempt to reply to those ten 
 arguments" I shall leave for the present unex- 
 posed. For I have not the talent of "adher- 
 ing strictly to the question under discussion 
 for the time being" — and yet broaching, in 
 in the same letter, every question, that has 
 been agitated since the Reformation. These 
 are contradictions, which your pen alone, it 
 seems, can reconcile. 
 
 But a more painful task is imposed on me, 
 in reference to two or three assertions of 
 yours, in which there is an entire departure 
 from the truth of history and of facts. Your 
 assert that opinions pass into articles of faith, 
 or doctrine in the Catholic Church; and for 
 this you quote the authority of Bellarmine, 
 but I defy you to quote ten lines before, and 
 ten lines after the words " fere de fide," 
 without convicting yourself of what is not 
 becoming a " minister of the Gospel." In 
 the same manner you say, that Leo X. con- 
 demned Luther for saying: "It is not in the 
 power of the Church or the Pope to constitute 
 new qrticles of faith.'''' litis is untrue. Be- 
 ing a mere historical fact, if it is not untrue, 
 you can easily prove the contrary. Another 
 assertion which is untrue, is, that, " as to the 
 Pope's supremacy, there are no less than 
 three systems in our church." Now I defy 
 you, or any one else, to name a single Catho- 
 lic in the whole universe, that has publicly 
 denied the Pope's supremacy, without for- 
 feiting COMMUNION AND MEMBERSHIP, BY 
 
 the denial. And if you cannot, whatjwill 
 Protestants think of your assertion, that 
 there are three systems (of doctrine) in our 
 church on that subject? — and what will they 
 think of a cause defended by such — argu- 
 ment? When we come to speak of the 
 "Vulgate edition of the Scriptures;" "the 
 Sacraments;" "the doctrine of intentions;" 
 " the Apocryphal books," as you term them; 
 
to 
 
 "the liberties, which you say (falsely, as I 
 hold) the church has taken with the word of 
 God;" "the writings of the Fathers;" "Pur- 
 gatory;" "depriving the people of the cup 
 in the Eucharist;" " Indulgences;" "Prayer 
 in an unknown tongue;" &tc &c. &c. &c. 
 / bind myself to prove, that you have mis- 
 represented these doctrines and asserted 
 what is not correct. In the mean time, the 
 question is, the rule of faith. If it be 
 true, as I have shown, and as you have ad- 
 mitted, that Protestants have nothing, and, 
 by their rule of private interpretation, can 
 have nothing, more certain, than their specu- 
 lative opinions, even for the most sacred of 
 their own doctrines; so, neither can they 
 have any thing more for the condemnation 
 of ours. You first condemn our doctrines 
 by your own opinions, and then condemn 
 our " rule of faith'' by our doctrines! The 
 rule of faith is to be judged and deter- 
 mined not by your opinions of either your 
 own doctrine, or ours — but by the definition. 
 Is your rule true? Is it infallible?'' Was 
 it established by Christ?" That is the 
 real question. For if Christ revealed doc- 
 trines, and required of men to believe those 
 doctrines, under pain of eternal condemna- 
 tion (Mark xvi. 16.) and yet, appointed as a 
 medium for ascertaining what they are — a rule 
 by which, instead of being preserved as doc- 
 trines, they are resolved into a mass of opin- 
 ions, as diversified and contradictory as those 
 which spring from private interpretation', — 
 then we need not Inquire, who is fight or who 
 is wrong. Every man has a right to his "opin- 
 ion" whether he denies the real presence in the 
 Eucharist, the necessity of regeneration, or 
 the Divinity of Jesus Christ. In all revelation 
 there is not an opinion — and in all Protestant- 
 ism, there is nothing else, but opinion; — you 
 have not attempted to deny either of these 
 propositions. 
 
 You have quoted the ambitious projects 
 and pretensions, of individual Popes. Among 
 them there have been a few bad, out of a mul- 
 titude of good, virtuous and holy men. The 
 fact, however, proves nothing more against 
 our rule of faith, than the crime of Judas does 
 against the infallibility of Jesus Christ; or 
 the incarceration of a wretched Presbyterian 
 clergyman in the State-prison of New York, 
 does against the orthodoxy of the "West- 
 minster Confession." You know to whom I 
 allude — and although he belonged to your 
 communion, I would rather shed a tear over 
 
 his misfortunes, than stop to glean arguments 
 from the dark record of his crimes, convic- 
 tion and ruin. I should distrust my cause, if 
 I thought it required them. 
 
 Your pretty little story about the " shep- 
 herds at the brook," would be admirable in 
 pastoral compositions — it is so simple. But 
 in polemics it is quite out of place. Would 
 you know why ? Because, there the shep- 
 herds, sheep and lambs were many; — here, 
 the rule of faith, according to your own defi- 
 nition and agreement, is but one. And if I 
 prove that it is not that, which Protestants 
 profess to follow — the reader can easily 
 draw the conclusion. 
 
 But then in Rome, there is one day in the 
 year (not to speak of kissing the Pontifical 
 slipper) for " blessing horses, asses, and oth- 
 er beasts !" In answer to this, I have only to 
 say that on no day of the year, would a min- 
 ister of the Gospel refuse, if respectfully in- 
 vited, to perform a similar operation, over a 
 piece of good beef, such as may always 
 be found in our Philadelphia markets. I see 
 no difference, except that in this case the 
 "beast" happens to be dead; and that the 
 maxim has it "nil nisi bonum de mortuis." 
 But, Rev. Sir, the courtesies of society regard 
 us both as clergymen, notwithstanding your 
 mutilated exordium," Sir" — and as clergymen 
 it does not become us to treat so grave a sub- 
 ject, with I e v i ty or ridicule. Is the Protes- 
 tant principle the true rule of Christian faith, 
 or is it not the rule, exclusively of sectarian 
 opinion? That is the real question — on the 
 proper solution of which, may depend the sal- 
 vation of immortal souls, for whom Christ 
 died. — If there are under heaven, in the whole 
 volume of reason and revelation, arguments 
 to prove, that the " Bible alone, interpreted 
 by each individual for himself," is " the. in- 
 fallible ride of faith" — that " the Bible alone, 
 interpreted by each individual for himself," 
 is "the rule established by Christ" — " to guide 
 us in matters of religion and to determine 
 disputes in his church" — I again entreat you 
 to furnish them. If no such arguments can 
 be furnished, then is your rule of faith of 
 human invention, and not of Christ's appoint- 
 ment. The "definition" constitutes themark 
 of the Divine " Shepherd" stamped upon the 
 true rule, under the guidance of which, there is 
 but "one sheepfold,' his disciples being "one" 
 in doctrine, as " He and the Father are one," 
 in nature and purpose. Yours, &c. 
 
 Jno. Hughes. 
 
CONTROVERSY N°. 6. 
 
 Rule of Faith. 
 
 New York, 5th March, 1833. 
 To the Rev. John Hughes. 
 
 Rev. Sir,— You rise from your prostra- 
 tion with the air of victory. It is however, 
 I think, a little abatement to your chivalry, 
 that you should still cry out against my ar- 
 guments, and yet meet them, in chief part, 
 with reiterated complaints of my departure 
 from "the Rules," and clamorous demands 
 to keep to the question. When you propo- 
 sed to undertake a discussion with me, I re- 
 quested a reply to my first printed letter. 
 You declined. I proposed a public, oral 
 discussion. You declined. After much ne- 
 gotiation, the present channel was agreed 
 on. The rules were, very much, of your 
 own defining; you insisted that we should 
 first discuss the rule of faith, and you must 
 begin. I proposed that after examining the 
 rufe of faith, we should take this for the 
 point of debate, "Is the religion of Roman 
 Catholics the religion of Christ?" You still 
 declined, and we must change it to this, "Is 
 m the religion of Protestants the religion of 
 I Christ?" And now, after all th*se conces- 
 1 sions, you claim to interpret these rules, and 
 \even to determine how I shall conduct my 
 ■argument; and while the nerves of your 
 ■cause are cracking under the pressure of 
 /truth, gravely charge me with violating rules 
 § and passing bv the question ! I am weary of 
 f this unmanly strife of words, and "vain 
 jangling" about modes and forms. Once for 
 ally {therefore, let me settle this matter. If 
 the reader will refer to "the rules," at 
 the head of this letter, he will perceive 
 that the 3d assigns the "rule of faith" as 
 the first subject of discussion, and with 
 the following amplitude, "after giving their 
 views of the rule of faith," fyc. Does not this 
 bring up the whole subject of the rule of 
 faith ? The 4th rule requires us, " to ad- 
 'here strictly to the subject of discussion for 
 the time being — and to admit no second ques- 
 tion," #c. Sfc. Now I ask, have I not dis- 
 cussed, throughout, one and the same ques- 
 tion, viz., the rule of faith ?— Both in my 
 first and second letters, (Nos. 2 and 4.) I re- 
 plied to all your objections. But I did not 
 
 stop there. I went on to expose your rule. 
 By a great number of yet unanswered argu- 
 ments, I proved its utter fallibility. I have 
 shown, by the confession of your own writers, 
 that you are compelled to use private inter- 
 pretation, by fallible men, in order to find 
 out from the Bible your church and your 
 rule : I have exposed your judge of contro- 
 versies, as one whom you could not agree on 
 among yourselves, and who could not possi- 
 bly be a judge, from the nature of the case : 
 I have shown that your church has varied in 
 doctrine from age to age, and therefore has 
 not an infallible judge in her, as she pretends 
 to have: I have shown that the direct tendency 
 of your system was to corrupt the morals of the 
 people and the worship of God, and there- 
 fore your rule was entirely fallible, and even 
 o-reatly evil : I have shown that your rule 
 usurps the prerogative of God, and that it 
 violates the testimony of the senses : that it 
 was not only fallible, but entirely uncertain : 
 that it requires ignorance and implicit faith 
 as its foundation in the minds of men : that 
 it is incompatible, not only with personal, 
 but with civil liberty: that under the guid- 
 ance of your rule, the Bible has been shut 
 against mankind : that the commandments 
 have been mutilated, additions made to the 
 word of God, and that new articles, and new 
 sacraments have been added, under the au- 
 thority of your rule: that even "the Fa- 
 thers," the professed fountain of evidence in 
 your behalf, have been purged of matter 
 which went against you : and that by the 
 authority of the Pope, writers in your com- 
 munion of a later day, have been abridged, 
 enlarged, or changed, to fit them to be wit- 
 nesses to the Roman Catholic Rule. These 
 things have been clearly shown, as [may be 
 seen by a reference to the letters themselves. 
 I ask do they not bear directly on the ques- 
 tion ? Your chief reply to them as yet, is 
 that they violate the rules ! When you at- 
 tempt a rejoinder, the public will judge both 
 of their fitness and their force. 
 
 Before I enter on the examination of your 
 reasoning, it is proper here to meet and re- 
 pel a paragraph near the close of your letter, 
 
42 
 
 viz. " But a more painful task is imposed 
 on me, in reference to two or three assertions 
 of yours, in which there is an entire depar- 
 ture from the truth of history and of facts. — 
 You assert that opinions pass into articles of 
 faith or doctrine in the Catholic Church, and 
 for this you quote the authority of Bellar- 
 mine ; but I defy you to quote ten lines be- 
 fore and ten lines after, the words ' fere de 
 fide,' without convicting yourself of what 
 is not becoming ' a minister of the Gospel.' " 
 Now I had said in my letter, "your church 
 has added to the word of God new articles 
 of faith, and even new sacraments to the in- 
 stitutions of Jesus Christ." 1 appealed for 
 proof to various writers, and to the Bull of 
 Pope Pius IV. You say nothing of these 
 proofs. I then added, " Bellarmine ive sup- 
 pose means this when he says of one article, 
 'fere de fide,' almost a matter of faith." 
 Now if, instead of "slurring the notes," 
 you had quoted from Bellarmine ten lines 
 "before and ten lines after" the offensive 
 passage, it would have come with a better 
 grace than a Parthian arrow shot while in 
 flight. But you proceed to remark, " In the 
 same manner you say that Leo X. condemn- 
 ed Luther for saying: It is not in the power 
 of the church or the Pope to constitute new 
 articles of faith. — This is untrue. Being a 
 mere historical fact, if it is not untrue, you 
 can easily prove the contrary." This is 
 strong language! Yet you put the subject to 
 a fair issue; let us try it — it is done in few 
 words. The bull of Leo X. dated June 
 15th, 1520, levelled at Luther by name, con- 
 tains forty-one pretended heresies, which 
 are extracted from his writings and solemnly 
 condemned — his books are doomed to the 
 flames — and he allowed sixty days to recant, 
 or meet the thunders of the Vatican. The 
 27th article, for which Luther is anathema- 
 tized for holding, is as follows; "Certum 
 est in manu Ecclesiae aut Papee prorsus non 
 esse stutuere articulos fidei" Which is, word 
 for word, what I said before, viz: " // is cer- 
 tain it is not in the power of the Pope or 
 church, to ordain, or decree articles of faith." 
 He denounces this and the other forty arti- 
 cles as "pestiferous," "scandalous," "se- 
 ductive errors." — And yet you assert that 
 "it is untrue /"—My proof then, is fully 
 fortified. I would willingly explain your 
 mistake by referring it to ignorance — and 
 your being startled at the statement shows 
 the monstrous nature of the doctrine. But 
 how shall I account for your indecorum; 
 especially after convicting you of such an 
 error ? 
 
 I must however go into the defence of yet 
 another " assertion," as you style it. " Ano- 
 ther assertion which is not true is that as to 
 the Pope's supremacy — there are no less than 
 three systems in our (the Roman Catholic) 
 church." I gave you proof of this when it 
 was stated; but I will subjoin more. The 
 council of Basle, A. D. ]439 (see Caranza 's 
 summa conciliorurn, 33d, sessions, page 645) 
 decreed as follows: " That according to the 
 council of Constance, it is a true article of 
 the Catholic faith, that a Council is above 
 a Pope, and that whoever pertinaciously re- 
 jects this trutfi, is to be condemned as a here- 
 tic." Here, besides its own testimony, that 
 of the Council of Constance is likewise con- 
 veyed. This is one system. It gives to the 
 Pope a rank not only unequal in degree, but 
 dissimilar in kind from the second system, 
 which is called Italian, from its being the 
 prevailing one at Rome, as the former is call- 
 ed Gallican, from its prevalence in France. 
 The Italian school or second system hold to 
 the Pope's unlimited sovereignty over the 
 church; and make him officially infallible, 
 and virtually the church. The Council of 
 Florence, 5th Lateran and Trent make the 
 Pope superior to general Councils. This you 
 will hardly deny — if so, I have proof at hand. 
 Johannes Devotus (Vol. 1. Book 1. Tit. 3. 
 sec. 1.) on the supremacy of the Pope has 
 this caption: "The power of the Pope is 
 episcopal, metropolitan, patriarchal and 
 temporal. His decisions/rom the chair are 
 infallible. " Thethird system deifies the Pope. 
 According to Gregory II. "the whole West- 
 ern nations reckoned Peter aterrestrial God."i 
 (Labb. 8. G66.) We are told that Marcellus^j 
 in the Lateran Council, called Julius, " 
 God on earth," and without rebuke from thel 
 Council. Bellarmineon Authority ofCouncils, 
 Book 2. c. 17 — says: " all the names which 
 are given in the Scriptures to Christ, even 
 these same names are given to the Pope — 
 whence it appears that he is superior to the 
 church." In Gratian's Decretals, 1. p. Dis, 
 96. Pope Nicholas to Michael, 7th chap, 
 the Pope says, He is a God, and therefore men 
 cannot judge him. I might multiply these 
 proofs at pleasure. Here then are the said 
 three systems distinctly made out. How you 
 can then so positively say it " is not true," 
 our fellow citizens must judge. 
 
 We are now come to quite an era in this 
 discussion, viz: the first defence of your rule 
 of faith! Though it be in the 6th letter of 
 the controversy, and its appearance now is 
 only a peep at us from behind the clouds, yet 
 we welcome its approach. Our rule of faith, 
 
13 
 
 you say, is laid down in the Apostles Creed. 
 " /believe in the Holy Catholic Church. This 
 rule, you perceive, does not exclude, but 
 comprises the belief of the Holy Scriptures." 
 It may be said to be in substance this, 
 the Holy Catholic Church is the living infal- 
 lible interpreter of Scripture. Now it will 
 be borne in mind that before any church can 
 interpret, she must know what is to be inter- 
 preted. What do you mean then by "the 
 Holy Scriptures?" The Council of Trent 
 has settled this question for you, infallibly, 
 (as you say,) " All the books contained 
 in the old Vulgate Latin Edition are sa- 
 cred and canonical." (Decree ol theCoun. 
 Trent, 4 sess.) Then besides our Bible the 
 Itoman Catholic Scriptures include a number 
 of books viz. 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 
 Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, "Baruch, and 1 and 2 
 Maccabees. These make a large volume of 
 themselves. The Jews, our Lord Jesus, 
 the Apostles and early Fathers, unite to ex- 
 clude these from the canon. You ought then 
 to have proved them canonical, or dropped 
 them from the Scriptures, as a preliminary 
 step. The former you do not attempt; the 
 latter were heresy in you. — When you say 
 then that the Holy Scriptures are comprised 
 in your rule, you deceive the reader, — since 
 by " Holy Scriptures" he means one thing 
 and you quite another thing. — Again, in de- 
 fining your rule, you omit two other very ma- 
 terial features which are strongly brought to 
 view by the Council of Trent, (4 Sess.) 
 « 1. They say divine truth is contained both 
 in the written books and "in unwritten 
 tradition." 2. Every Roman Catholic of 
 'every grade, binds himself solemnly as fol- 
 lows, "I will never take or interpret them, 
 J (the sacred Scriptures,) otherwise than ac- 
 I cording to the unanimous consent of the Fa- 
 ' thers." (See Creed of Pope Pius IV.) Now 
 it is apparent from these facts, that what you 
 call divine truth is quite another thing from 
 the Bible; and it is equally clear that your 
 church is restricted by her own decrees, to 
 interpret this compound of Bible, Apocrypha 
 and unwritten tradition, according to the 
 unanimous consent of "the Fathers." At 
 this point, we see then either that " the fa- 
 thers" were infallible and also unanimous in 
 their interpretations of Scripture, or else 
 your church receives her creed from fallible 
 men, and can have no uniformity in her doc- 
 trines. But "the Fathers" you will own, 
 were fallible; and that they were far from 
 unanimous, I will presently unite with 
 your Bellarmine and others, to prove. Let 
 me here say, that the Roman Catholic rule, 
 
 though withheld by you, is spread at large 
 upon the records of your church, and from 
 it I draw these definitions. If I err in them, 
 the task of confutation is easy. 
 
 Having laid down your rule of faith, you 
 proceed to prove that it was established by 
 Christ, by an appeal to the Apostolical com- 
 mission given Matt, xxviii 17-20. The reader 
 will please refer to it. Allow me here to put by 
 the side of this, those passages which, added 
 to it, make out the commission in full. " And 
 these signs shall follow them that believe; 
 in my name shall they cast out devils; they 
 shall" speak with new tongues." "They shall 
 take up serpents; and if they drink any 
 deadly thing, it shall not hurt them ; they 
 shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall 
 recover." Mark xvi. 17, 18. " And ye are 
 witnesses of these things." — "And behold 
 I send the promise of my Father upon you; 
 but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until 
 ye be endued with power from on high." 
 Luke xxiv. 48, 49. " But ye shall receive 
 power after that the Holy Ghost is come 
 upon you; and ye shall be witnesses unto 
 me, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and 
 in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of 
 the earth." — Acts i. 8. 
 
 Now we freely giant that the above pas- 
 sages confer a commission on the Apostles; 
 and that they were divinely endowed, for the 
 discharge of the great work which was given 
 them to do. But on these texts you found 
 the following reasoning: " In the commission 
 referred to above, all nations and all days even 
 to the end of the world are included. There- 
 fore the fulfilment of the Saviour's injunc- 
 tion, required that the Apostles should have 
 successors in the ministry of teaching?'' 
 " Then it is not by exercising an unfounded 
 prerogative, but in simple obedience to the in- 
 junction of Jesus Christ, that Catholics heark- 
 en to the voice of the church and the teaching 
 of its Pastors." The sum of it is this: the 
 Apostles had certain divine endowments for 
 their work; Christ intended the Apostles to 
 have successors to the end of time; therefore 
 their successors must have the same endow- 
 ments. Now what was it that constituted an 
 Apostle? (1.) No man could be an Apostle 
 who had not been " an eye witness'' 'to Christ's 
 person, and works, (see Luke i. 2. and 2 
 Peter i. 16.) Paul says, 1 Corinthians ix. 
 1. " Am I not an Apostle? Have I not 
 seen the Lord?" (See Acts i. 21—22 and 
 x. 41.) (2.) An Apostle must receive his 
 mission directly from Christ, not by any 
 human ordination. For this reason, Christ 
 appeared to Paul visibly on his way to Da- 
 
44 
 
 mascus, and called him to the work of an 
 Apostle; and this is what Paul means when 
 he says, "Last of all he (Christ) was seen 
 of me, as of one born out of due time." 
 1 Cor. xv. 8. (3.) Every Apostle had mi- 
 raculous and extraordinary endowments : 
 such as inspiration, making him infallible; 
 the gift of tongues; power to work miracles, 
 (Markxvi. 17, 18.) and to impart that power 
 to others. (2 Cor. xii. 12.) The apostles 
 were told, (Acts i. 8.) to wait at Jerusalem 
 for these supernatural gifts; and on the day 
 of Pentecost they were accordingly fur- 
 nished from on high, by the miraculous and 
 extraordinary effusions of the Holy Ghost. 
 By these endowments, they were enabled to 
 speak at once many languages; to write in- 
 spired books; to cast out devils, raise the 
 dead, &c. (4.) Every Apostle, as the name 
 (one sent) signifies and as the terms of the 
 commission plainly show, was to go all abroad, 
 with plenary authority; not to be stationary; 
 or make his permanent seat any where, exclu- 
 sively. Now it is obvious that the Apostles had 
 no successors in these respects. It was im- 
 possible after the generation, in which Christ 
 lived, had passed away, that the Apostles 
 could have such successors; for it was neces- 
 sary to their office and work to have seen the 
 Lord. But this the second generation could 
 not have done. It is plain also that such a 
 succession was never designed by our Lord, 
 or attempted by the Christians of the next 
 age. It is true Judas had a successor; but 
 it was before the Apostles were fully endued 
 by the Spirit and sent forth. And if any 
 were to have successors, why not all, as well 
 as one? Why not James at Jerusalem, John 
 at Ephesus, and Paul at Antioch, as well as 
 Peter at Rome? Why Rome more than 
 eleven other cities? Will not all the texts 
 you have quoted, apply as well to James at 
 Jerusalem as to Peter at Rome? Had he not 
 the promise of the same Holy Spirit to guide 
 him as Peter? Is not John called "a pillar'' 
 (Gal. ii. 9.) as well as Peter? Why do you 
 single out infallibility for your succession, 
 and leave out all other qualifications? It is 
 curious to remark how r you omit even a refe- 
 rence to Mark xvi. 17, 18, where the gift of 
 miracles is so inseparably united to the office 
 of an Apostle. You must admit then, that 
 there are some respects in which the Apostles 
 had no successors. But if some things are 
 wanting, your argument is vain. If some 
 things are wanting, may not one of them be 
 infallibility? And if all the ot her superhu- 
 man endowments ceased, why should infalli- 
 bility continue? The conclusion is irresisti- 
 
 ble, that the Apostles had no successors, en« 
 dued with extraordinary powers of any kind; 
 and therefore the Roman Catholic rule of 
 faith was not established by Christ. 
 
 But yet we hold to a commission still 
 standing and binding, which reaches to the 
 close of time: we believe in a visible catho- 
 lic (not Roman) church, to which appertain 
 the ministry, the oracles, and ordinances of 
 God; which is to continue to the end of the 
 world — to which the Holy Spirit is promised 
 as an abiding gift; against which the gates of 
 hell shall not prevail; and which is at last to 
 fill the world. Of this church, Jesus Christ 
 is the only head; and the Holy Spirit speak- 
 ing in the Bible, the only infallible rule of 
 faith. 
 
 You next introduce some of "the Fathers" 
 to prove that the texts quoted by you were 
 understood in their days, as you interpret 
 them. I would here say that " The Fathers" 
 have a hard lot in your church. You treat 
 them as some people do their " children," or 
 as the Hindoos do their idol-gods ; they 
 honour them when they serve their purpose; 
 and whip them when they do not. I have 
 already shown the corrections to which they 
 have sometimes been subjected, to square 
 them to the uses of the church. Now let 
 me bring some proofs directly to our pur- 
 pose. Chrysostom, (who lived A. D. 398.) 
 says, " the church is known, (tanlummodo.) 
 only by the Scriptures. v (Homil. 49 in 
 Matt.) Bellarmine however says of this 
 passage, " It is probable the author was a 
 Catholic, but it seems to be none of Chry- 
 sostom" 1 s."— (De Scriptis Ecc's. A. D. 398.) 
 Augustine, who lived A. D. 395. says, ''Thou 
 art Peter, and upon the rock, which thou, 
 hast confessed, upon this rock, which thou, 
 hast known, saying, Thou art Christ, the 
 Son of the living God, will I build my 
 church; I will build thee upon me, not me 
 upon thee." (De verb. Domin. Serin. 13.) 
 Yet Stapleton says of it, "it was a human er- 
 ror caused by the diversity of the Greek and 
 Latin tongue which either he was ignorant of, 
 or marked not." (Princip. doct. lib. 6. c. 3.) 
 But I will pass to examine an authority quot- 
 ed by yourself, from Tertullian in his book 
 of Prescriptions, &c. &c. From the manner 
 in which you extract it, the author is made 
 to testify, that Rome is the great centre and 
 head, where the " succession" from the 
 Apostles has its seat ; and where the "Hap- 
 py Church,'' reigns in undisturbed suprema- 
 cy. Your quotation runs thus: "If you live 
 near Italy, you see before your eyes the Ro- 
 man church. Happy church! to which the 
 
45 
 
 Apostles left the inheritance of doctrines 
 with their blood! where Peter was crucified 
 like his master, where Paul was beheaded 
 like the Baptist." — But let us see his entire, 
 ungarbled statement: "Survey the apostoli- 
 cal churches, in which the very chairs of the 
 Apostles still preside over their stations, in 
 which their own letters are recited, uttering 
 the voice and representing the presence of 
 each of them. Is Achaia nearest to thee ? 
 Thou hast Corinth. If thou art not far from 
 Macedonia, thou hast the Phillipians and the 
 Thessalonians. If thou canst go to Asia, 
 thou hast Ephesus; but if thou art near Italy, 
 thou hast Rome, whence to us also authority 
 is near at hand." (Prescriptions against He- 
 retics.) And now, how very different is the 
 passage and the meaning! How directly 
 against Peter's supremacy and the exclusive 
 claims of Rome! How extraordinary the 
 liberty which you take with the author and 
 with historical evidence! It was thus a man 
 once proved from the 14th Psalm that there 
 is no God— "The fool hath said in his heart, 
 there is no God," is the entire verse. But 
 dropping the first part of the sentence, it runs 
 thus, "There is no God." 
 
 You ask in the second place, " Is the rule 
 infallible?" and infer that it is, since it is 
 established by Christ. I grant you that a 
 rule established by Christ, is infallible. But 
 as I have proved that Christ did not estab- 
 lish your rule, your conclusion falls to the 
 ground. But let us proceed. It is not self- 
 evident that your church is infallible, or your 
 rule the true one. By what process then do 
 you apply these texts to the proof of your 
 rule? The process, I answer, of private in- 
 terpretation. Then I would ask, is your 
 interpretation fallible or infallible ? If fal- 
 lible, where is the right or safety of your in- 
 terpretation, especially when the point in 
 question is no less than that on which all 
 others depend, viz. where shall we go for an 
 infallible rule? This is the more surprising, 
 as you charge upon the use of private judg- 
 ment all the evils of heresy and schism, 
 which have in every age rent the church of 
 Christ — perverted the word of God — and 
 ruined the souls of men. Do you refer me 
 to your infallible Church ? But we are in- 
 quiring after the proofs of her infallibility. 
 Then does she refer me to Scripture passages 
 for proof? But how can I be certain that 
 her interpretation is correct? Her infallibil- 
 ity does not assure me, for she has not yet 
 proved her infallibility; and if she can prove 
 her infallibility in this way, then private 
 judgment is sufficient to settle the undoubted 
 
 meaning of a great body of scripture-pas- 
 sages, and terminate the grand controversy, 
 on which all others depend. And what then 
 becomes of the church of Rome's complaint 
 of the great obscurity of Scripture, which 
 is affirmed to render her aid so indispens- 
 able? And what must we think of her out- 
 cries against the supposed arrogance of pre- 
 tending to the exercise of free inquiry, and 
 of judging of the Scriptures for ourselves, 
 when, without such an exercise and such a 
 power of judging, it is found impossible to 
 obtain the least proof or presumption of her 
 pretended infallibility? Some parts of Scrip- 
 ture then, the church of Rome herself must 
 allow, are capable of being understood with- 
 out her aid. Those declarations on which 
 she rests her claim to implicit submission and 
 obedience, she must allow to be sufficiently 
 plain and intelligible to bind the conscience 
 of every member of her communion, who is 
 prepared to give a reason for his being a 
 Catholic: and as an entire agreement with 
 the dogmas of the church is all the faith 
 which she requires, in order to the salvation 
 of her members, she must acknowledge, as 
 well as ourselves, that the Scripture contains 
 a rule ot faith sufficient for the purpose of 
 salvation. The only difference is, that in our 
 opinion, the scriptures clearly unfold a system 
 of saving truth; while in that of the (Roman) 
 Catholics they are obscure in every point, 
 except the few passages which direct us to the 
 church, (the only authentic and immediate 
 source of saving knowledge.)" "Her treat- 
 ment of Scripture, almost reminds us of the 
 fabulous history of 'Jupiter, who ascended 
 to supreme power by the mutilation and ban- 
 ishment of his father.' " Robert Hall. 
 
 We see then that your rule utterly fails as 
 to the proof of itself. In the next place it 
 ivholly fails in its application. For either the 
 Pope is infallible; or the council; or both unit- 
 ed; or the universal church. It seems not to 
 be agreed among yourselves where infallibili- 
 ty is lodged and therefore even at the thresh- 
 old, a great difficulty arises. If the univer- 
 sal church be the seat, this is plainly useless, 
 for you can never come at its decisions. If 
 the Pope, be so, the world must go to Rome; 
 or die in darkness. If a Pope, and a gene- 
 ral Council united make the infallible judge, 
 (which is not self-evident, and must there- 
 fore be proved,) then as Roman Catholics 
 commonly believe, you have the absurdity, 
 that two fullibles make an infallible. Two 
 negatives may make an affirmative in Gram- 
 mar; but it will not do so in religion — for if 
 you Add fallible to fallible forever, the sum is 
 
 
46 
 
 fallible still. But if the infallible judge, 
 (which is your rule of faith,) be found in the 
 Pope and Council united, still it is out of 
 the reach of the people. Such a council has 
 not been held for two hundred and seventy 
 years ! But to answer any end, it ought to 
 hold a constant session. — And not only so, 
 but it ought to be omnipresent — for other- 
 wise the millions of the people, which you 
 speak of, in "France, Scotland, Germany, 
 Greece, Spain, Egypt, Palestine, China, 
 Italy, Ireland, Peru, Canada, our own Re- 
 public, and in every Island, and on every 
 Continent, and in every country under hea- 
 ven" — cannot consult this oracle. Jill these 
 millions are concerned to know its declara- 
 tions; yet cannot; and ruin ensues. For 
 there are only two possible ways to reach 
 the mass of men, viz., either by living-teach- 
 ers, or by the decrees of councils. But both 
 these methods are liable to error; you are there- 
 fore without a rule. No teacher is infallible 
 as you allow ; the decrees of the councils 
 which few possess and fewer read, are at 
 least as obscure as the Bible. The pri- 
 vate interpretation of the Bible you call 
 " the grand heresy of the Reformation;'''' 
 surely then the private interpretation of de- 
 crees, is not less an evil ! It appears then, 
 that your boasted infallible rule is utterly in- 
 applicable; and while you decry the Bible, in 
 the hands of the people, as the rule of faith, 
 you have no substitute; and your cause is 
 ruined. 
 
 I remark next, that your reasoning as to 
 an infallible rule of fatth, if well founded, 
 leads us to reject every system that does not 
 make all men perfect. For you a«ree that 
 Christ has established an infallible rule to 
 "guide us in matters of religion." as well as 
 " settle disputes^ in his church. You ar- 
 gue that a rule which does not "settle dis- 
 putes" as to doctrine, is fallible, and therefore 
 not Christ's rule. Now by parity of reason- 
 ing, a rule that does not regulate practice so 
 as to make an end of sin, and make men 
 perfect here, must be a fallible rule. For 
 faith is in order to holiness — and the rule of 
 faith looks finally " to the purifying of our 
 souls even as Christ is pure.'''' But your 
 rule, I need hardly say, " makes none of the 
 comers thereunto perfect. ,f On the contrary 
 one of your own distinguished advocates said 
 that the generality of your writers on morals, 
 seemed " to have it as their great business, 
 to teach how near a man might luwfully come, 
 and yet not sin." (Sir Thomas More.) Sure- 
 ly then if you are consistent, you should re- 
 
 ject your rule. I do not see how you can 
 retain it, and yet argue against the Bible as 
 a rule of faith, because it fails to make those 
 infallible who adopt it as such. 
 
 You take peculiar pleasure in associating 
 the Protestant name and cause with infidelity 
 and extreme heresies. The names of "Vol- 
 ney and Priestly," of "Universalists," "Unita- 
 rians," &c. &c. seem to fluctuate through your 
 fancy in close alliance with liberty of thought, 
 with the use of the Bible, and the freedom of 
 the press. Now it is very certain that the 
 Bible never made a Roman Catholic; and the 
 fear expressed by one of the defenders of 
 your faith in former days, that its free perusal 
 made Protestants, ever haunts your loyal 
 breast. Let me here remind you that Atheism 
 has always flourished most, by the side of the 
 Roman shrine ; and where the Bible has been 
 opened on the human mind, there truth and 
 order, like the sun, has arisen and shone upon 
 the people. Compare Scotland with Spain; 
 Holland with Italy ; Prussia with Portugal ; 
 England with France ; our own country with 
 the Mexican or South American States. What 
 has made the immense difference ? The Bible, 
 read without restraint, and multiplied without 
 limit, and preached with boldness and fidelity 
 to a thinking people. Having no space now 
 for this topic, I promise, in future numbers, to 
 give you ample proof of the intimate union be- 
 tween Romanism and infidelity, and Roman- 
 ism and extreme heresy. 
 
 You slip the case of" the collier'' with far 
 nearer approaches to profanity than right rea- 
 soning. It is possible " your rule of faith may 
 be fallible;" or your collier may be "deranged,'' 
 when he begins to inquire and think, after the 
 slumber of his faculties for some half a centu- 
 ry, under the Roman anodyne of implicit 
 faith. But surely it ought never to be made 
 an alternative in a proposition, that "Jesus 
 Christ was a Juggler!" Suppose, however, 
 you apply the illustration to any other book, 
 say the creed of Pius IV. or the "Book of 
 Bulls," or " The Fathers." Has language not 
 a fixed meaning? Are there not plain rules 
 for its interpretation ? Can we not understand 
 a book because one man says it means this, 
 and another that, and a third something else ? 
 And must we call the Bible a fallible guide, 
 because some men may, and will, wrest it? 
 Must we pin our faith to the Pope's sleeve, 
 because we are liable to error? Yet this is 
 all you have to say in defence of implicit 
 faith. The sum of it. is this — that the collier 
 does (even as we have said,) believe what he 
 is told, and because he is told it; but it is bet- 
 
47 
 
 ter to do so, than worse; and he will do worse 
 if he thinks for himself ! 
 
 You next attempt an oblique defence of 
 your rule from the many objections which I 
 have brought against it. In the fifth column, 
 3d paragraph, you say, " articles of faith and 
 morals are the only objects of definition and 
 transmission; neither does the church claim, 
 nor has she exercised the right of creating 
 new articles of faith." Now I ask, did not the 
 Council of Trent make new articles of faith ? 
 Did she not order a new Creed, containing 
 these 12 articles, and binding all her commu- 
 nion to hold them, under pain of spiritual 
 death ? And were there not even new sacra- 
 ments among these articles? I referred you 
 for proof to the literary fraud by which " ex- 
 treme unction''' was attempted to be made a 
 sacrament, in your church standards. You 
 are silent about it ! What I have said above 
 about Leo X's condemnation of Luther, plain- 
 ly shows that you differ from him, and that he 
 claimed the right not only to " define," but 
 " create"" articles of faith, and " impose them 
 on men for their belief" Transubstantiation, 
 indulgences, taking the cup from the laity in 
 the Lord's Supper, andyzwe of your seven sa- 
 craments are palpable innovations ; are new 
 articles of faith, brought in by your church 
 from age to age, and gathered up, and put in- 
 to the creed, by the Council of Trent. 
 
 In your second answer "to objections" co- 
 lumn 5th, you pass by the questions by say- 
 ing, " discipline may vary." I suppose it is a 
 point of discipline to forbid the use of the 
 Scriptures; to restrict the freedom of the press; 
 to claim the government of kingdoms; to es- 
 tablish the inquisition ; to burn heretics; and 
 encourage extended and bloody massacres; as 
 of the Waldenses and Hugonots ! Under 
 this head too, I suppose you comprehend 
 your apology for the " ambitious projects" 
 of " individual Popes." This is strange lan- 
 guage ! " Individual Popes !" And yet is 
 this all you can reply to all I have brought 
 from the Popes and from the councils, show- 
 ing that your system is incompatible with per- 
 sonal and civil liberty? Your allusion to the 
 Presbyterian minister now in the state-prison 
 of New-York, is legitimate. We mourn over 
 such men— we depose them from their office; 
 for we do not think, with your church, that a 
 man may, like Judas, be a good Pope, and 
 yet a bad man. The history of your Popes 
 is the blackest page of human story. The 
 
 moral of " bad man and good Pope" reminds 
 us of the Archbishop, (he was also a prince) 
 who swore profanely in the presence of a 
 peasant; the peasant exclaimed with surprise, 
 " Archbishop, do you swear P" " No," he re- 
 plied, " / swear as a prince." " Then," said 
 the peasant, " When Satan comes for the 
 prince, what will become of the archbishop?" 
 I will refer to only one other evasion of 
 yours. You answer my statement, that the 
 Pope held a great anniversary at Rome, to bless 
 all sorts of beasts (while he curses Bible so- 
 cieties) with an unworthy levity, about " a 
 similar operation over a good piece of beef." 
 I have been accustomed to think that such 
 a service was thanking God, and asking 
 his blessing on ourselves, not on the food we 
 eat. But the superstition and darkness of that 
 Pontiff who can encourage such an anniversa- 
 ry, and the degraded condition of "the Mother 
 and Mistress of churches," who can uphold 
 such a celebration, remain still unexplained. 
 If, however, the blessings were confined to 
 dead beasts, and the anathemas removed from 
 living men ivho circulate the Bible, it might 
 be pitied, if not defended. 
 
 Your objections on the points of infant bap- 
 tism, the change of the Sabbath, and the prac- 
 tices of our church as to the pastoral relation, 
 surely have little to do with the rule of faith. 
 The 1st and 2d come appropriately under the 
 subject of tradition, on which you yet are si- 
 lent. I will here only say that we find satis- 
 factory proof for all the three practices in the 
 word of God ; or we would discard them. We 
 reject not testimony which sustains our doc- 
 trines; (not opinions) but we look not to " un- 
 written tradition" for their support ; and " if 
 the candlestick of the Roman angel were re- 
 moved to-morrow," we lose not a jot of proof 
 on any subject, except that of the depravity 
 of man. But more of this hereafter, when, 
 providence permitting, we hope to satisfy you 
 in still further defending and illustrating the 
 true rule of faith, i. e. the Holy Spirit speak- 
 ing in the Bible. 
 
 I have been informed that Bishop Kenrick 
 did, on the 17th of February last, in St. Mary's 
 church, (Philadelphia) publicly warn the peo- 
 ple against reading this controversy. I ask, 
 is this true or not? If it be, it is not only a 
 manifest interference, but a portentous intima- 
 tion. 
 
 I remain, Sir, yours, &c. 
 
 John Breckinridge. 
 
CONTROVERSY N°. 7. 
 
 Rei!e of Fallla. 
 
 Philadelphia, March 15, 1833. 
 
 To the Rev. John Breckinridge. 
 
 Rev. Sir, — The first paragraph of your 
 last letter, purports to be an epitome of our 
 preliminary arrangements, and of the victo- 
 ries you have gained since the campaign has 
 been regularly opened. In reference to the 
 former 1 had thought, that our readers must 
 have been sufficiently punished by the pub- 
 lication of a correspondence which was as 
 tedious as it was puerile. Ten minutes 
 frank conversation would have settled the 
 rules of this discussion. The perusal of 
 those letters, like Swift's meditation on a 
 broomstick, showed how much could be made 
 of a trifle. Finally, however, we reached 
 the goal; the rules were arranged and signed 
 by mutual agreement. If there is any thing 
 more to be said on the subject, let it be re- 
 served for the Appendix. But I cannot con- 
 sent that these same rules which cost us so 
 much trouble, should be construed into mere 
 " modes and forms." You, indeed, have 
 hitherto treated them as svch, and thus com- 
 pelled me to expose your violation of them. 
 If I had compared the Protestant rule of 
 faith, with Calvin's blasphemy, in asserting 
 that God is the author of sin, and that Jesus 
 Christ spoke ironically, when he directed 
 the young man in the Gospel to keep the 
 commandments, such reasoning would have 
 been violating the rules. Because it would 
 have been taking for granted, what you deny, 
 but you, on the contrary, have assailed all 
 those doctrines of our church which Pi-otes- 
 tants have rejected; and instead of compar- 
 ing our rule of faith with your own defini- 
 tion of the true principle, you appeal to 
 the tribunal of prejudice where it had been 
 already condemned! I say that the doc- 
 trines of the Catholic Church are the true 
 doctrines of Jesus Christ — and that Protes- 
 tants in rejecting them, have forsaken the 
 fountains of living water, and digged to 
 themselves broken cisterns. But I should 
 be sorry to make this assertion the basis of 
 an argument against your rule of faith. For 
 you would very properly say, that I was beg- 
 ging the question by such a procedure. It 
 
 seems you find the strict principles of logic 
 irksome, and all things considered, I am not 
 surprised at it. Nevertheless, they are and 
 must continue to be the polar star of this dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 But then your victories! "You have ex- 
 posed our rule"—" you have proved its ut- 
 ter fallibility" — "you have shown that our 
 church has varied in doctrine from age to 
 a<re " — "you have shown that our rule is not 
 only entirely fallible, but greatly evil," not 
 only "greatly evil" — but it " usurps the 
 prerogatives of God" — not only "it usurps 
 the prerogatives of God," but it " is in- 
 compatible WITH PERSONAL OR CIVIL LI- 
 BERTY," &c. In short, one is at a loss to imag- 
 ine what it is, that you have not "shown." 
 And what was my reply to all these "show- 
 ings?" Chiefly that they violate the rules"!!! 
 
 Among the ancient Romans, it was for the 
 Senate to vote the honours of a triumph; 
 and to you I need not hint, that the patience 
 with which a Roman General, at the head of 
 his victorious legions, waited the decision of 
 the Senate, furnishes a beautiful example of 
 republican modesty, — and, conveys a moral. 
 It was only in the degenerate times, when 
 boys were emperors, and emperors were ty- 
 rants, that it became fashionable for a man 
 to wreath his own brows with the laurel of 
 victory— for having simply "marched an 
 army up the hill, then marched them down 
 
 again." , 
 
 Still, on the subject of what you have 
 "shown" and "proved" and accomplished, all 
 our readers will form theirown judgment. That 
 you intended to do all you have said, I make 
 not the least doubt; but beware of the " doc- 
 trine of intentions." For be assured, that 
 whatever opinion you may form of your own 
 labours, the public begin to look upon your 
 situation, (in reference to the rule of 
 faith at least,) as somewhat like that of 
 Pyrrhus, when he exclaimed, on the battle 
 field: "Give me another victory like this, 
 and I am ruined." 
 
 In my last letter, I said that one^ or two 
 of your assertions were "untrue." I ex- 
 pressed at the same time, my regret that you 
 
50 
 
 had left it in my power, or rather compelled 
 me, so to characterize them. For religion 
 always suffers, when they, who profess to 
 be her ministers, violate, even in the 
 slightest degree, those sacred principles of 
 moral integrity which constitute the bond of 
 well-ordained society, and the foundation of 
 honour; — even as it is understood in the ordi- 
 nary transactions and intercourse of men. 
 It was on this ground, that I considered the 
 "task painful.'''' I did not, nor do I now, 
 make the slightest charge against you per- 
 sonally; but I perceived that my suggestion 
 to be cautious in quoting authorities, had 
 been slighted. I perceived from your letter 
 to the young lady in Baltimore, that you 
 were ready to take up, as loeapons of destruc- 
 tion, those antiquated calumnies, by which 
 the "delusion" of Protestantism has sus- 
 tained itself, against the apostolical evidences 
 of the Catholic religion for the last three 
 hundred years. And that, without intending 
 it, perhaps, you would copy the falsehoods, 
 which have been asserted one thousand times 
 by your predecessors in controversy, and as 
 often refuted by mine. I perceived that 
 you had forgotten the Philosophy of the 
 Holy Scripture, which tells us " the Ethio- 
 pian cannot change the colour of his skin," 
 nor "the leopard his spots," — that the pro- 
 position, which was false, when it was as- 
 serted, for the first time, cannot become true, 
 by multitudinous repetition. All this I had 
 perceived before we began this controversy. 
 My experience since, has not disappointed 
 my anticipations. I told you that Usher, 
 was a Protestant Archbishop; although vou 
 had placed him side by side with St. Thomas 
 Aquinas as a faithful expositor of Catholic 
 doctrine; — you were candid enough since, to 
 acknowledge that I was right; and to plead 
 that the error was to be ascribed to "some 
 strange mistake of printing." — But how 
 comes it that this " strange mistake;" has 
 not been corrected? How comes it, that the 
 sentence " of Usher's authority among Ro- 
 manists we need not speak" — is still going 
 the rounds of the Protestant newspapers, 
 for the edification of the illiterate and the 
 amusement of the learned? 
 
 In your last letter but one, you asserted 
 that " Luther was condemned for saying, 
 " it is not in the power of the church or the 
 Pope to constitute ("new") articles of 
 faith." I replied that this assertion was "un- 
 true;" and if the word seem uncourteous, you 
 must blame the poverty of the English lan- 
 guage, which could not furnish me with any 
 other to express my exact meaning. Luther's 
 
 words are these, — " Certum est in manu Ec- 
 clesise aut Papae prorsus non esse statuere ar- 
 ticulos fidei, imo nee leges morum, seu bono- 
 rum operum." £7. The literal translation of 
 which is this: "It is certain that it is not 
 in the power of the church or the Pope to 
 define or determine articles of faith, nor 
 even laws of morals or good works." In 
 your first translation you inserted the word 
 ' new' before 'articles,' in your second, you 
 deem it more prudent to leave it out — And 
 yet you have the courage to say, that your 
 second version is "word for word whvt 
 you had said before !" Let the reader 
 compare them. It was yourself, Rev'd Sir, 
 and not Luther, that spoke of new articles 
 of faith. Here then is my first plea for 
 having said the assertion was "untrue." 
 
 My second is, that Luther, thanks to his 
 Catholic education, was too good a classical 
 scholar, to use the word " statuere''' if he had 
 meant exclusively "to create," or — according 
 to the liberal translation which you first gave 
 it, to " constitute new articles of faith." Every 
 one the least acquainted with Ecclesiastical 
 language knows that statuere, is a kind of 
 standing or technical word, to express the 
 judgment of a council or other authoritative 
 body, in determining questions, or deciding 
 controversies. If this is not sufficient, let 
 us recur back to the good old Latin times, 
 when Livy said, "Statuere terminos" — "to 
 fix, settle or determine the boundaries." — 
 Cicero, "Statuere documentum" — "to de- 
 liver instruction." — Plautus, " statuere na- 
 vem" — " to bring the ship to anchor." This, 
 according to your vocabulary, ought, I sup- 
 pose, to be translated — " to constitute a new 
 ship" — or, "create a ship.'' And yet, you 
 say, towards the close of your last letter 
 " What I have said above of Leo the tenth's 
 condemnation of Luther, plainly shows that 
 you (Mr. Hughes) differ from him, and that 
 he claimed the right not only to " define," 
 but to " create" articles of faith, and impose 
 them on men for their belief/" 
 
 My third plea is, that the Bull of Leo X. 
 censured, enmasse, all the forty-one proposi- 
 tions of Luther. One of which was, that the 
 "Contrition, which a man conceives from 
 considering the multitude, grievousness, and 
 defilement of his sin; — the loss of heaven, 
 and exposure to hell; — that this kind of con- 
 trition or repentance makes him a hypocrite 
 and a greater sinner. (1) This was one of 
 the propositions. 
 
 (1.) u Contritio quae paratur per discus- 
 sionem, collationem, et detestationem pec- 
 
51 
 
 How then, Rev. Sir, came you to assert 
 and repeat, that " Leo X. condemned Lu- 
 ther simply " for saying,^ (what in fact 
 Luther never meant to say) " that it is not 
 in the power of the church or the Pope to 
 constitute new articles of faith?" In refer- 
 ence to this matter, therefore, without pre- 
 tending to much knowledge, I must decline 
 being protected bytheshield of " ignorance," 
 which you have charitably offered me. If 
 you have no use for it, you might hang it up 
 amidst the other trophies of your victory. 
 Thus it is, that you are warranted in say- 
 ing, that "the nerves of my cause are cracking 
 under the pressure of truth!" 
 
 But, it is difficult to conceive, how you 
 could have imagined that Bishop Kenrick 
 ever dreamt of " publicly'- (or even private- 
 ly) " warning the people against reading this 
 controversy." Be assured, Rev. Sir, that he 
 regards as too precious, this opportunity of 
 letting the people see, what kind of tceapons 
 are employed on your side, in assailing the 
 everlasting foundations of their religion. 
 They, certainly, invade no man's rights, 
 when they claim the simple faculty of know- 
 ing what they believe; — and in the enjoy- 
 ment of this faculty, they are highly amused 
 at the successive portraits of their belief, 
 which proceed from your pencil. The Pope, 
 or a General Council, if any doctrinal con- 
 troversy were to arise in the church, might 
 determine what they ought to believe; but 
 you go a little farther, and tell them exactly 
 what they do believe. Bishop Kenrick has 
 too great a zeal for the religion of Christ, not 
 to allow the reading of this controversy: and 
 if there were any doubts in the minds of Ca- 
 tholics as to the divine origin of their faith, 
 the perusal of your letters would be quite 
 as effectual in removing them, as that of 
 mine. What will even Protestants conclude, 
 when they perceive, that you labour to sup- 
 port your positions by assertions, which are 
 untrue? Shall I quote another instance? In 
 your letter No. 4. of this controversy you as- 
 sert, that " the catechism of the Council of 
 Trent, repeats only four words of the second 
 commandment, and closes with an expressive 
 et " cmtera." Now, every Catholic through- 
 
 catorum, qua quis recogitet annos suos in 
 amaritudine animae suse, ponderando pecca- 
 torum gravitatem, multitudinem, fceditatem, 
 amissionem asternse beatitudinis, ac aeternae 
 damnationis acquisitionem, hsec contritio 
 facit hypocritam, imo magis peccatorem." 
 Luther's 6th proposition included in the Bull 
 of Leo X. 
 
 out the world, that ever read the Catechism 
 of the council of Trent, knows that this as- 
 sertion is untrue! (2) And still you begin 
 your last letter with a flourish of trumpets to 
 sound my defeat, and proclaim that " the 
 nerves of my cause are cracking under the 
 pressure of truth. v Protestants themselves 
 will begin to learn the real state of the case; 
 — and the means, by which their religious 
 opinions are vindicated, will begin to have a 
 reflex operation which you little suspect. 
 
 Will the public deem it too much, if I re- 
 quest you to correct these assertions? — and 
 henceforward to quote the entire passage or 
 text of our authors, on which you build an 
 argument? 
 
 Since your allusion to Bishop Kenrick has 
 led me into this episode, I may as well close 
 it with a little incident which occurred to 
 myself last Spring, and does not therefore 
 depend on "information." I happened to 
 go into the session room of the " General 
 Assembly," and found the "Bishops" en- 
 gaged in settling a question, which I soon 
 discovered to be interesting, viz. "Whether 
 baptism, administered by a Catholic Priest, 
 is valid? A committee, it seems, had been 
 appointed to draw up a report, which was 
 being read when I entered. The committee 
 had decided in the negative, and in support 
 of this decision, reported a variety of rea- 
 sons, with two of which I was particularly 
 struck. One was, that they (Catholic Priests) 
 baptize in Latin; as if infants were not quite 
 as well acquainted with this language, as 
 with any other. The second was, that they 
 (Catholic Priests) baptize with oil — a 
 discovery reported on the authority of a cer- 
 tain Doctor, I think, of Maryland. It was 
 listened to with great, but silent solemnity — 
 although there were at the moment five bap- 
 tismal founts, in as many Catholic churches, 
 within half a mile of where the Assembly 
 was sitting: — and though it is known to all 
 the world that the Catholic baptism is, and 
 ever has been, with water. I retired from 
 the presence of these "Teachers in Israel," 
 revolving in my mind, the words of our bles- 
 sed Redeemer; " If, in the green wood, they 
 do these things, what shall be done in the 
 dry ?" 
 
 But to return to your assertions. You 
 stated that it is a principle of Catholics, "that 
 if the Pope were to command vice and pro- 
 hibit virtue, he is to be obeyed." Now it 
 is a fact, that Bellarmine, to whom you re- 
 
 (2.) Pars III. de Decal. obser. De primo 
 praecepto C. I. 16. 
 
52 
 
 fer, (3) used these words, to express the ab- 
 surd and impious consequence, that would 
 flow from the opinion which he was then 
 refuting! Just as I argued that the Protes- 
 tant rule of faith, as exemplified in the case 
 of the " Collier," would lead to the impious 
 alternative, that "Christ was a juggler." 
 "XV i 1 1 you have the courage to deny, that Bel- 
 larmine made the statement, to show the 
 absurd and immoral consequence that would 
 flow from the argument he was refuting? 
 "What then will Protestants think of such 
 pei'versions? — Again, you refer to the 16th 
 canon of the 3d Council of Lateran, on the 
 " validity of oaths'' — to show that, according 
 to Catholic doctrine, "an oath contrary to 
 ecclesiastical utility is perjury, not an oath!" 
 (Mr. Breckinridge — conclusion of Letter No. 
 2.) Now what is the fact? That the Coun- 
 cil was legislating on cases of ecclesiastical 
 elections, where a factious minority pleaded 
 the obligation of a previous oath, to justify 
 their dissent from the voice and vote of the 
 majority. {A) Just as if the Supreme Court 
 were to say, that an oath, taken under the 
 late " Ordinance" of South Carolina, is to be 
 considered not an oath, but rather perjury. 
 What will Protestants think of ti his perver- 
 sion? or of the cause which required it? 
 "Will you have the candour to publish the 
 errata ? 
 
 If, instead of being the advocate of truth, 
 I were merely the representative of a party, 
 I might triumph in this exposition, which / 
 challenge you to contravene. But /am not 
 the person to enjoy such a triumph; and it 
 would have been infinitely more grateful to 
 my feelings, both as a Christian and as a 
 man, if you had spared me the necessity of 
 making this exposure. 
 
 Another point, on which we are at is- 
 sue, is the " Pope's supremacy." You had 
 
 (3.) " Secundo, quia tunc necessario erra- 
 ret, etiam circa fidem. Nam fides Catholica 
 docet omnem virtutem esse bonam, omne viti- 
 vm esse malum: Si autem Papa erraret, pras- 
 cipiendo vitia, vel prohibendo virtutes, tenere- 
 tur Ecclesia credere vitia esse bona et vir- 
 tutes esse mala, nisi vellet contra conscien- 
 tiam peccare.'' Bellarmine, Lib. iv. de Rom. 
 Pont. C. V. 
 
 _ (4.) Nee n ns tram constitutionem impediat, 
 si forte aliquis ad conservandam Ecclesia? 
 suee consuetudinem juramento se dicat ad- 
 slriclum: non enim dicenda sunt juramenta, 
 sed potius perjuria, quae contra utilitatem 
 Ecclesiasticam et sanctorum Patrum veniunt 
 instituta" Con. Lat. C. xvi. 
 
 asserted that on this subject " there are no 
 less than three systems in our church." 
 This assertion I pronounced to be, what it is, 
 "untrue." I gave you the whole universe, 
 and challenged you to name so much as one 
 Catholic, who denied the Pope's supremacy! 
 You have not been able to discover one. 
 The supremacy of the Pope and the infalli- 
 bility of the church, are articles of Catholic 
 faith and doctrine: — and on no point of Ca- 
 tholic doctrine are there three, or even two 
 systems, in our church. We have one Lord, 
 one faith, and one baptism. You refer to the 
 authority of the Council of Basle — but that 
 Council became a spurious assembly, after 
 the Pope's legates, and the greater part of 
 the Bishops, retired from it to Ferrara— and 
 those, who remained, had about as much au- 
 thority to define a tenet of Catholic doctrine, 
 as Luther had to excommunicate the Pope, 
 which he did right manfully, by way of re- 
 turning a compliment, which his Holiness 
 had recently paid him. 2dly. Even this spu- 
 rious remnant of a Council did not pass any 
 decree affecting the dogma of the Pope's su- 
 premacy. That, which you have quoted, re- 
 lates to a supposed case, in which an actual 
 Pope and an actual Council, should be op- 
 posed to each other, and it was decided that 
 in such a case the preponderance of authority 
 should belong to the Council. This decision, 
 though emanating from a spurious source, 
 and founded on hypothesis, does not even 
 question the Pope's supremacy as an article of 
 Catholic doctrine. Devoti's testimony has 
 reference, in the very text, to the Pope's in- 
 fallibility, which is not an article of faith, 
 but between which and supremacy, it seems 
 you are unable, or unwilling to make a dis- 
 tinction. These, then, are your first two 
 systems. — The third, you tell us, " deifies 
 the Pope" — this acknowledges the very ple- 
 nitude of supremacy. But how can you be 
 serious, when you make this assertion? If 
 some of our citizens were to theorize on the 
 constitution of our government — one school 
 teaching that Congress is superior to the 
 President — another, that the President is su- 
 perior to Congress — would that circumstance 
 warrant an English traveller to publish to 
 his countrymen, that the " Americans are 
 divided into two systems" on the subject of 
 the President's supre?nacy, as chief magistrate 
 of the whole republic? And if some orator, 
 in the glow of patriotic reminiscence, which 
 the fourth of July usually inspires, should 
 happen to say, "the god-like Washington, 
 the saviour of his country," would that prove 
 that the " Americans deify their Presidents?" 
 
53 
 
 / 
 Here are "three systems," on which even I canon of Scripture held by the Council of 
 
 .. .•'..... r. . ■ -r l nrt . • it.. iL.i „„*<■!„, J U_ iU„ 
 
 Mrs. Trollope could build a fine tale, if she 
 could only induce people to believe it. But, 
 just lend me the "Protestant rule of faith" 
 for a few minutes, and I will prove from 
 Scripture, that it is right to call the Pope 
 God. " You are Gods." Psalms Ixxxi. 6. — 
 *• I have appointed thee God of Pharaoh." 
 Exod. vii. 1. — See also Exod. xxii. 28. John 
 x. 34. Now, Rev. Sir, I return you your 
 rule of faith, and hope you will be satisfied 
 with my proof, since "I give you chapter and 
 verse for it." But as to the "three systems" 
 of doctrine in our church on the subject of 
 the Pope's supremacy, — you might as well 
 look for " three suns" in the heavens. 
 Throughout the whole universe there is but 
 one system of doctrine among Catholics on 
 this point. Every proposition asserting the 
 contrary is " untrue." Name, if you can, a 
 Catholic in the whole world, who has pub- 
 licly denied that supremacy, without break- 
 ing the bond of communion and membership, 
 which united him to the church. 
 
 We have now arrived at your review of 
 my arguments in favour of the Catholic rule 
 of faith. In my last letter I gave the authority 
 of Scripture to prove that Jesus Christ esta- 
 blished a Church, by giving a divine commis- 
 sion to his apostles and their legitimate suc- 
 cessors, until the end of the world — that this 
 commission extended to the teaching of all 
 nations — that to this commission he attached 
 the attribute of his own infallibility. "As 
 the Father hath sent me, so do I send you" — 
 "He that hears you, hear me; and he, that 
 despises you, despises me; and he that des- 
 pises me, despises him that sent me." 
 
 How did you, Rev. Sir, answer these ar- 
 guments? Did you deny the authorities? 
 Did you detect error in the reasoning? Did 
 you accuse me of illogical deductions? Not 
 at all. You have recourse to the old me- 
 thod of distortion; and tell us that my rule 
 of faith is " in substance this:" "the Holy 
 Catholic Church is the living infallible in- 
 terpreter of Scripture." And then you de- 
 duce your own consequence from your own 
 distortion of my argument. "Now it will 
 be borne in mind, that before any church 
 can interpret, it must know what is to be 
 interpreted." — " What do you mean by the 
 Holy Scriptures?" — "the Council of Trent 
 has settled the question, &c. '' — And then 
 having worked out the distortion to your own 
 purposes, you tilt away at the Council of 
 Trent, and affect to wonder that I did not 
 begin by settling the canon of Scripture, in- 
 stead of proving "the rule of faith!" The 
 
 Trent, is the same that was settled by the 
 Council of Carthage in 397. And if John 
 Calvin, in the \6th century, thought proper 
 to become a Protestant against some books of 
 that canon, it is for his followers to look to if. 
 But when you say that the "Jews, our Lord 
 Jesus, the apostles, and early fathers, unite 
 to exclude them from the canon" — you 
 make another of those assertions which might 
 be indecorous to call by its proper appella- 
 tion. 
 
 It docs not appear that " our Lord Jesus " 
 or "the apostles" ever determined or wrote 
 upon the subject of such exclusion, which 
 they certainly would have done, if the 
 "Scripture alone" had been intended as the 
 rule of Christian faith. 
 
 Your next alternative to evade the conse- 
 quences flowing from the commission given to 
 Jesus Christ to his apostles, is to collate with it, 
 those texts which communicated the power of 
 miracles. — These certainly do not destroy the 
 commission which extended to "all nations 
 in all days, even to the consummation of the 
 world." Now either the apostles had succes- 
 sors, for the discharge of the commission, or 
 they had not. If they had, then your position 
 is untenable. If they had not, then please to 
 tell us, what Christ could have meant by com- 
 manding the teaching of all nations during 
 all days, even until the end of the world. 
 Was he speaking ironically ? — If they had 
 not — what did St. Paul mean, by saying of 
 the Christian ministry, no man taketh this ho- 
 nour to himself, but lie who is called of God, 
 as was Aaron? What did he mean, by ap- 
 ])ointing Titus and Timothy, and instructing 
 them to appoint other faithful men for the 
 discharge of the same commission? 
 
 The little sophism, about the meaning of 
 the word apostle (one sent,) has not the merit 
 of much ingenuity. However, according to 
 your logic, in order to "be sent" one must 
 have "seen the Lord," and as the second 
 generation had not seen the Lord, therefore the 
 apostles had no successors!! But pray, did 
 the commission to teach all nations during all 
 days, extend only to those who had seen the 
 Lord? Did it also expire with " the last 
 apostle?" If it was discharged in the second 
 generation, were not those by whom it was 
 discharged, in so much, the regular suc- 
 cessors of the apostles? This is what I con- 
 tend for. Had General Washington, no 
 successors in the Presidency of this Repub- 
 lic, for the very logical reason, that they 
 succeeded him, "and their appointment differ- 
 ed,in some circumstances from his? Jesus Christ 
 
54 
 
 gave a commission extending to all nations 
 "and^aU ages of the world. Mr. Breckinridge 
 says that the commission ceased to be dis- 
 charged after the first generation, — inasmuch 
 as it wasgiven to the twelve apostles, who liv- 
 ed but a few years and "had no successors." 
 Which shall we believe? Do not the society of 
 "Friends" view baptism, and the Universal 
 ists, everlasting punishment, in the same ar- 
 bitrary lights of analogy? And if your as- 
 sertion on this subject be credited, will it 
 not become natural, or rather unavoidable, 
 for men to believe that Jesus Christ was mere- 
 ly sporting with human language, and im- 
 mortal souls? 
 
 But how comes it, that even Presbyterian 
 clergymen apply to themselves (when it suits 
 them,) everytext,by which the Son of God com- 
 missioned his apostles to " teach all nations:" 
 — to preach the Gospel to every creature, and 
 to evangelize the world? Is it not a contradic- 
 tion in terms for them to claim the authority of 
 a succession which they deny? It is no wonder 
 that the ranks of infidelity should thicken 
 around us. As long as the human mind is go- 
 verned by the ordinary laws, men must and 
 will \ook for consistency somewhere: — either in 
 the desperate alternative of total scepticism, 
 or in the bosom of the Catholic church, from 
 which their fathers separated. When we hear 
 you asserting that the " apostles had no succes- 
 sors," would it not be proper that some one 
 should move at the next General Assembly, 
 that the following article be expunged from 
 the " Westminster Confession of Faith:" 
 
 " To these (church officers) the keys of the 
 kingdom of heaven are committed, by virtue 
 whereof they have power to retain and remit 
 sins, to shut that kingdom against the impeni- 
 tent, both by the word and censure; and to 
 open it unto penitent sinners by the ministry 
 of the Gospel, and by absolution from cen- 
 sures, as occasion shall require." Chap. xxx. 
 art. 11. page 166. 
 
 These are modest pretensions for gentle- 
 men who assert that the Apostles had no 
 successors. Now I had always thought that 
 these same keys belonged to St. Peter and 
 his successors. I know by whom and to 
 whom they were originally given, and to 
 whom they still belong, if priority of title and 
 possession be admitted. But as Mr. Breck- 
 inridge had informed me, that the Apostles 
 had no successors, I was at a loss to imagine 
 what had become of the "keys;'' — until 
 peeping into the " Confession of Faith," I 
 learned to my great edification, that they had 
 been miraculously discovered at Westmin- 
 ster, England, in the year of our Lord, 
 
 1647, and graciously fastened, by act of Par- 
 liament, to the belt of the Presbyterian 
 Church! 
 
 The whole of your strange position, against 
 the institution of the " Catholic rule of faith," 
 is founded on the assertion, that the " Apos- 
 tles had no successors" — an assertion, which 
 is inconsistent with the character and extent 
 of the commission given by" the Saviour. 
 How could Christ impart such a commission 
 tcithout providing for Us fulfilment; and how 
 could he provide for its fulfilment, without a 
 succession in the ministry of teaching? 
 Therefore, unless you make it appear, that 
 Christ has deceived us, it will follow as a ne- 
 cessary consequence, according to the proofs 
 and reasoning of my last letter, that the 
 promise of infallibility was made to the 
 Apostles, and the Pastors of the churches, 
 their legitimate successors, in the ministry of 
 teaching all nations, during all days, even to 
 the consummation of time:— and not to the pri- 
 vate interpretation of the Bible. Consequent- 
 ly, that the Catholic rule of faith is the true 
 rule, having been "established by the Son of 
 God himself." 
 
 I said that this Catholic rule is infallible, and 
 in your reply, you "grant that if it was es- 
 tablished by Christ, it is infallible." But then 
 you say, that you have proved that Christ 
 did not establish our rule, and my conclusion 
 falls to the ground. Indeed, Rev. Sir, the 
 language of Christ, the language and prac- 
 tice of the Jipostles, the practice of the Chris- 
 tian church for 1800 years, and your own 
 Confession of Faith stand against you, and 
 show that you have proved no such thing. 
 And if you had much confidence in either the 
 strength or evidence of your "proofs," so call- 
 ed, — it would have been superfluous in you 
 to attempt the exposition of its fallibility. 
 You say, that " it is not self-evident that our 
 church is infallible, or our rule the true one. 
 By what process then," you ask me, " do I 
 apply these texts to the proof of my rule?" 
 You answer the question yourself. "The 
 process of private interpretation.'" On this 
 question and answer you build an argument, to 
 show that I arrive at the proofs of the divine 
 establishment of the Catholic rule, by my 
 own private interpretation of the Scrip- 
 lures: — and so, that I am obliged to have 
 recourse to the Protestant principle in the 
 last resort. I had answered this objec- 
 tion, before it was written, by showing that in 
 the Catholic church every doctrine, and every 
 proof of every doctrine, is reduced to a simple 
 matter of fact: — That these texts have been 
 understood, as I have used them, in all coun- 
 
53 
 
 tries and ages: — That their authority, mere- 
 ly as historical evidence, establishes the 
 point, and shows that Christ instituted a 
 ministry of teaching, to transmit to all 
 nations the knowledge of the doctrines, 
 which he revealed: — That to this ministry 
 he promised his own perpetual presence — all 
 of which are facts, with which the principle 
 of private interpretation has as little to do, 
 as it has with ascertaining whether or not 
 the city of Philadelphia was founded by Wil- 
 liam Penn. For the farther proof of this, I 
 refer the reader to my own arguments in the 
 last letter, which you took good care not to 
 assail. 
 
 Your next position may be called the ar- 
 gument of confusion. " Either the Pope is 
 infallible, or the Council: or both united: or 
 the universal church. It seems not to be 
 agreed among yourselves, where infallibility 
 is lodged, and thefore even at the threshold 
 a great difficulty arises." Christ, Rev. Sir, 
 was not less the Son of God, because "he 
 was a scandal to the Jews and p. stumbling 
 block to the Gentiles." The distorted por- 
 traits which Protestant writers have drawn 
 of the infallibility, as well as of the other doc- 
 trines of the Catholic church, may, indeed, 
 raise difficulties at the "threshold," and pre- 
 judice may regard them as insurmountable. 
 fte can see no difficulty whatever. Every 
 definition of doctrine and morals by a Gene- 
 ral Council is infallible. It was of such de- 
 finitions (according to Catholic interpretation) 
 that Christ said: "He that hears you hears 
 wie,"and"he, that will nothearthechurch, let 
 him be to thee as the heathen and the publi- 
 can." No Council is General or CEcumenical 
 without the pope's concurrence. Consequent- 
 ly, the spiritual empire of Christ is not divi- 
 ded in the Catholic church. A man may be 
 a very good Catholic, without inquiring, 
 whether the Pope is officially infallible or not. 
 He may even hold it as an opinion, that he 
 is not infallible, and neither Priest, nor 
 Bishop, nor Pope will frown upon him 
 for his opinion. The Pastors of the church 
 are not, like the Reformers of the sixteenth 
 century, the creators, but they are merely 
 the guardians and expositors of the doc- 
 trines, which they derived from Jesus Christ 
 and his apostles. They are the witness- 
 es of truth, and they are warranted by 
 a sacred authority, to reject even " an an- 
 gel from heaven," if that angel attempt to 
 preach another doctrine besides that which 
 they have received. They all teach the same 
 doctrines. But let me show your argument in 
 a light, which does not require the use of a 
 
 " sectarian telescope." All Americans agree 
 that these United States are independent. 
 Now would it be an argument against this 
 independence, if any one should raise "diffi- 
 culties," by asking where this independence 
 " is lodged'' — whether in the President — or 
 in the Congress — or in both united — or in 
 the whole Republic? Is not the promise of 
 Jesus Christ, that he would be with the 
 apostles and their successors in the ministry 
 of "teaching" until the end of the world, as 
 good a guarantee, for the infallibility of the 
 Church, as the immortal " declaration" is, 
 for the independence of our country? Would 
 Christ be with a ministry, which is supposed 
 by Protestant opinions, to have been teach- 
 ing error and idolatry for a thousand years 
 before the " Reformation" was born, or for 
 three hundred since. If he was not, what 
 became of his pledge and promises? Do you 
 not perceive, Rev'd Sir, how questionable 
 your assertions would render the veracity of 
 Christ? And how they tend to shake the 
 very foundations of Christianity? Do you 
 imagine that the fulfilment of these promises, 
 is to be overturned by a rule of grammar? — 
 "Two negatives make an affirmative." 
 
 I must now show the reader, what a che- 
 mico-logical process the arguments of my 
 last letter were doomed to undergo in New 
 Ywrk. " I remark," says Mr. Breckinridge, 
 "that your reasoning, as to an infallible 
 'rule of faith,' if well founded, leads us to 
 reject every system, that does not make all 
 men perfect. For you agree that Christ has 
 established an infallible rule to guide us in 
 matters of religion, as well as to settle dis- 
 putes in his church. You argue, that a rule, 
 which does not settle disputes, as to doctrine, 
 is fallible, and therefore, not Christ's rule. 
 Now, by parity of reasoning, a rule that 
 does not regulate jiractice, so as to make an 
 end of sin, and make men perfect here, must 
 be a fallible rule." This reasoning is your 
 own, dear Sir, and I would not spoil it by a 
 single word of comment. 
 
 You next complain that I should have ad- 
 duced the arguments of Volney, Priestly, 
 and what you call " extreme heresies," to 
 show the inconclusiveness of your reasoning, 
 against the Catholic doctrines. Unitarians, 
 Universalists, &c. (whom, I suppose, you in- 
 tend to designate by "extreme heresies") are 
 the legitimate descendants of the Protestant 
 rule of faith. And, if every man has a right 
 to interpret the meaning of the Bible for him- 
 self, it becomes something like nonsense in 
 the ear of reason, for one Protestant to call 
 the opinions of another Protestant by the 
 
56 
 
 name of "heresy." What do they, but in- 
 quire, think, and exercise the privilege 
 which you proclaim to be the right of all. 
 Will you have them to stop thinking at the 
 point where Presbyterians have halted? 
 Will you say to the ocean of their thought; 
 " hitherto thou shalt come, but no farther?'''' 
 That ocean is too boundless to be hemmed in 
 by the " Westminster Confession." Its 
 course is onward — and the present condition 
 of Protestants in Germany, where infidelity 
 is preached from the pulpit, and proved from 
 the Bible, by the Protestant rule of faith, 
 shows how it can sweep away the feeble 
 remnants of Christianity, that were spared 
 by the first Reformation. 
 
 Your frequent charges against the Catholic 
 church, for " restricting the freedom of the 
 press;" — "claiming the government of king- 
 doms :" — " establishing the inquisition :" — 
 " burning heretics:" — " encouraging extended 
 and bloody massacres of the Waldenses and 
 Huguenots," and a hundred other sins which 
 she never committed, certainly do not prove 
 the " Protestant rule of faith," nor disprove 
 that, which Christ established. Childhood, full 
 grown ignorance, grey-haired prejudice, and 
 last, (though not least,) ladies of delicate nerves, 
 may be frightened by these tales of horror in- 
 conceivable ! But to these their effect will be 
 exclusively confined. I dislike recrimination, 
 but you will not take it amiss, if I remind you, 
 inter nos, that the standard of Presnyterian- 
 ism in the United States of America, and in 
 the nineteenth century, makes it a sin against 
 the second commandment of God, " to tole- 
 rate a false religion." It is true the General 
 Assembly have not as yet told us, what reli- 
 gions are to be regarded as "false." But I 
 cannot well understand how the Presbyterian 
 conscience can be at peace with itself, or 
 *' the Great Head of the Church," as long as 
 it is burthened with this sin of toleration. 
 In my last letter, in order to exhibit the delu- 
 sion of the Protestant rule of faith, I intro- 
 duced an uneducated ''Collier," to whose ex- 
 perience and judgment I refer the reader. 
 You pass by the argument contained in the 
 paragraph, and seem to be shocked at 
 the profanity ot the poor man's language. 
 But, Rev. Sir, these are times when men's 
 minds must be braced up, so as not to be 
 shocked at any consequence flowing from 
 the common fountain of Protestant error, in- 
 consistency and extravagance: I mean, the 
 pretended competency of private opinion to 
 interpret the religion of Jesus Christ from 
 the voiceless pages of the Bible. I defy any 
 man, reasoning from the same premises, to 
 
 arrive at a conclusion different from that of 
 the "Collier." You have not condescended 
 to show us how it is even possible to escape 
 it. You represent me as calling the Bible a 
 fallible guide, because, as you say, " men 
 may and will wrest it." No, Sir — but I am 
 arguing against the fallible and fallacious 
 principle of private-interpretation, by which 
 the Bible is degraded into a a book of con- 
 tradictions, and made to decide for and 
 against even the most sacred points of doc- 
 trine — Baptism, the Lord's Supper, the or- 
 der of Bishops, the existence of hell, the 
 Divinty of Christ, and the Trinity of Persons 
 in the Godhead ! All this was illustrated, 
 in the case of the Collier. Now, although you 
 admit that " men may and will wrest it," I 
 do not see why one denomination of Protes- 
 tants may not be as sincere in its opinions 
 about the meaning ef the Bible as another. 
 And as "the Protestant rule of faith" is in- 
 capable of producing any thing but opinions, 
 I do not see, by what right, you are war- 
 ranted in saying that those, who differ from 
 you '•'•wrest the Scriptures?'''' — Albeit, the 
 question, after three hundred years, remains 
 still to be settled — but one thing is certain, 
 that Jesus Christ never revealed an opinion — 
 in the Bible, or out of it. 
 
 I have no farther explanation to give re- 
 specting the blessing of "beasts'' in Rome 
 or elsewhere — except that the inhabitants of 
 the " seven hills," would I suppose, be very 
 much hurt, if they were to find out that you 
 disapprove of it. But I would simply ask 
 you to gratify the public with the document, 
 in which you find that the Roman Pontiff has 
 pronounced "anathemas against living men 
 who circulate the Bible.''' 
 
 You have a brief, but comprehensive reply 
 to the departure from the Protestant Rule, 
 which I pointed out in the " Confession of 
 Faith," on the subject of Infant Baptism, the 
 Sabbath and the Ordination of Ministers. 
 "You find satisfactory proof for all three in 
 the word of God:'' but you have prudently 
 declined furnishing the public with a sight 
 of it — not even a reference! This is a sum- 
 mary mode of conducting a controversy. 
 
 If I have succeeded in dissipating the va- 
 pours, which you have attempted to raise be- 
 tween the mind of the reader and the testi- 
 mony of the Holy Scriptures, the '•'-f either s, v 
 and permit me to use the expression, of 
 common sense, in support of the "Catholic 
 rule of faith" in my last letter, then your 
 task of refutation is still unaccomplished. 
 I do not accuse you of any intention to mys- 
 tify the question; but really if there are any 
 
57 
 
 arguments in your whole five columns, I 
 against the Catholic rule of faith, fits / had\ 
 laid it down and vindicated it, they are so 
 loosely jointed, that I could hardly com- j 
 press them into tangible form, and consisten- 
 cy. They are like spectres, which make a 
 transient'impression on the organ of vision, 
 but elude the grasp, that would attempt to 
 seize or hold them responsible. Perhaps 
 others may see them differently. But if any 
 man will assert, that vou have proved the 
 Protestant rule cf faith, or disproved the ar- 
 guments adduced by me, in support of the 
 Catholic principle, 1 have only to say, that 
 I do not envy the grade of his intellect, nor 
 his powers of logical discrimination. 
 
 I only regret, that you do not grapple close- 
 ly with the question— that you do not plant 
 the fulcrum of your reasoning on some solid 
 basis; thatyou do not say with that manly bold- 
 ness, which the consciousness of a good cause 
 usually inspires— Sir, the Catholic rule of 
 faith is false: — which I prove thus, It is ma- 
 nifest, that when Christ said}; " Go ye, teach 
 all nations, and behold I am with you all 
 days, even to the consummation of the world;" 
 his meaning was, that the apostles should die 
 " without successors" in the ministry of 
 teaching — that all days, and forever, signify 
 till the *< death of St.' John"— that when the 
 first creed says, " I believe, in the Holy Ca- 
 tholic Church," the true meaning is, I be- 
 lieve in every man's private interpretation of 
 the Bible but chiefly in my own." Having 
 thus proved the main position, that Christ 
 did not establish the Catholic rule of faith, 
 
 you could easily dispose of the minor difficul- 
 ties. The moral phenomenon, by which it 
 happens, that all Catholics in ullages and in 
 all nations believe the same identical doc- 
 trines, is produced manifestly, not by the 
 operation of their rule of faith, but by the 
 magic of priestcraft, the terrors of the inqui- 
 sition and the moderate tariff on the commis- 
 sion of sin. "Seven shillings and sixpence 
 for killing a Father or mother!" Only think 
 of it!! Is it any wonder that the hundreds 
 of millions of souls that belong, or have be- 
 longed to thai Church, should be united as 
 one family, in the belief of the same tenets 
 of religion? — as for the little differences of 
 opinions, which grow up under the fostering 
 protection of the " Protestant rule of faith," 
 touching the Divinity of the Messiah, fyc, 
 you might glorify them, by calling them 
 beautiful evidences of Protestant/Veedom, as 
 contrasted with Catholic subjugation to the 
 "yoke of faith," which renders them so bigot- 
 ed, that they all think alike. — " The liberty 
 of the Gospel" would be a good name. 
 
 But I suppose you will take you own way, 
 and in truth I do not claim any right of ei- 
 ther dictation or direction in the matter. If 
 you have nothing further to say against the 
 arguments of my last letter,we may return to 
 the unfinished condition in which we left the 
 Protestant rule of faith; but this also shall be 
 at your option, for I wish to be accommoda- 
 ting, whilst I remain, very respectfully, 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
 Jno. Hughes. 
 
CONTROVERSY N°. 8. 
 
 Rule of Faith. 
 
 New York, 2\st March, 1833. 
 To the Rev. John Hughes, 
 
 Rev. Sir: Your letter of March 15th, run- 
 ning far into the seventh column, reached me 
 on the 18th inst. It is hard work, you find, 
 to meet and parry stubborn facts, especially 
 when your own authors and formularies are 
 turned against you. No wonder your de- 
 fence struggles in the greatness of the way, 
 
 "And like a wounded snake, drag's its slow Jenglh along-." 
 
 I regret to see that you grow less courteous, 
 as well as more feeble and prolix; and it 
 would seem that these qualities keep pace 
 with each other, in the progress of the dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 But let us address ourselves to the question, 
 viz. The claim you set up of infallible teach- 
 ers as the successors of the apostles. In my 
 last letter, (and I think with some clearness,) 
 I proved, 
 
 I. That the apostles had in certain respects 
 no sucessors. Under this proposition, it was 
 shown, (see letter, No. 6.) 1st. That no man 
 could be an apostle who had not seen the 
 Lord. 2d. That an apostle must have re- 
 ceived his commission directly from Christ. 
 3d. Every apostle was endowed with the 
 power to work miracles, with inspiration, 
 (from which resulted infallibility) in speaking 
 and writing ; also with the gift of tongues, 
 so as to speak, untaught by men, various 
 languages; and even the power to enable 
 others to work miracles, and the knowledge 
 to discern spirits. 4th. The apostles were 
 not to be stationary; but with plenary pow- 
 er, went from nation to nation, to set up the 
 kingdom of the Lord. From these facts, 
 supported by many clear Scripture proofs, it 
 was shown that in these extraordinary re- 
 spects, they had no successors; that Christ 
 intended them to have none; and that it was 
 impossible they should have any, from the 
 very nature of the case. Wherefore, as 
 your claim to infallibility rests on the notion 
 of succession, it falls to the ground, and 
 with it your rule of faith. 
 
 Again, II. I showed that if the Apostles 
 had successors, then they must all have had 
 
 successors; and hence, if there be any Pope* 
 there must be twelve Popes; and if any 
 church has infallibility upon Apostolical suc- 
 cession, many must have it. 
 
 III. If their successors had any of these 
 miraculous powers, they must have had all 
 of them; for all are as necessary as one. 
 The attempts in your church to work mira- 
 cles, are an acknowledgment of this princi- 
 ple; while the failure proves that the power 
 is wanting. To the last two arguments, in 
 particular, I anxiously await your reply. 
 As yet I have not seen any thing like it. 
 
 Excuse me when I say, there is a want of 
 candour in your statement of this argument. 
 You represent me as holding "that the 
 Apostles had no successors." This, like 
 your quotation from Tertullian, is just one 
 half. I said, " then the conclusion is irre- 
 sistible, that the Apostles had no successors 
 endued with extraordinary powers of any 
 kind. But we hold to a commission still 
 standing and binding, which reaches to the 
 end of time!'''' (See my last letter, No. 6. 
 middle of 3d column.) I still say that the 
 Apostles had no infallible successors — none 
 such as you claim — nor have you met one 
 single point of my whole argument on this 
 subject. Your system, among other ab- 
 surdities, leads to this, that there is a suc- 
 cession or foundations. For we are told 
 (Ephes. ii. 20.) that the church "is built 
 upon the foundation of the Jlpostl.es and 
 prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the 
 chief corner stone," and thus " the whole 
 building is fitly framed together .-" and "other 
 foundation can no more lay, than that is 
 laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. iii. 
 11.) Here is the basis of truth; the only 
 foundation is inspired authority. To this, 
 the faith of every Christian must look. No 
 authority or succession can come in between 
 God's people and the Apostles, as the Pope 
 attempts to do. The Apostles themselves 
 still live in this foundation, that is, in their 
 ifallible writings; and they have no suc- 
 cessors in an office, whose force never has 
 ceased, and whose authority will never ex- 
 pire. It is therefore piling foundation on 
 
so 
 
 foundation, or defending the absurdity of a 
 succession of foundations, when you claim 
 to inherit their infallibility. But you ask, 
 *' pray did the commission to teach, all na- 
 tions, during all clays, extend only to those 
 who had seen the Lord? Did it also expire 
 with the last Apostle? If it was discharged 
 in the second generation, were not those by 
 whom it was discharged, in so much, the 
 regular successors of the Apostles?*' I an- 
 swer, certainly, the commission to " teach 
 all nations," and "to baptize them in the 
 name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
 Ghost,-' runs to the last day and the last 
 man; and the promise of the divine Redeem- 
 er, "lo! I and with you always, even unto 
 the end of the world'' — is faithful and un- 
 failing, and is perpetually realized in the 
 experience of every true minister of the 
 Gospel. And here is the very point af de- 
 fect in your system. You confound the 
 standing ministry with the apostolical office. 
 The Apostles were invested with an extra- 
 ordinary office, in which they were to have no 
 successors. This I have clearly proved. They 
 also transmitted an office, which is standing 
 and ministerial. Of such were the Elders of 
 Ephesus, (Acts, XX. 17 and 28) to whom 
 the apostle Paul said, "Take heed there- 
 fore unto yourselves, and unto the flock over 
 which the Holy Ghost hath made you over- 
 seers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath 
 purchased with his own blood." To this 
 also allusion is made, in 2 Tim. ii. 2. 
 " And the things that thou has heard of me 
 among many witnesses, the same commit 
 thou to faithful men, who shall be able to 
 teach others also." Here three links in the 
 chain of this standing ministry are distinct- 
 ly recognised. The office is ministerial and 
 pastoral, not apostolical; and the work is to 
 publish the Gospel — salvation, and to feed 
 the flock of Christ. But you profess to find 
 an insuperable difficulty in the want of in- 
 fallibility in these teachers; and your grand 
 corrective is, that as successors of the apos- 
 tles, you secure this infallibility. Now let 
 us look at this point. On your plan, every 
 preacher or teacher must be infallible. 
 When Mr. Hughes, for example, addresses 
 his flock, either he is infallible, or else he 
 may err; for, if he be not infallible, when he 
 interprets Scripture, why may he not err? 
 Does he refer you to Rome and the Pope? 
 But " it is not a doctrine" he tells us "of the 
 church that the Pope is infallible." — Does he 
 refer you to the Pope and council? They have 
 not met for 270 years ! And prior to that, 
 for many centuries, their decrees, &c. fill 
 
 volumes. Then Mr. Hughes in Philadel- 
 phia, and every priest in the whole world, is 
 to interpret the Bible by these voluminous 
 written decrees. Either then Mr. Hughes is 
 infallible, (which he disclaims.) or else he 
 fallibly interprets these infallible interpreta- 
 tions of the Bible! Now I ask any honest 
 man to judge, if this be any improvement to 
 the system? May not a Protestant minister 
 as well go the written Bible, where the Apos- 
 tles speak infallibly to us, and directly ex- 
 pound the inspired word to the people, as 
 Mr. Hughes and all other Roman Catholic 
 priests to the Bible through volumes of de- 
 crees, bulls, &c, and then expound on pri- 
 vate interpretation this same Bible at last? 
 If the Protestant minister be fallible, so is 
 Mr. Hughes, and every Roman Catholic 
 priest; but the Protestant goes directly to 
 the Bible, whereas Mr. Hughes wades to it 
 through all the decrees of his councils, falli- 
 ble as he is; and he has first to interpret 
 these decrees, and then to interpret the Bi- 
 ble, by them! I proceed to remark that you 
 virtually yield the point in discussion, by 
 the following admissions: "According to the 
 Catholic rule of faith, the doctrines of Chris- 
 tianity are not abstract speculations, they are 
 positive truths, facts, unchanged and unchan- 
 geable, as they came from the lips of Jesus 
 Christ and his inspired Apostles. But, being 
 public truths or facts, they were taught by 
 the pastors of the church, and believed by 
 the people in all countries, and in every cen- 
 tury since the establishment of the church. 
 Consequently, I can verify them with the 
 same certainly, which I have that such an 
 event as the battle of Waterloo, the decapi- 
 tation of Charles I., or the council of Nice, 
 took place in the world. In neither case is a 
 divine or personal infallibility necessary. 
 When I say, that 2 and 4 make 6; that 
 Charles X. was expelled from France; that 
 Luther had a misunderstanding with Leo 
 X. that John Huss was burned to death at 
 Constance, and Michael Servetus at Geneva; 
 I assert propositions which are infallibly 
 true." (see Mr. Hughes's letter, No. 5.) And 
 again — " All of which, (that is, the doc- 
 trines of the Roman Catholic church) are 
 facts, with which the principles of private 
 interpretation have as little to do, as it has 
 with ascertaining whether or not the city of 
 Philadelphia was founded by William Penn," 
 (see Mr. Hughes' letter, No. 7.) If then 
 
 ALL YOUR DOCTRINES ARE POSITIVE TRUTHS, 
 
 and public facts, as certain as the burning 
 of John Huss, or the occurrence of the Re- 
 formation, why is it said that the Scripture 
 
«$© 
 
 is an obscure book, in which, without an 
 infallible guide every man mast err? And 
 if some of the statements in the Bible are 
 facts, are not all so? Are those doctrines 
 which serve your purpose clear truths 
 and stubborn facts, and all the rest dark 
 hieroglyphics, and floating phantoms? Is 
 it not a historical fact that Christ appointed a 
 ministry and promised to sustain it? Is it 
 . not also a historical fact that Christ died for 
 sinners; that he taught the doctrine of rege- 
 neration; the doctrine of man's depravity; the 
 doctrine of the final destruction of the wicked; 
 the doctrine that Christ is the only head of 
 the church; the doctrine that all sin is mortal 
 if not repented of; the doctrine that the 
 church of Rome should be broken off, if it be- 
 came corrupt; (Epistle to the Romans, chap, 
 ii. 18 — 25 verses.) the doctrine that it it is 
 a great sin to make and worship images; the 
 doctrine that none but God can pardon sin; 
 the doctrine that the cup as well as the bread 
 is to be used in the sacrament of the Sup- 
 per; the doctrine that the Bible is a suffi- 
 cient rule of faith; the doctrine that force is 
 never to be applied to compel conformity? 
 I say are not all these public truths, and 
 positive facts? And if so, do we need an 
 infallible guide to find them out, or under- 
 stand them? If, as you say, "a divine or 
 personal infallibility is not necessary to veri- 
 fy them,'" any more than to verify " the 
 facts that 2 and 4 make 6;" and if, like it, 
 they are "propositions which are infallibly 
 true," why may we not give the Bible to the 
 people as a sufficient rule of faith? And 
 why should I go to Rome to catch light from 
 the sickly taper of the Pope? And why 
 should he sit in empty state, crying out '-the 
 temple of the Lord' — the temple of the Lord 
 are we,'' and trim this dying taper, when 
 the Sun of Righteousness has arisen upon 
 the earth ? Surely this system " decayeth 
 and ivaxeth old, and is ready to vanish 
 away." 
 
 I have a single thought to add, to this part 
 of the discussion. It is suggested by the fol- 
 lowing extract from the Catholic Herald of 
 Feb. 28th, on " private interpretation of Scrip- 
 ture." " We will recommend them (the 
 people) to search the Scriptures, Cor they bear 
 testimony of Christ and his church. But 
 when they have once come to the knowledge 
 of Christ and his church, then they need in- 
 quire no further, with a view of making new 
 discoveries in matters of faith, but should 
 become like little children, and receive the 
 word of truth in the humble simplicity of faith 
 from those whom Christ commissioned to 
 
 teach, and whom he commanded us to hear 
 and obey. The words ' search the Scrip- 
 ture,^ ' seek and ye shall find,'' do not apply 
 to believing Christians?" I pass by the ex- 
 traordinary position that Christians need not 
 search the Scripture. It speaks for itself. 
 But the writer concedes that the Scripture 
 ought to be searched by men until they find 
 out Christ and the true church. " Here they 
 need inquire no more." But I would ask, 
 how are we guided in our search until then? 
 By what aid do we find out the true church? 
 The true church being unknown, is there any 
 help to any man but private interpretation? 
 So then every man must at least, if he joins 
 any church, or chooses any religion, do it by 
 private interpretation. In a former number 
 I presented this difficulty to you; you have 
 not met it. Let me remind you of it in re- 
 peating the quotation from the Rev. Mr. 
 M'Guire, Amicable Discussion, page 134. 
 He owns, that "the Catholic has only to ex- 
 ercise his private judgment upon the Scrip- 
 ture proofs of the authority of the church; 
 that once established, the Catholic is enabled 
 to make an act of faith upon divine autho- 
 rity." Others call it "prudential mo- 
 tives," " strong probability," &c. Now 
 to any impartial mind, I think this is a total 
 surrender of your rule of faith. But I wish 
 you explicitly to avow or disavow this posi- 
 tion, and to explain to us this principle. 
 In my next letter, if my life is spared, I 
 design to enlarge upon the Bible as the rule 
 of faith, and to meet your remaining" objec- 
 tions." I had wished to do this in the pre- 
 sent number, but must pass, lastly, to men- 
 tion some things of a miscellaneous charac- 
 ter. 
 
 The first I notice, is your entire silence 
 about the quotation from Tertullian, in 
 which I convicted you, (excuse the word, 
 for you force it upon me,) of garbling the 
 passage, and leaving out one half, and mak- 
 ing the other half prove the very reverse of 
 what the father meant. Why are you si- 
 lent ? You are silent also about Bellarmine 
 and "fere de fide.^ In your previous letter 
 you said, "1 defy you to quote ten lines be- 
 fore, and ten lines after it, without convict- 
 ing yourself of what is not becoming a min- 
 ister of the Gospel." — The reader wiU re- 
 collect that in my letter, (No. 4.) I had 
 quoted a few words from Bellarmine, to il- 
 lustrate other proofs, that your church 
 claims and uses the right to make new arti- 
 cles of faith. Now let us for a moment re- 
 turn to this mooted question, especially as 
 you informed me in Philadelphia that Bellar- 
 
61 
 
 mine was a standard author in your church. 
 Three lines above the quotation, a new chap- 
 ter begins; so that seven of the first ten lines 
 you call for, are on another subject; yet I 
 will give them, if you wish it. It would 
 seem then, that you had not the book, and 
 spoke at random, not knowing what was there, 
 and what not there. Here follow ten lines 
 below, and three above the quotation — from 
 ~ beginning of the chapter. 
 
 t 
 
 Prop. Third. The 
 preme Pontiff is simply and 
 absolutely above the church 
 universal, and above a ge 
 neral council, so that he 
 acknowledges no jurisdic- 
 tion on earth above himself. 
 This is also all but an 
 
 ARTICLE OF FAITH, and is 
 
 proved ( 1 ) from the two 
 preceding: For if the Pope 
 is the head of the church 
 universal, even when met 
 in assembly together, and if 
 the church universal when 
 thus assembled, has no 
 power, on the ground (sim- 
 ply) of its totality; it fol- 
 lows that the Pope is above 
 a council, and above the 
 church and not contrary (to 
 either.) 
 
 (2) It is proved by 
 argument founded in the 
 Scriptures : For all the 
 names, which in the Scrip 
 
 ellarmine, chap. 17. lib. 
 
 Terlia propositio : sum- 
 mits pontifex. simpliciter, 8? 
 absolute est supra ecclesiam 
 universqm, el supra concili- 
 um generale, ita ut nullum 
 in terris supra se judicium, 
 agnoscat. Ha?c etiam est 
 fere de fide, et proba- 
 tur primo et duabus praece- 
 dentibus : nam si Papa est 
 caput ecclesiae universae, 
 etiam simul congregatse, et 
 ccclesia universa simul con- 
 gregata non habet ullam 
 potestatetn ralione sua? to- 
 talitatis : sequitur Papam 
 supra concilium esse, et su- 
 pra ecclesiam, non contra. 
 
 Secundo probatur rati- 
 tione, in scripluris fundata : 
 nam omnia nomina, qua; in 
 scripluris tribuuntur Chris- 
 to, uncle constat eum esse 
 supra ecclesiam, eadem om- 
 nia tribuuntur Pontific* : ac 
 priinum, Christus est pater- 
 familias in domo sua, quae 
 estecclesia. Pontifex, in ea- 
 dem, est summus oecono- 
 mus, id est, pater-familias 
 loco Christi. Luc. Pi. 42. 
 
 I here pass by his profaneness in saying, 
 that all Christ's titles are applied in the 
 Bible to the Pope; and also his weakness in 
 quoting Luke xii. 42, as proof, when in 
 Luke xii. 46-48. (three verses below,) his 
 whole system is exploded 
 
 But observe, (1.) The author expressly de- 
 clares the opinion, that the Pope is above a 
 general council, and above the universal 
 church. (2.) He affirms that this opinion 
 
 is ALMOST AN ARTICLE OF FAITH. (3.) In 
 
 the same chapter, and on the same subject, 
 
 he says, "Quod vero concilium hoc rem is- 
 
 tam non definierit, proprie, ut decretum fide 
 
 Catholica tenendum, dubium est, et ideo 
 
 non sunt proprie heretici, qui contrarium 
 
 sentiunt, sed a temeritate magna excusari 
 
 non possunt." But whereas the Council did 
 
 not strictly define this matter, as a deer a 
 
 '^ay 
 
 to be held by the Catholic faith, it is subject 
 to doubt, and therefore they are not proper- 
 ly heretics, who maintain a contrary opinion, 
 yet they cannot be freed from the charge of 
 great temerity. 
 
 Is it not plain then, that an opinion may 
 
 be ALMOST AN ARTICLE OF FAITH ; 01* DOUBT- 
 FUL, (in your unchangeable, infallible 
 church,) and that it may grow into an ar- 
 ticle; — and be so near an article that it is 
 doubtful whether it be one or not; and so 
 an article, that he who rejects it, is 
 almost a heretic. And now, (begging 
 yon not to be silent about this in your next 
 letter,) I ask you, if you had not Bellarmine 
 in your possession, how could you deny so 
 positively that the author bore such a testi- 
 mony; ami how could you venture to level 
 such a charge at me while ignorant of what 
 he said? But if you had his work before 
 you, then you must not complain, if retort- 
 ing with proof your groundless charge, I 
 say, " You are convicted of what is not be- 
 coming a minister of the Gospel." If you 
 had the work before you, how can these 
 things be explained? I leave you to solve 
 the problem, and shun, if you can, so pecu- 
 iar a dilemma. 
 
 I would next recall you for a moment to 
 le vtjured words stafuere articulos fidei. I 
 
 1 
 
 tures are applied to Christ, | SU nposed myself addressing one sufficiently 
 proving him to be above |" a g^ar to £ n0M , or to search out the real 
 
 the church, are in like man- 
 ner applied to the Pontiff; 
 as first, Christ is Pater- 
 familias — head of the family 
 in his own house, which is 
 the church. The Pontiff is 
 high steward in the same, 
 that is, he is Pater-familias 
 in the place of ChrisJ. — . 
 Luke xii. 42. 
 
 meaning of these words. I assure you the 
 omission of the word "new" had no design 
 in it. You know as well as I do, that " to 
 constitute new articles,'" and " to constitute ar- 
 ticles'''' convey essentially 1||j|e same idea. Dr. . 
 ohnson defines " ciinsU\\^ 9 '7o^giv?fo?rtiat 
 'xistence, to make any thing what it is, to 
 erect, &c And this is what I meant to sa'- 
 that the Pope condemned Luther for df 
 ing, " that the Pope or Council had o 
 to constitute," (to give formal existed Presby- 
 erect) articles, or make new artictinst the se- 
 But it is in vain by shallow ar~ a false reli- 
 ticism, to attempt to shun ♦' please to men- 
 word " statuerc." Bailey this passage. In 
 up; to raise; erect, app*i Book 1. Chap. 1. 
 The word, I am w- as follows: "they are 
 shades of meanin<r/ /imon > that God alone is 
 to say, a learner ,ce i ar >d therefore they consi- 
 when 'you tr °f private judgment, in all 
 faith" or ' a * respect religion, as univer- 
 a mere unalienable." Confession of Faith, 
 Thus ^nap. 3d sec. " Civil magistrates may 
 / 1((V -A the least interfere with matters of faith 
 y-chey should give no preference to any one 
 denomination of Christians above the rest — ■ 
 and ecclesiastical persons should / '■•v 
 free, full, and unquestioned liberty."/ 
 
62 
 
 te, meo agro.'' Who planted thee (a tree, you 
 would say defined) in my soil? 
 
 You next bring to view, one of a multitude 
 of my •' objections,'' (from letter 4) under 
 the head of " unwarrantable liberties, taken 
 by the church of Rome, with the word of 
 God." In exposing the utter fallibility of 
 your rule, I showed your additions to the 
 word of God; you pass them by; I showed a 
 nous fraud of your church: you pass it by: 
 referred to the twelvenew articles of faith ad- 
 ded by the council of Trent; you pass them' 
 by: I referred to the astonishing corruptions 
 and perversions of your translations of the 
 Bible; you pass them by: but you faintly ral- 
 ly, with "a word of contradiction," as to the 
 charge that you mutilate the second com- 
 mandment. When I speak of the second 
 commandment, I mean that which forbids 
 images and idolatry — and not the third which 
 your church makes the second. As you are 
 silent about the various versions in which I 
 stated that the second commandment was 
 clipped or omitted, shall we infer that you 
 admit it? And again as to "the Doway 
 Catechism, "and "the poor man's Catechism," 
 what have you to say in defence of the mis- 
 translation of the passage, "thou shall not 
 bow down thyself to them," into this, li thoul 
 shalt not adore or worship them? ' 'j&i ruP 
 now I ask, will you deny that the " catechis- 
 mus ad Parochos" runs thus: " PrimuW 
 praeceptum Decalogi, &c. Non habebis 
 Deos alienos coram me, (Here ends the first 
 commandment.) 2d. Non fades tibi sculpti- 
 ,bile,&.c. &c; and these four words are all 
 V ^hat are quoted Pj ^The translations of the 
 catechism' Info Various languages carry out 
 the same plan, in substance. The Montpel- 
 lier catechism adds a few more words. The 
 Irish, drops the whole. "The Christian 
 doctrine," by the Rev. Father James Ledes- 
 ma, published by permission of the " supe- 
 riors," wholly omits the second, and for the 
 fourth commandment, has this "Remember 
 to sanctify the Holy days." Please then ex- 
 cuse me from "making corrections," — until 
 your church corrects her treatment of the 
 word and law of God. 
 
 Such is your Diarrhoea verborum, that I 
 fear I shall weary the indulgent reader in 
 the circuit of reply; but as we are upon 
 proofs which you challenge, it must be done. 
 Then as to Bellarmine, I still insist that he 
 makes the Pope, living, infallible law; and 
 you, not /, pervert his reasoning. He argues 
 that the Pope cannot err in decretis fidei, in 
 decrees as to faith, neque in praeceptis morum, 
 nor in moral precepts. His reasoning is this: 
 
 The church is bound to submit to the Pope 
 because he cannot err; and while he owns 
 that in the judgment of the church virtue is 
 good, and vice evil, yet whatever the Pope 
 enjoins is law; and the subversion of moral 
 principle would not be such an evil as the 
 subversion of his infallibility. In other 
 words, the Pope must be followed, right or 
 wrong. But I would ask you in your next 
 letter to explain what Pope Nicholas says - " 
 the Emperor Michael, (quoted in may last 
 The Pope is a God, and therefore m 
 cannot judge him. 
 
 What will you say to the following? Im- 
 mutat substantialem rei naturam, puta faci- 
 endode illegitimo legitimum. Durand, 1.50. 
 He (the Pope,) can change the very nature of 
 a thing for example ; he can make that law- 
 ful, which is unlawful. Habet plenitudinem 
 potestatis, et supra jus est. Gibert, 2. 103. 
 He possesses plentitude of power, and is 
 above law. He is then above law, can 
 change law, and transmute right into wrong, 
 and wrong into right; is in a word, "a God 
 on earth," even "our Lord God, the Pope." 
 It is indeed a desperate escape you make, 
 from these profane authorities, to compare 
 'this deification of the Pope, with the amiable 
 hyperbole of a grateful people, who some- 
 times in the fervour of their praise, may have 
 said, "the godlike Washington." Wash- 
 ington is called godlike; I will not defend 
 it; the Pope is called God. Washington 
 made so such pretensions; he bowed to the 
 laws, which under God, his unparalleled 
 courage and wisdom had done so much to 
 establish. The Pope usurps the rights of 
 |£he people, and the seat of the Saviour, and 
 wojjld sit enthroned on the riches of the 
 commonwealth of Israel. In a word, your 
 infallible church thus speaks of the Pope, 
 and your infallible Pope loves to have it so. 
 Never then join together again, names and 
 pretensions so dissimilar, and so discordant. 
 
 We come next to the subject of the vali- 
 dity, or rather invalidity of oaths, in the 
 Roman Church. By your own admission 
 then, " Ecclesiastical utility makes it right 
 to violate an oath." "He that swearelh to 
 his own hurt, and changeth not," is David's 
 good man. But here is the old Popish 
 maxim, that the end justifies the means. The 
 interest of the church must be regarded, 
 though a lawful oath lie in the way. You 
 talk of the "factious minority" of an infalli- 
 ble Council, and of the Council of Basle as 
 "a spurious assembly." What will you 
 say of the Council of the 4th Lateran de- 
 creeing, that the subjects of heretical sove- 
 
 ex.t 
 
63 
 
 reigns were freed from their allegiance? 
 What of the Council of Constance declaring 
 in solemn sessions, that Emperors, cy-c. fyc. 
 are not bound to keep their promise of secu- 
 rity made to heretics, or to persons accused 
 of heresy. Here observe that the heretic 
 may be ever so innocent of any crime against 
 the state — but his "heresy" in doctrine is 
 enough, (as in the case of John Huss,) to 
 tear him from the civil power, to be tried by 
 the church, and then handed back, to be put 
 to death by the same civil power. 
 
 And now let me gratify you, in the call 
 for the document, "in which the Pope 
 anathematizes the living men who circulate 
 the Bible." In using the word " anathema" 
 it may be that, from want of familiarity with 
 the weapon, I may have not applied it in its 
 strictly technical meaning; but if the spirit of 
 the following sentences is not that of an 
 anathema, I should scarcely know whither to 
 go in search of such a spirit. " The Pwpe*^ 
 circular letter," May 3d, 1824. "It is no 
 secret to you venerable brethren, that a cer- 
 tain society, vulgarly called 'the Bible So- 
 ciety,' (audaciler vagari) is audaciously 
 dispreading itself through the whole world. 
 After despising the traditions of the Holy 
 Fathers, and in opposition to the well known 
 decree of the Council of Trent, (session the 
 fourth, on the publication and use of the 
 sacred books,) this society has collected all 
 its forces, and directs every means to one 
 object, to the translation, or rather to the 
 perversion, of the Bible into the vernacu- 
 lar languages of all nations! From this fact, 
 there is strong ground of fear, lest, as in 
 some instances already known, so likewise 
 in the rest, through a perverse interpreta- 
 tion, there be framed out of the Gospel of 
 Christ, a Gospel of man, or, what is worse, 
 a Gospel of the Devil." (St. Jerome, chap. 
 1. Epis. ad Galat.) 
 
 Alexander, Emperor of Russia, having 
 tried Bible Societies for a short time, found 
 the spirit of liberty, and the power of light 
 so great, that he must abolish them, or 
 lose his crown. And he issued his royal 
 ukase, putting them down in his empire. 
 How expressive is this coincidence! 
 
 In China preachers of the cross are not 
 tolerated. The Jesuits found their way by 
 intrigue into the empire ; but they aimed at 
 the throne more than the souls of the peo- 
 ple; — and still farther threw back the hopes 
 of the empire. The illustrious Dr. Morrison, 
 has translated the entire Bible into that per- 
 plexing and interminable language. And 
 they are a reading people j and in this way 
 
 alone can they be now enlightened. Yet 
 every Bible Society, and translation, and 
 donor, is cursed for this labour of love. 
 How well for China, and for us^ that while 
 the Pope curses, the Saviour smiles upon the 
 heavenly work of giving the Bible to every 
 creature. 
 
 Perhaps it may also "gratify" you to see 
 some more recent news from Rome. It is 
 found in the Pupe's Encyclical Letter, lately 
 sent forth. He tells his Bishops all over the 
 world, " that now is the hour and the power 
 of darkness; yes, the earth is in sorrow and 
 perishes; the chair of the blessed Peter in 
 which we sit, where Jesus Christ has laid the 
 foundation of his church, is violently shaken, 
 and the bonds of unity are weakened and 
 broken everyday." He calls it, "an absurd 
 and dangerous maxim, or rather the raving of 
 delirium, that it is proper to allow to every 
 man liberty of conscience." He calls the 
 liberty of the press, " that fatal license of 
 which we cannot entertain sufficient horror;'''' 
 4-and brings against the license of unfetter- 
 ed printing, the Apostolical practice, of pub- 
 licly burning evil books! — And such is the 
 Head of the Universal Church — seated in his 
 tottering chair, amidst the gathering ruins of 
 his hierarchy; complaining of the freedom of 
 the Press, and denouncing the spirit of the 
 age! In vain does he murmur, and in vain 
 denounce. The thunders of the Vatican no 
 longer cause kings to tremble, and nations 
 to bow down at the haughty Pontiff's feet. 
 Like aged Priam, in the sacking of Troy, he 
 grasps a useless sword: 
 
 '' : Urbis ubi captae casum, convulsaque vidit 
 Limina teclorum, et medium in penetralibus hostem, 
 Anna di usenior desueta treruentibus aevo 
 ;Circumdat nequidquam humeris, et inutile ferrum 
 Cingilur." 
 
 It is wholly new to me that u the Presby- 
 terian Church makes it a sin against the se- 
 cond commandment to tolerate a false reli- 
 gion." In your next letter please to men- 
 tion where you find this this passage. In 
 the form of government, Book 1. Chap. 1. 
 Sect. 1, you will find as follows: "they are 
 unanimously of opinion, that God alone is 
 Lord of conscience, and therefore they consi- 
 der the right of private judgment, in all 
 matters that respect religion., as univer- 
 sal and unalienable." Confession of Faith, 
 xxiii. chap. 3d sec. " Civil magistrates may 
 not in the least interfere with matters of faith 
 — they should give no preference to any one 
 denomination of Christians above the rest — 
 and ecclesiastical persons should '^v 
 free, full, and unquestioned liberty." 
 
04 
 
 In contrast with the above, let me point 
 you to the following decrees of the great La- 
 teran council, held by Pope Innocent III. 
 A. D. 1215, at which were present, 2 Patri- 
 archs, 70 Metropolitans— 400 Bishops, and 
 812 abbots, priors, &c. besides imperial am- 
 bassadors, &c. In this infallible general coun- 
 cil, it was decreed as follows: (1 have the 
 original before me, but for want of space 
 give the translation.) 
 
 3d Chapter. " We excommunicate aftdan- 
 ethematize every heresy extollingitself against 
 this holy, orthodox, Catholic faith which we 
 before expounded, condemning all heretics 
 by what names soever called. And being con- 
 demned, let them be left to the secular pow- 
 er, or to their bailiffs, to be punished by due 
 animadversion. And let the secular powers 
 be warned and induced, and if need be con- 
 demned by ecclesiastical censure, what offi- 
 ces soever they are in, that as they desire to 
 be reputed and taken for believers, so they 
 publicly take an oath for the defence of the 
 faith, that they will stud} in good earnest to 
 exterminate, to their utmost poiver, from the 
 lands subject to their jurisdiction, all heretics 
 denoted by the Church; so that every one, 
 that is henceforth taken into any power, ei- 
 ther spiritual or temporal, shall be bound to 
 confirm this chapter by his oath." " But if 
 the temporal lord, required and warned by 
 the church, shall neglect to purge his terri- 
 tory of this heretical filth, let him by the 
 Metropolitan and Comprovincial Bishops be 
 tied by the bond of excommunication; and if 
 he scorn to satisfy within a year, let that be 
 signified to the Pope, that he may denounce 
 his vassals thenceforth absolved from his 
 fidelity, (or allegiance,) and may expose his 
 country to be seized on by Catholics, who, 
 exterminating the heretics, may possess it 
 without any contradiction, and may keep it 
 in the purity of faith, saving the right of the 
 
 principal lord, so be it he himself put no 
 obstacle hereto, nor oppose any impediment; 
 the same law notwithstanding being kept 
 about them that have no principal lords.'' 
 " And the Catholics that taking the badge of 
 the cross shall gird themselves for the exter- 
 minating of heretics, shall enjoy that indul- 
 gence, and be fortified with that holy privi- 
 lege which is granted to them that go the 
 help of the holy land." — "And we decree 
 to subject to excommunication the believers 
 and receivers, defenders and favourers of he- 
 retics, firmly ordaining, that when any such 
 "person is noted by excommunication, if he 
 disdain to satisfy within a year, let him be 
 ipso jure, made infamous." 
 
 Finally — I find in an accredited Roman 
 Catholic writer, the following sentence, 
 which goes to show, that no means are spa- 
 red in order to bring these heretics to jus- 
 tice! " Admittuntur ad accusandum, atque 
 ad ferendum testimonium etiam infames;" 
 that is, even infamous persons, are to be ad- 
 mitted to accuse and bring testimony (against 
 heretics.) 
 
 With these facts submitted for your con- 
 sideration, I for the present, bid you fare 
 well. John Breckinridge. 
 
 (postscript.) 
 I present through you to Bishop Kenrick the 
 expression of my sincere regret that the mis- 
 take as to himself was ever made. A most 
 respectable and responsible name was given 
 me as authority; and it was not until I had 
 repeated the inquiry, and been reassured of 
 the truth of the statement, that I asked you 
 whether it were true orfalse. Thisgentleman 
 still insists that such a warning was given on 
 the day named, and in one of your church- 
 es in Philadelphia, by a Roman Catholic 
 Priest. 
 
 Yours, &c. J. B. 
 
CONTROVERSY N°. 9. 
 
 Rule of Faith. 
 
 Philadelphia, March 26, 1833. 
 To the Rev. John Breckinridge. 
 
 Rev. Sir, — The precept of the Apostle, 
 which forbids Christians to return "railing 
 for railing," must be my apology for not no- 
 ticing those parts of your last letter, which 
 come under the head of personality. I en- 
 gaged in this discussion, with a determina- 
 tion to use only the legitimate evidences of 
 religious truth — such as are furnished by 
 reason, revelation, and history — and I am 
 not disposed, under any provocation, to alter 
 my resolution. 
 
 But there are a few points, on which you 
 and I are notoriously at issue; and it is ne- 
 cessary that these points should be settled, 
 before we proceed to graver matters. 
 
 I. In jour letter No. 4. you quoted three 
 words from Bellarmine, to support your as- 
 sertion, that ivith us opinions pass into doc- 
 trines. I said in answer to this, that Dr. 
 Priestly attempts, in his history of -early 
 opinions, to disprove the Divinity of Christ, 
 by similar assertions — and that 3-011 could not 
 quote ten lines before, and ten lines after 
 the words " fere de fide," without convict- 
 ing yourself of what is not becoming a min- 
 ister of the Gospel. You have endeavoured 
 in your last letter, to extricate yourself from 
 this position: — but to my mind you have only 
 confirmed it. If the reader will take the 
 pains to examine the words of the author, 
 as you have quoted them, he will see the 
 evidence. Bellarmine takes up the matter, 
 on which he is writing, as an opinion; he 
 treats it as an opinion; and he leaves it as 
 an opinion. What then have you done by 
 the quotation? You have proved that Bel- 
 larmine had been perverted, when his words 
 " fere de fide" were quoted to show, that 
 Catholic faith is, ii like the new moon, cres- 
 cent," and that the topic on which he was 
 speaking, was " a probationer for a seat 
 
 IN THE CREED." Now, I Would ask VOU, 
 
 is it becoming a minister of the Gospel to 
 pervert an author? — to assert that he said, 
 what he never said? — or that he meant, what 
 he never meant? This is precisely, what 
 the quotation establishes against you, and 
 
 K 
 
 even less than "ten lines" completes the 
 " conviction." 
 
 It was Cardinal Richelieu, I believe, who 
 said that if he had the privilege of selecting 
 three lines at his pleasure, from ah author's 
 book, he could have him hanged for treason. 
 And we all know, that if the infidel were al- 
 lowed to select three words, from the Psalms 
 of David, as you had done from the writings 
 of Bellarmine, he could make it appear, that 
 " there is no God" and that the Royal Pro- 
 phet was an Atheist. But in either case, "ten 
 lines before, and ten lines after," would "con- 
 vict" the offender, of what might be tolerated 
 in politics, or scepticism, but is, in my opi- 
 nion, not becoming in the ministry of the 
 Gospel. You beg me in your last letter 
 " not to be silent about this matter," and I 
 have only one word more to say upon it. It 
 is this: that I will meet you with a copy of 
 Bellarmine on any day youplease to appoint; 
 and submit the passage to any sworn inter- 
 preter of languages, and let him decide its 
 meaning. If he says that Bellarmine's 
 meaning was not perverted, in your first 
 use of the words " Ceve de fide,'' I hereby 
 pledge myself to apologise publicly. But if 
 the decision be against you, then you will be 
 candid enough to acknowledge the perversion, 
 and leave the public tojudgeof the cause, which 
 required it. The decision however shall be 
 in writing, with the interpreter's signature\ 
 and given to the public. 
 
 You ask me, "if I had not Bellarmine in 
 my possession, how could I deny so posi- 
 tively, that the author bore such a testi- 
 mony; and how could I venture to level such 
 a charge at you, while ignorant of what he 
 said?'''' Answer. Because I was not igno- 
 rant "of what he said." 2. Because the 
 " doctrines of the Catholic Church prefixed 
 stars in the firmament of belief' and the 
 transmutation of an opinio?! into a doctrine, 
 (for proof of which you referred to Bellar- 
 mine,) would be the raising of a "new 
 light" a species of religious reformation 
 which Protestants have taken into their own 
 hands, and for which Catholics have neither 
 the talent, inclination, nor authority. So 
 
 / 
 
66 
 
 much then, for this first point on which we 
 are at issue. 
 
 As to Luther's proposition — I showed that 
 you had interpolated it, by inserting a word 
 (" new,") which is not in the original. That 
 subsequently, when you gave the original, 
 you left the word "new," out of the trans- 
 lation; but supplied the place of it by an as- 
 sertion which was unfounded in truth — viz. 
 that your second version " was word for word 
 what you had said before." In your last let- 
 ter, you assure us that the omission of the 
 word " new," (in the second version.) had no 
 design in it. That is, you omit the interpola- 
 tion, and yet take pains to assure our readers, 
 that fortius act of literary honesty, they are in- 
 debted to chance, and not to intention, since 
 "the omission had no design in it?" But then 
 you tell us that, "statuere arborem,'' means, ac- 
 cording to Horace " to plant a tree. " Agreed. 
 And that " statuere collumellan," according 
 to Cicero, means, "to erect a little pillar." 
 Agreed, again. But what follows? Will you 
 say that therefore in Luther's proposition, 
 "statuere articulos fidei" means "to make 
 new articles of faith?" And yet, on this pivot 
 of new logic, turns the only defence, you have 
 been able to set up all the arguments against 
 of my last letter, touching the charges in- 
 volved in the point at issue. It is not a tenet 
 of Catholic belief, that either the Church, or the 
 Pope, or both together, have the power to 
 create, or reject doctrine: to make, or to 
 destroy one single article of faith. Protes- 
 tants alone, who are responsible to no rule 
 of faith, except to their individual private 
 opinion of the meaning of Scripture, may 
 plant, and pluck up doctrines at their plea- 
 sure. Again, therefore, I am constrained to 
 say that your charge against the Catholic 
 church of "claiming the right to make new 
 articles of faith," is painfully untrue." 
 SQ. You had said that the "catechism of the 
 Council of Trent gives only four words of 
 the second commandment, and closes with an 
 expressive etcsetera. v Thisis"untrue." And, 
 can you imagine, that the moral sense of the 
 community, Protestant, as well as Catholic, 
 does not hunger for an explanation of the 
 motives, which could induce a " minister of 
 kthe Gospel," thus to bear false witness against 
 
 is neighbour. 
 
 M. Yau had said, that in the Catholic 
 church there are no less than three systems 
 of doctrine, on the "Pope's supremacy." 
 Now every Catholic in the whole World 
 might be called as a witness, to prove that 
 this assertion is "untrue." On every article 
 of faith, the Catholics of the present, and of 
 
 all past ages, are as united in belief, as if they 
 all dwelt under the same roof. Is it not 
 therefore, humiliating to sincere Protestants 
 to discover, that their ministers and their 
 books are obliged to use such means, and to 
 confound all distinction between doctrine, 
 discipline, opinions, and local customs, in 
 order to prove disunion of belief among the 
 Cotholics? 
 
 5. You had said, that it is a principle of 
 Catholics, "that if the Pope were to com- 
 mand vice, and prohibit virtue, he is to be 
 obeyed." For this assertion you referred to 
 Bellarmine. In reply, I quoted the passage 
 of Bellarmine, in my last letter, which shows 
 that he stated it, as the impious and absurd 
 consequence, which would flow from the opin- 
 ion he was then refuting. You did not at- 
 tempt to meet the quotation with any thing 
 stronger than assertion. "I still insist" you 
 say, that he (Bellarmine) makes the Pope liv- 
 ing infallible law; and you, not /, prevent 
 his reasoning." Bellarmine maintained, as a 
 matter of opinion, that the Pope, in his official 
 character is infallible. Bossuet, as a matter 
 of opinion maintained the contrary; both were 
 Catholics, and believed as a matter of faith, 
 the Pope's supremacy, and the infallibility of 
 the church. And here is the maxim of St. 
 Augustine, exemplified, "in matter of faith, 
 unity; in matters not of faith, liberty." — 
 But /insist upon it, that Bellarmine, so far 
 from saying, that " the Pope can make vir- 
 tue vice, and vice virtue" professes to prove 
 the erroneousness of the opinion, which he 
 was then refuting, by showing that//«s would 
 be the impious consequence of its adoption. 
 Thus then we both " insist." Who shall de- 
 cide between us? I say, any sworn interpre- 
 ter of languages, and (stipulating always, 
 that the decision be published, with his sig- 
 nature, and agreement) I challenge you 
 to the alternative. How then can you " bear 
 false witness against your neighbour," by 
 saying that Bellarmine taught, and Catholics 
 believe, what Bellarmine never taught, and 
 what Catholics do not believe? 
 
 6. You had stated, that according to the 
 1 6th canon of the 3d Council of Lateran, 
 "an oath contrary to ecclesiastical utility, is 
 perjury, not an oath." I answered, that this 
 had reference to unlawful oaths, which were 
 sometimes pleaded by factious minorities, or 
 individuals, to justify their rebellion against 
 the choice of the majority, in certain cases ot 
 ecclesiastical elections. To these cases ex- 
 clusively, was the decision of the Council 
 limited. Yet, my Rev. opponent spreads it 
 out into a general proposition of Catholic 
 
or 
 
 doctrine. Again, therefore, I challenge you 
 to abide the decision of any sworn interpre- 
 ter. Here then are six different heads, on 
 each of which I am constrained to say with 
 regret, that you have asserteil what is "un- 
 true." It is useless, therefore, for you to 
 calculate on the verdict of our readers in gen- 
 eral, who are unacquainted, as you know, 
 with the language and the books, to which 
 you have referred, with such bold but deceit- 
 ful confidence. You will please consequent- 
 ly to clear up, as I give you an opportunity of 
 doing, these six topics, before you expect me 
 to pay any attention to your silly references. 
 Of these you have already made too many, 
 for the honour of your fame, and the sanctity 
 of your cause, as I shall have occasion to show 
 the public, before the controversy shall have 
 terminated. 
 
 Judging by what my own feelings should 
 be, I fear that these remarks are calcula- 
 ted to give you pain; but remember that 
 you have. left me no alternative,- — except to 
 bring the matter fairly to issue, or bow in ac- 
 quiescence to charges, which are ultterly " un- 
 true." My own principle is, never to assert, 
 in argument, except what I am convinced is 
 true. And as I admit the possibility of mis- 
 take, so, in such a case, do I hold myself 
 ready to admit opposite evidence, and correct 
 cheer/idly any statement in which I may 
 happen to have erred. A charge of this kind 
 is brought against me in your last letter. 
 "It is wholly new to me" you say, "that the 
 Presbyterian church makes it a sin against 
 the second commandment, to " tolerate a false 
 religion." At this, Rev. Sir, I am " wholly" 
 surprised. Being, like myself, something of 
 a " high churchman," I did not suppose that 
 anything contained in the "Confession of 
 Faith" would be "new" to you. 
 
 The "tolerating of a false religion" is laid 
 down as a sin against the second command- 
 menlin " Larger Catechism," page 268, of tlie 
 edition published by Towar & Hogan, in 
 1829. Perhaps it is also new to you— that 
 in order to show how great a sin it is, refer- 
 ence is made, in the same page, to certain 
 texts of Scripture, in one of which, death is 
 specified as the penalty of teaching a fade re- 
 ligion! I shall here quote the text "and it 
 shall come to pass that if anv one shall yet 
 prophesy" (meaning falsely) " then his father 
 and his mother that begat him, shall say unto 
 him, thou shall not live; for thou speakest lies 
 inthename oftheLord:'' Thus, it seems that 
 according to the Confession of Faith, and to 
 the Scriptures, Presbyterians look upon it, as 
 an orthodox sin, to "tolerate a false religion." 
 
 lTc?W 
 
 icl^'t 
 
 The constitution of our country, however, has 
 decided otherwise. 
 
 This same Confession of Faith teaches that 
 even good ivorks, done by "unregeneratemen" 
 are sinful. (Chap. xvi. page 100,) and (chap. 
 xv. page 92) it tells us, " there is no sin 
 so small, but it deserves damnation" — from 
 whence it would follow, that it an " unre- 
 generate man" give a dollar to a poor widow, 
 to keep her from perishing in the winter, he 
 commits a sin, and deserves to be damned 
 for it! True, the texts adds, that if Ac does 
 not do it, he commits a '•'■greater sin; v by 
 which it appears, that he is to be damned 
 for doing it, and damned for leaving it un- 
 done! And yet there is an abundant profa- 
 nation of sacred texts, to prove all this, on 
 the same page! You refer me to Chapter 
 xxiii. for the following quotation, in your 
 last. " Civil magistrates may not in the least, 
 interfere with matters of faith, they should 
 give no preference to any denomination of 
 Christians, above the rest — and ecclesiastical 
 persons should enjoy free, full and unques- 
 tioned liberty." I have not found any such 
 words, in the reference. But in the very 
 same chapter and section, I find the follow- 
 ing: " He (the civil magistrate) hath authori- 
 ty, and it is his duty, to take order, that uni- 
 ty and peace be preserved in the church, that 
 the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that 
 all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, 
 all corruptions and abuses in worship and 
 discipline prevented or reformed, and all the 
 ordinances of God duly settled, administered 
 and observed. For the better effecting 
 whereof, he hath power to call Synods, to be 
 present at them, and to provide that whatso- 
 ever is transacted in them, be according to 
 the mind of God. " Westminster Confes- 
 sion, chap, xxiii. sec. 3. p. 141. Here the 
 k" mind of God" is made the rule of just pro- 
 ceeding, and the civil magistrate, is supposed 
 to be on such terms of familiarity and confi- 
 dence with the Almighty, that he knoivs what 
 is the "mind of God," and is bound to see, 
 that matters shall be regulated accordingly. 
 Still, there is a powerful array of Scripture 
 texts, at the bottom of the page, to show 
 that all this is right and true according to the 
 Bible! Your quotation, and mine, founded 
 on the same reference, differ very materially! 
 Will you please to explain the disagreement? 
 
 I would now follow you through one or two 
 of the heads of what I suppose you intended 
 as argument against the Catholic rule of 
 faith. But really, there are so many contra- 
 dictions under my eye, as I look upon the first 
 column of yourlast epistle, that I amat a loss to 
 
68 
 
 understand whether you admit or reject the suc- 
 cession from the Apostles in the ministry of 
 teaching. First, you say, that " as the claim" 
 (of the Catholic Church) "to infaliibity rests 
 on the notion of succession, it falls to the 
 ground, and with it our rule of faith.'''' Next, 
 you say, that if the Apostles had successors, 
 thena/Zmusthavehad them, and as there were 
 twelve apostles, so there should be exactly 
 twelve successors, every one of whom should 
 be a Pope! Then, these successors, if there 
 were any, must be able to work miracles. 
 And then, finally, you say that I am uncan- 
 did for "representing you as holding that the 
 Apostles had no successors. n, And a little 
 farther still, you tell us, that "you hold to a 
 commission still standing and binding which 
 reaches to the end of time." When you tell 
 us clearly what you mean by all this, I shall 
 be extremely happy to meet any arguments 
 you may be disposed to put forward. In the 
 mean time, it is manifest, that I cannot drive 
 you from a position, until you signify exactly 
 what ground you mean to assume. 
 
 The whole of your second column is one 
 continuous train of misrepresentation. You 
 begin by asserting that on my plan every 
 preacher or teacher " must be infallible^!! 
 And taking this assumption, unfounded 
 though it be, for the ground work of your 
 reasoning, you draw your own consequences. 
 But as "my plan tloes not require every 
 preacher or teacher to be infallible," so your 
 deductions founded on this hypothesis are 
 gratuitous, and are overturned by the simple 
 denial of both the premises and the conclu- 
 sion. "My plan," as you call it, is that 
 Jesus Christ, after having proved, tha-t he 
 was sent by the Father, for the establishment 
 of a divine religion, as well as for the re- 
 demption of the world, instituted a ministry 
 of teaching in his church — that this minis- 
 try was to extend with the duration of timd 
 — that it was the channel of communication, 
 by which the knowledge of that divine reli- 
 gion should be conveyed to all nations,— 
 and that to this ministry of teaching, the Son 
 of God actually promised the Spirit of Truth 
 and his own perpetual presence all days, even 
 till the consummation of the world. This 
 is "my plan:'' and if you feel yourself com- 
 petent to overturn it, the first step is — to 
 state it correctly. The next step is, to take 
 up those passages of the Scripture history, 
 by which it is proved that this ivas the means 
 appointed by Christ, and show that instead of 
 proving the ministry of teaching, they prove 
 on the contrary, that all infallibility ceased 
 with the death of the Apostles, except the 
 
 infallibility of individual opinion, in the pri- 
 vate interpretation of Scriptural doctrine. 
 It would be the mere repetition of unanswer- 
 ed arguments, were I again to adduce the 
 proofs and reasoning of my former letters, 
 on this subject. It is useless for me to pub- 
 lish the same proofs of the Catholic rule of 
 faith in every letter. If you had taken up 
 my arguments, stated them in my own 
 words, suffered them to enjoy the meaning 
 which they possessed, as they went forth from 
 my own pen, refuted, or attempted honorably 
 to refute them, then it might be necessary to 
 review the testimonies adduced to show that 
 Christ established the immortal, uniform, 
 Catholic teaching of his Church, as the only 
 infallible rule of faith. I refer the reader to 
 a serious perusal of my letters on this sub- 
 ject, Nos. 5 and 7: and let him ask himself, 
 as he is to answer at the last day, whether, 
 according to the evidences furnished on 
 either side, the testimonies of reason, revela- 
 tion and history, by which the Catholic rule 
 of faith is supported, are not infinitely 
 stronger than any thing you have been able 
 to produce in favour of private interpretation. 
 I appeal to that reader to say, whether your 
 letters, thus far, instead of presenting a clear 
 chain of controversial reasoning on any one 
 subject, are not an " olla-podrida" of crimi- 
 nation, scandalous anecdote, fierce assertion, 
 and general evasion of the question on which 
 we are disputing. 
 
 It may be useful to state again the subject 
 now under discussion. That there is "an 
 infallible rule of faith, appointed by Christ, 
 to guide us in matters of religion, and to set- 
 tle disputes in his Church" is agreed. Now 
 the Catholic church, being a visible and per- 
 petual society, and the original inheritor of 
 the doctrines, commissions and promises of 
 fJesus Christ, leans, as it were, on the arm of 
 her Divine founder; — trusts in his promises, 
 discharges his commission, and testifies to 
 all nations, during all days, what are the true 
 doctrines, of which it was said, " He, that 
 believeth not, shall be condemned." Mark 
 xv i. 16. How shall we know what we must 
 believe, in order, to escape this condemnation? 
 That Jesus provided an infallible means, to 
 arrive at this knowledge, is admitted by my 
 Rev. opponent. Then it must be either the 
 Catholic or the Protestant rule of faith. That 
 it is not the Protestant principle, appears to 
 me one of the clearest moral truths that ever 
 presented itself to human understanding. 
 
 1. Because that principle stabs the autho- 
 rity of the sacred volume, which it professes 
 to cherish. That principle makes the Bible, 
 
69 
 
 as efficient to overthrow, as to uphold, any 
 doctrine of Christianity. According to that 
 principle, no man can be certain what doc- 
 trines Jesus Christ revealed and required 
 men to believe, at the risk of being con- 
 demned. Let the sincere Protestant reader 
 ask himself, what is in reality his rule of 
 faith. His ministers tell him — the Bible 
 alone. Let him then take up the Bible and 
 read these word* of our blessed Redeemer-— 
 "the Father and I are one'' — turn, then, to 
 the other words, " the Father is greater than 
 I.'' That one of these passages, is to be ex- 
 plained by the other, is certain: but which 
 shall take the preference, of the other, the 
 sacred writings do not determine. If he is a 
 Unitarian he will come to the conclusion, 
 that Christ is not God. If he is a Presbyte- 
 rian, his opinion will be different. In the 
 mean time, his belief, no matter to which side 
 ne belongs, is founded, not on the Bible, but 
 on what he thinks to- be the meaning of the 
 Bible. Now, Rev. Sir, I request you, as a 
 favor, to take up these two texts, and show 
 me and our readers, how you can save the 
 Divinity of Jesus Christ from the destructive 
 operation of the Protestant rule of faith, in 
 the hands of the Unitarian. If you can and 
 will do this, it will prove a service to reli- 
 gion, at which, although it by no means con- 
 cerns me, I shall heartily rejoice. What is 
 said here, in relation to this fundamental ar- 
 ticle, is equally true of every other tenet of 
 religious belief. I defy any Protestant in 
 the whole world, who is consistent with his 
 own rule of faith, and rational in its applica- 
 tion, if he will only take the pains to analyze 
 his belief, to find it resting on any other 
 foundation, save his own private opinion. 
 For if his rule of faith be the Bible alone, 
 then, he must fling to the winds all creeds, 
 confessions, and teachings of men. And 
 when he has perused the Bible, if he is asked 
 what doctrines it contains, he will be obliged 
 to answer according to his opinions of its 
 meaning. You believe in predestination; — 
 another, reading the Bible with equal sin- 
 cerity, disbelieves it : — a third reads the 
 Bible and believes in everlasting punish- 
 ment : — a fourth rejects that belief, &c. Are 
 they all right? Certainly not; though they 
 may be all sincere. Is it the Bible that de- 
 ceives them ? Certainly it is not. But they 
 are deceived by the Protestant rule of faith, 
 which taught them, that in order to know 
 what doctrines had been revealed by the Sa- 
 viour of men, each individuabmust pass the 
 Bible through the crucible of his own private 
 judgment. And, though his mind should 
 
 have undergone a thousand changes, as to th 
 meaning of the inspired book, still the Pro- 
 testant rule of faith has determined, with the 
 hand of destiny, that he shall end where he 
 began, and never arrive at any thing more 
 certain than opinion. 
 
 Not so the Catholic. He may read the 
 Scriptures, notwithstanding the calumnies 
 that Protestantism has perpetuated against 
 the church, from one generation to another, 
 since the era of the " Reformation." But, 
 on points of doctrine, he does not substitute 
 his own opinions, by way of inspiring the 
 sacred text. He takes it for granted, that 
 the meaning was understood, before he came 
 into existence. He inquires what it is of 
 the church, which has been the guardian 
 equally of the book, and of the doctrines it 
 contains, since the day, when Jesus laid 
 her foundations on the rock of eternal truth. 
 Her pastors have never ceased to leach the 
 things, which, according to Revelation, we 
 must believe and puatice, in order to be 
 saved. By this rule of faith the whole 
 Christian world was united in doctrine, 
 when the Father of Protestantism began to 
 sound the trumpet of religious discord, and 
 to preach new opinions, 1500 years after 
 Christians had been warned, not to receive 
 any new doctrines, even though they should 
 be preached by an "angel from heaven." 
 
 2. The Protestant rule of faith is that, 
 which was adopted by all the acknowledged 
 heresies of antiquity. By this rule of pri- 
 vate interpretation, the Sabellians denied 
 the Trinity of persons in God, (S. August, 
 lib. de hseres. cap. 41.) — the Arians, the 
 Divinity of Christ — the Macedonians, the 
 Divinity of the Holy Ghost. By this rule, 
 the Manicheans rejected the old Testament 
 — the Pelagians denied Original Sin — and 
 so, of all the others. Did Christ then ap- 
 point as the infallible rule of fatth a prin- 
 ciple of guidance, which, in its legitimate 
 use, and not by its abuse, has given rise to 
 all the heresies of ancient and modem times? 
 
 In the Catholic Church, on the contrarv, 
 heresy has never found a resting place. 
 The truth of doctrine, which had always 
 been taught by the pastors, and believed by 
 all, was present every where to convict the 
 novelty of error. Protestants indeed, have 
 asserted, that the church had apostatized, but 
 none accuse her of heresy. Being herself 
 the oldest society of Christians, there was 
 no other from which she could have separa- 
 ted. We meet the charge of apostacy, bv 
 saying, that if she did apostatize, as they 
 will have it, then " the gates of hell pre- 
 
7© 
 
 lM c» \ her," — contrary to the Sa- 
 
 .nise! Are they prepared for 
 iSut if the Saviour's promise did not 
 ^ii, "then the gates of -hell did not prevail 
 against her, and Jesus Christ was still with 
 her, when Martin Luther, John Calvin, and 
 the King of England, took it into their heads 
 to make churches of their oivn. Think you, 
 Rev'd Sir, that the Redeemer forgot his 
 promise, or forsook his spouse, by aban- 
 doning his own church — did Zion say, " our 
 Lord hath forsaken me, and our Lord hath 
 forgotten me? Why; can a woman forget 
 her infant, that she will not have pity on the 
 son of her womb? And if she should for- 
 get, yet will I not forget thee. Behold I 
 have written thee in my hands." Isaiah 
 chap. xlix. 14. 
 
 3. In your last letter, you lay it dwn as 
 an argument against the Catholic rule of 
 faith, that the Apostles alone were inspired 
 and infallible. And thus, in your thought- 
 less zeal, you strike a fatal blow, although 
 I am sure you did not intend it, at a large 
 portion of the New Testament. If the 
 Apostles alone were in inspired and infalli- 
 ble, as you assert, then what is to become of 
 the two Gospels of St. Luke and St. Mark ? 
 What is to become of the Acts of the Apostles? 
 It is well known that the authors of these books 
 were not Apostles, and "and had not seen 
 the Lord." Will Protestants adopt your 
 ruinous argument, I mean assertion, on this 
 subject, which, if it were true, would blast 
 the authority of so large a portion of the 
 written word of God ? Will they not 
 rather, in this instance at least, join with me, 
 to shield the sacred writings from the de- 
 struction of your weapons? 
 
 4. You have frequently in your letters ap- 
 pealed to the prejudices of our Protestant 
 readers, on the subject of what you are pleas- 
 ed to call the Aprocryphal Scriptures. But 
 how, I would ask, are you enabled by the 
 Protestant rule of faith, to determine? what 
 books are canonical? That this cannot be 
 done by the Scripture itself, is palpably evi- 
 dent. You certainly cannot be ignorant, that 
 several books, which in the first a ges\&\<\ claim 
 to inspired authority, are not in the canon. 
 Of these I may nameafew — the Gospel accord- 
 ing to the Hebrews, or according to the Apos- 
 tles — the memoirs of the Apostles — quoted 
 frequently by Justin Martyr, — and different 
 tracts under the names of Peter, Paul, Mat- 
 thias and other Apostles. (See Euseb. lib. iii. 
 c. 3. 24.) Why, then, are those left out of 
 the reformed canon of the Protestant Scrip- 
 tures? On the other hand, the inspiration of 
 
 the Epistle of St. James, the Epistle of St. 
 Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the second 
 Epistle of St. Peter, the second and third of 
 St. John and the book of Revelations, was con- 
 troverted in the same ages. And why, I 
 would again ask, are these admitted into your 
 reformed canon? Luther admitted the Epis- 
 tle of St. James, in his edition ot 1529 and 
 1534, but scornfully expelled it from those of 
 i535, and 1540. It continued to be exclud- 
 ed from the following Lutheran editions after 
 his death; viz. that of 1548,— 66,— 72,— 75, 
 82,-89,-93,-99. So, also was the Epistle 
 of St. Jude, excluded from the edition pub- 
 lished in 1619. The Apocalypse is excluded 
 from the same editions and that of 1609. 
 
 As to the Epistle to the Hebrews, the 
 good " Reformer" did not know exactly what 
 to think! After the two editions, of 1529 
 and 1534, it was agreed, that it should be re- 
 tained, and tolerated as apocryphal and so it 
 continued in the Lutheran Bibles, until the 
 time of the two Wallemburgs, say 1669. 
 Now every Protestant has the same right to 
 sport with the sacred books, that Luther had. 
 And since the Scriptures themselves, do not 
 determine what books are cannonical and what 
 books are not, is it not something like arro- 
 gance for you or Mr. Martin Luther to muti- 
 late the inspired volume, and lop off, at your 
 pleasure, branches from the tree of life, by ca- 
 priciously applying the pruning hook of pri- 
 vate, individual opinion. By what rule, 
 then, can you prove according to the Protes- 
 tant principle of belief, that these books are 
 canonical, and that those are not, canonical ? 
 Let the General Assembly try their wisdom 
 on the question. 
 
 5. The Protestant rule of faith supposes, 
 that the Scriptures are plain and obvious 
 in their meaning. And yet, — the plea for the 
 Reformation, and the cry of the Reformers, 
 was, that the whole Catholic Church had 
 been mistaken, as to the true meaning of this 
 same book; — which was so plain withal, that 
 every Protestant, who has been blessed with 
 ten months education, may take it up and 
 " read as he runs!" — and that every such 
 Protestant, is bound to believe, that his 
 crude conceptions of its meaning, make him 
 wiser and more infallible, than all the 
 
 councils, FATHERS, TEACHEBS, PASTORS and 
 
 people, of all the ages of the Christian 
 Church!!! 
 
 6. But even admitting the absurd supposi- 
 tion, that such a man is qualified to un- 
 derstand the meaning of what the book 
 says, how does he know that the book is, in 
 all respects, the same now, that it was, when 
 
7.1 
 
 it came from the hands of its inspired au- 
 thors ? Has it been correctly translated,? 
 Has it been fairly copied, from one manu- 
 script to another previous to printing? These 
 are difficulties, for which his rule of faith 
 furnishes no solution. And these difficulties 
 are increased an hundred fold, when he re- 
 members, that the Scriptures were in the 
 keeping of the Catholic Church, which, the 
 prejudices of his education have taught him 
 to look upon, as a universal anti-Christian 
 conspiracy; and that the ivorle of transcrib- 
 ing the Bible, generally devolved on those 
 monks, whose name is synonymous, in his 
 mind, with ignorance, dishonesty, perfidious- 
 ness and cruelty. "What!" he will ask 
 with astonishment; — " is it from such a 
 source, that we receive the written word of 
 God ?" — Yes, — gentle reader — do not be 
 startled at the discovery. Before the squab- 
 ble between Martin Luther and Leo X. in the 
 sixteenth century, there was not a single Pro- 
 testant in the whole universe, to take care of 
 the Bible. Mr. Breckinridge may tell you, 
 that God was pleased to reveal the Protes- 
 tant rule of faith 1500 years, after he had 
 revealed the Christian religion — and that 
 the Holy Bible was not in the least tainted, 
 by the tide of corruption, on which it floated 
 down. But, you may reply to him, in my 
 name, that God could have preserved the doc- 
 trines of the church in the same way — and 
 that, if Martin Luther believed her, when she 
 told him, that the Scriptures are the inspi- 
 red, written word of God; — he might have 
 believed her, when she told him, what doc- 
 trines they contained — especially, when it is 
 remembered, that it was he, and not the 
 Church, that undertook to give them a new 
 meaning, with which Christianity, during the 
 same space of 1 500 years, had been totally un- 
 acquainted. With this remark I leave my 
 reader, and my Rev. opponent, to finish the 
 dialogue. The latter will have an opportu- 
 nity to speak for himself; and the public will 
 see how he will meet these difficulties. 
 
 The Catholic believes the infallibility 
 of the church. The grounds of this belief, 
 are briefly stated in my last two letters; par- 
 ticularly in No. 5. He knows that there has 
 been no such thing as a moral death, or 
 chasm, in the teaching and belief of those 
 doctrines, which Carist revealed, and men 
 are bound to receive, as they value their 
 salvation. He knows, that in this sense, the 
 church is a avitness to the universe; and, as 
 he receives her testimony when she says, 
 that the Scriptures are the inspired vwrd of 
 God, — that she received and preserved them 
 
 as such: so he receives her testimony, whert 
 she says, that the opinions of heretics — no 
 matter of what age or country, are not the 
 doctrines, which she received, with the Scrip- 
 tures, from Jesus Christ and his Apostles, — 
 and he yields, but a " reasonable obedience," 
 to her authority, when she admonishes him, 
 not to follow the notions of Martin Luther, 
 or any other individual. 
 
 Wishing to stand corrected, as to the 
 length of my letter, by the gentle reproof 
 of our publishers, and the moral of the 
 " wounded snake," with which you begin 
 your last epistle, I deem it prudent to has- 
 ten to a conclusion, There are one or two 
 points, however, which you have protruded 
 on the consideration of our readers with no 
 other view that / can perceive, except to 
 gratify prejudice, where it exists, and to di- 
 vert general attention from your palpable 
 abandonment of the rule of faith. To these 
 I shall briefly advert, — although, until you 
 have agreed to clear up the points, on which 
 we are at issue, in the way / have pro- 
 posed; — I feel that the mora! sense of the 
 community would sustain me, in refusing to 
 notice any reference of yours, in which the 
 whole passage is not quoted. 
 
 In your last epistle you ask me, to "ex- 
 plain what Pope Nicholas meant, when he said 
 to the Emperor Michael, "The Pope is a 
 God and therefore men cannot judge 
 him." Now, as you have the modesty in 
 this instance, to acknowledge that it is in- 
 struction you stand in need of, I should be 
 sorry to refuse what you desire. Know 
 then, and understand in the first place, that 
 Pope Nicholas never said, " the Pope is a 
 God. ,f Here I might-- stop: — but secondly, 
 know and understand that the Emperor 
 Michael, had expelled Ignatius, Patriarch of 
 Constantinople from-hissw. — and that Pope 
 Nicholas was expostulating with him, on the 
 unlawfidness of disturbing the spiritual or- 
 der of the. church, by the exercise of secular 
 power. Among other things, he reminds the 
 Emperor, that his predecessor, Constantine 
 the Great, when called upon to sit in judg- 
 ment on the bishops of the church, refused to 
 do so; and, addressing them in the figurative 
 language of the Scripture, (Psalms Ixxxi. 
 6. ) said to them : " Vos dii estis, a vero Deo 
 constituti" — " Ye are Gods, appointed by 
 the true God" — to show, that he, Constan- 
 tine, regarded their spiritual authority, as an 
 authority from God, and therefore too sa- 
 cred, for the judgment of temporal princes, 
 and the interference of secular power. Si- 
 milar language was used, in similar circum- 
 
73 
 
 stances, by Theodosius the younger. And 
 these are the examples, which Pope Nicholas 
 is holding up to the the memory of the Em- 
 peror Michael, to induce- him to desist, and 
 to show him how much the Emperors, his 
 predecessors, had respected the authority of 
 God, in the persons of his ministers; — and 
 that, though he could command armies, and 
 ravage provinces, yet he could neither be- 
 stow, nor take away, the spiritual authority 
 of a bishop, in the Church of Christ. Con- 
 stantine used the words in the sense I have 
 mentioned. Pope Nicholas did not use them 
 as his own; but referred to them in the 
 sense, and for the purpose here stated. He 
 speaks of himself, in the document, as the 
 humble "minister' 1 '' of Jesus Christ. 
 
 If, then, you had waited for this informa- 
 tion ; you would not have exposed yourself, 
 nor deceived your readers, by building the 
 following assertion on the circumstance, which 
 I have just explained. Your words are evi- 
 dence of zeal, which would better befit a bet- 
 ter cause : but it is not " the zeal according 
 to knowledge." " The Pope usurps the 
 rights of the people : and the seat of the 
 Saviour, and would sit enthroned on the 
 iiches of the commonwealth of Israel. In a 
 word your infallible church, thus speaks of 
 the Pope ; and your infallible Pope loves to 
 have it so." On this whole concern, I have 
 only to say, that if / were found as you are, in 
 this matter, I feel that Catholics would blush 
 for me: — and that heaven will judge the ca- 
 lumnies that have been heaped on the Catho- 
 lic Church and on her supreme visible head — 
 the Bishop of Rome. 
 
 You make a long extract from the Council 
 of Lateran : — on which I have two questions 
 to ask you. First, do you give it as a literal 
 and continuous transl ation^ ? Second, do yotf 
 affirm that in the original it has the same ge- 
 neral meaning, that it seems to have in the 
 quotation? As you say you have the " origi- 
 nal before you," you can, of course, have no 
 difficulty in giving a positive answer to these 
 questions. In the mean time, a little informa- 
 tion on the character of that quotation, or 
 rather the circumstances to which it relates, 
 may not be useless or uninteresting to the 
 reader. 
 
 It is to be observed, in the first place, 
 that this council was held at a time when the 
 feudal system was in its full operation. A 
 council was, as it were, the general congress 
 of Christendom ; in which, states and sove- 
 reigns were represented for the purpose of 
 conferring together, on such matters, as con- 
 cerned the general welfare. These secular ' commentary on the text. And, bye the bye, 
 
 representatives had nothing to do with the de- 
 finitions of doctrines or morals; — and the in- 
 fallibility of the church had nothing to do with 
 any thing else. Still, it was deemed the 
 most convenient time and place, for sovereigns/ 
 and statesmen, to adopt such means in con- 
 junction with the clergy, as might protect the 
 altar and the throne; or, as the exigencig^of 
 the period required. The social picture, min- 
 gled Theocracy and civil policy, of the puritan) 
 settlements in New England, presents but a 
 diminutive analogy, when the pilgrim fathers 
 and their immediate successors, (not to speak \ 
 of other things far more serious,) would hard- 
 ly ring the town-house bell, unless they found" 
 a text of Scripture for it. 
 
 At the period of this Council the Albi- 
 genses were scattering the materials of civil 
 and religious revolution, in the bosom of 
 peaceable empires ; — among nations, which 
 acknowledged but one God, and knew but 
 one religion, whereby he was to be wor- 
 shipped. ^Sovereigns were obliged to provide 
 for their own safely. They may have fore- 
 seen those consequences, which Mr. Breckin- 
 ridge proclaims would have resulted from the 
 toleration of the Bible Society in Russia. 
 They would have been obliged to abolish in- 
 stitutions just as the Albigenses might think 
 proper to direct, or " else loose their crown." 
 This was the fate, we are told, which await- 
 ed the Russian autocrat if he had not put 
 down the Bible Society/// If this be so, 
 as Mr. Breckinridge asserts, then there is no 
 man, who, placed in the same situation, and 
 forseeing the consequences, would not have 
 done the same thing as Alexander. So it 
 was in the temporal regulations adopted by 
 the commingled representatives of Church 
 and States, at the general council of Lateran. 
 Had they not the right, I would ask, as the 
 majority, by a million to one, to take mea- 
 sures for the common welfare ? The doc- 
 trine of Christ teaches submission to " the 
 powers that be :" — Consequences, such as you 
 predicted of the Bible Society in Russia, have 
 always followed the footsteps of fanaticism. 
 Had not, then, the Catholic kings, and Catholic 
 barons, and Catholic vassals, and all the orders 
 of feudalism in Catholic Europe, the right, by 
 virtue of their majority, to take precautions 
 against such consequences? No Republican, 
 I should think, would deny it. \Ywr have 
 said, indeed, that " you render 'unto Caesar 
 the things that are Cassar's" — speaking, I 
 presume, in the name of your Church. But 
 your hypothetical prediction, in reference to 
 '■Bible Society in Russia," is rather a strange 
 
73 
 
 is it not a singular coincidence with your re- 
 bark, that " Caesar" never was in the power 
 of your Church, but once ; and that then the 
 " tribute money" was paid with the blood of 
 a Protestant, king! Should you not, then, de- 
 icately touch the subject of persecution, un- 
 til you can persuade yourself that history has 
 lost her memory? At a time when there 
 were not, perhaps, a million of Presbyterians 
 in the whole world, Mr. John Knox, the in- 
 sular founder of Presbyterianism, laid it down 
 as a maxim, that, "It is, not only lawful to 
 punish unto the death, such as labour to sub- 
 vert the true religion ; — but the magistrates 
 and people are bound so to do, unless they 
 will provoke the wrath of God against them- 
 selves." (Appellation of John Knox annexed 
 to his History of the Reformation, page 25.) 
 Had not Catholic Europe as good a right to 
 take measures of safety, against the revolu- 
 tionary spirit, of a few religious innovators 
 in the twelfth century; — as a few religious in 
 novators had to "punish unto the death," all 
 those who should contradict their religious 
 opinions, in the sixteenth century? Now, I 
 again submit to your cool reflection, whether 
 it would not be as profitable to your fame, and 
 to your cause, if you would condescend to 
 redeem your signature by " adhering strictly 
 to the subject of discussion for the time 
 being" — as it has been, to wander in to these 
 labyrinths of irrelevant matter, from which 
 you do not seem have well studied the facul- 
 ties of retreat. 
 
 In conclusion, I would remark, that my 
 charity for the mass of Protestants, has been 
 infinitely enlarged, by my experience in 
 this controversy. I would not dare to ques- 
 tion the wisdom or the justice of that divine 
 
 I Being, who permits it to he so: — But when 
 
 II consider the character of their books, 
 \md the weapons of their theologians, I 
 
 can hardly imagine, how it could be other- 
 wise. They hate truth ; not because it is 
 truth; but because their ministers, and their 
 books teach them to regard truth as error. 
 And they are confirmed in their hatred, by the 
 
 general "delusion" which teaches them to re- 
 gard the prejudices, that have been instilled 
 by their books, and education as the testimony 
 of the pure word of God, the bible alone. 
 How many of them, after having been "tossed 
 to and fro," on the deluge of religious opinions, 
 with which Protestantism has inundated the 
 world, and not finding whereon to rest their 
 foot, would return, like the weary dove, to the 
 " ark," from which their fathers, in an hour 
 of irritation and excitement, inconsiderately 
 launched forth into the great deep. For my- 
 self, it has taught me to bless God with inex- 
 pressible gratitude, for having permitted me 
 to be born in the Catholic Church of Christ; 
 otherwise, I might have ranked among the 
 fiercest of her opponents, and imagined that, 
 in persecuting her, even with my pen, 1 was 
 " doing God service." Thus, I may say with 
 the poet, though not in the literal sense, 
 
 Haud ignarus mali, miseris succurrcre disco. 
 
 Yours respectfully, 
 
 John Hughes. 
 
 P. S. — Bishop Kenrick is entirely satisfied 
 with your explanation of the " mistake ;" — 
 which, it seems, was not a mistake, after all ; 
 since that " most respectable and responsible 
 gentleman, on whose authority you relied, still 
 insists that such a warning, (viz, a prohibi- 
 tion to read this controversy,) was given, on 
 the day named, and in one of our churches, in 
 Philadelphia, by a Roman Catholic priest." 
 Now, as this is a matter of some consequence 
 to us, will you be pleased to request this 
 "most respectable and responsible gentleman," 
 to tax his memory, and try to recollect in 
 ivhich of our churches he was, on that day. 
 Tell him, that there are only five Catholic 
 churches in the city ; and that he may leave 
 the two, in which Bishop Kenrick and myself 
 officiate, out of the number. I am really cu- 
 rious to know in which of the other three the 
 warning was given ; — and so slyly, it seems, 
 that he was the only person that overheaid 
 it!! J. H. 
 
CONTROVERSY. .....N°. 10. 
 
 ) 
 
 Hole of Faith. 
 
 New York, 3d April, 1833. 
 To the Rev. John Hughes, — Sir, 
 
 ■" No falsehood can endure 
 
 Touch of celestial temper, but returns 
 To its own likeness ; — up it starts 
 Discover'd and surprised." 
 
 There is a heavenly virtue in the sword of 
 the Spirit, when faithfully wielded by the 
 hand even of a frail man, which error cannot 
 resist. The "atrocious crime" of having 
 "told you the truth," as to your system, 
 and your authorities, has I regret to per- 
 ceive, disturbed your temper not a little; 
 and led you to depart, not only from the dig- 
 nity of a minister, but from the decencies of 
 a gentleman. Though you begin your letter 
 with professions of decorum, you charge me 
 in less than two columns with six deliberate 
 falsehoods! But I advise you to be com- 
 posed} for the good people of this country 
 do not think by force, nor believe upon pre- 
 scription. I know it is natural for a system, 
 which has rested for ages on authority, to be 
 impatient of inquiry into its title to do- 
 minion. But the days of unquestioned 
 lordship over men's consciences have gone 
 by; and as you stand the representative of a 
 body, claiming 'infallibility, wisdom sug- 
 gests that you should not stumble in the ex- 
 ample, while you are pleading for the doc- 
 trine! 
 
 Now, even admitting that I am mistaken 
 in the interpretation of Bellarmine, as to 
 " fere de fide," &c; and of the Pope as to 
 " staluere articulos yirfei,"— must every such 
 mistake be charged to a want of veracity? 
 I put it to your Christian honour, I level it 
 even to your common honesty — can you de- 
 fend a course so much at war with candour, 
 propriety and justice? In these references, 
 did I not meet your call, time after time, 
 with quotations,* translations, and exposi- 
 tions ? And, now, either by your extracts 
 or mine, are not the facts on which a just 
 judgment may be formed, fairly before the 
 public? 
 
 But so far from thinking or owning myself 
 mistaken, every return of my attention to 
 the subject, and every struggle you make 
 
 to shield your cause, give me increased 
 conviction that I am right. What surprises 
 me exceedingly is, that you cavil at these 
 points, and make these charges against me, 
 when such a mass of unanswered matter, is 
 left by you entirely unnoticed', and your 
 strange liberties with ancient testimony left 
 wholly unexplained. I will refer you for 
 example once more, to the famous quotation 
 from Tertullian, where you omitted half the 
 passage, (as was shown by me in the next 
 letter) and thus made the other half prove 
 the very reverse of what the author intend- 
 ed. I have called again and again for your 
 explanation, and you have given none! 
 
 I will here repeat the quotations side by 
 side. 
 
 Mr. Hughes' quota- 
 tion, intended to show, that 
 Rome was the seat of the 
 true church, and the Pope 
 the supreme head and suc- 
 cessor of Peter. 
 
 " If you live near Italy, 
 you see be/ore your eyes the 
 Roman Church. Happy 
 Church! to which the Apos- 
 tles left the inheritance of 
 doctrines with their blood! 
 where Peter was crucified 
 like his Master; where John 
 was beheaded like the Bap- 
 tist." — (See letter of Mr. 
 Hughes, No. 5.) 
 
 The ungarbled pas- 
 sage. 
 
 " Survey the Apostoli- 
 cal churches in which 
 
 the VERY CHAIRS OF THE 
 
 Apostles still preside 
 over their stations, in ivhich 
 their own letters are recited, 
 uttering the voice, and re- 
 presenting the presence of 
 each of them. Is Achaia 
 nearest to thee ? Thou hast 
 Corinth. If thou art not 
 far from Macedonia, 'hou 
 hast the Philippians, and 
 the Thessalonians. If 
 thou canst go to Asia, thj 
 hast Ephesus ; hut if thoul 
 art near Italy thou hast 
 Rome, whence to 
 also authority is nearj 
 
 AT HAND." 
 
 And now we ask, is this not taking a very 
 great liberty with the evidence of this father? 
 Does he not put all the Jlpostles, and all their 
 seals and cities, Achaia, Corinth, Philippi, 
 Ephesus, &c, on the same footing of "au- 
 thority," as Peter and Rome? Yet Mr. 
 Hughes adduced a part of this to prove just 
 the reverse ! 
 
 I have still another illustration, if possible, 
 more palpable than the last. It is your quo- 
 tation FROM STANDARDS NOT OUR OWN, to 
 
 prove that the Presbyterians, united under 
 "the General Assembly," in this country, 
 
 " FORBID THE TOLERATION of A FALSE RE- 
 LIGION." You refer, with an air of great 
 
7S 
 
 assurance, to the edition published by Towar 
 & Hogan, in 1829. There was no edition of 
 our standards published by Towar fy Hogan 
 in 1829. Jlnd in the edition published by 
 them in 1 827, the phrase which you profess 
 to cite is not found, either in the page to 
 which you refer, or in any other part of the 
 book!! The public has already judged of 
 this. In my last letter, I gave you refer- 
 ences to our standards, repelling your un- 
 founded and slanderous charge. You say 
 you "find no such reference. " This fact 
 ought to have led a candid man to suspect 
 his mistake; and a just one to seek its correc- 
 tion. But you go on to give more extracts; 
 and then call on me to account for the dis- 
 crepance of our references. In responding, 
 (1.) I assure you I hardly know how to ac- 
 count for it as it respects yourself; when on 
 a former occasion, I referred a misrepresenta- 
 tion of yours to ignorance, you declined the 
 apology which it furnished. Where to rest this 
 mistake, I know not. — (2.) As to the extract it- 
 self and the source, the only way in which I 
 can account for your extraordinary misrepre- 
 sentation is to suppose that you have avail- 
 ed yourself of a reprint of the Larger Cate- 
 chism and Westminster Confession of Faith, 
 as they originally appeared in Great Britain 
 in 1647. To this you refer (in letter No. 1) 
 when you say with more flippancy than his- 
 toric truth — k ' a number of men appointed at 
 Westminster Jl. D. 1647, by order of Parlia- 
 ment to make a religion for the United King- 
 dom of Great Britain and Ireland." It was 
 a glaring perversion to say that their assem- 
 bly was convoked to " make a religion.'' 9 
 But now you assume this high prerogative for 
 the Presbyterian church! Truly we are not 
 yet prepared to take our seats by the side, or 
 in the bosom of the church of Rome, as an 
 intolerant communion and a persecuting pow- 
 er, however your hasty and self-convicted 
 zeal may have indiscreetly caught at the 
 doings of another age, and land, and people, 
 and charged them ijpon us! Need I tell you 
 at this late day, that some fifty years ago 
 when the basis was laid of the present union 
 of the Presbyterian church in the United 
 States in one General Assembly, and the 
 formularies of the church prepared, all the 
 offensive passages which you have quotedwere 
 solemnly rejected; that the passages to which 
 I have already referred you were solemnly 
 adopted; that those you cite are not, and 
 never were a part of our standards any more 
 than the decrees of Trent; or the creed of 
 Pius IV; or the acts of the British Parlia- 
 ment? While the public mind alternates 
 
 between surprise at your ignorance, and sus- 
 picion of your motives, the question must of- 
 ten be repeated, how could he be ignorant? 
 Yet if not, how could he have ventured on so 
 extraordinary a misrepresentation? 
 
 I give below, in contrast, the true extracts 
 from our standards — and that which you 
 have transferred to us from the Times and 
 the Realms in which the church and the state 
 were united, and intolerance inseparable from 
 the very nature of that union. 
 
 Extracts from, the Stand- Mr. Hughes' misrepresen 
 
 ards of the Presbyterian tation. 
 
 Church, on Toleration and " The standard of Pres- 
 
 the (Jivil Magistrate. byterianism in the United 
 
 Form of Government, States, and in the 19th cen- 
 
 Book 1st, chapter 1st, sec- tury, makes it a sin against 
 
 tion 1st. page 343, Towar the second commandment 
 
 & Hogan's edition, 1827. — of God to tolerate a 
 
 "They are unanimously of FALSE RELIGION. It is 
 
 opinion, that God alone is true the General Assembly 
 
 Lord of the conscience, and have not yet told us what 
 
 therefore they consider the religions are to be regarded 
 
 right of private judgment in as 'false.' (Mr. H.'s Letter 
 
 all matters that respect reli- No. 7.) But in the very 
 
 gion as universal and una- same chapter and section 
 
 llenable." 123d chap. 3d sec.) I find 
 
 Confession of Faith, 23d the following: "He' (the 
 chap., 3d and 4th sections, civil magistiate) 'hath nu- 
 — " Civil magistrates ma)' ihorily, and it is his duly, 
 not in the least interfere to take order, that unity and 
 with matters of faith — they peace be preserved in the 
 should give no preference to church; that the truth of 
 any one denomination of Go<! be preserved pure and 
 Christians above the rest — entire; that all blasphemies 
 and ecclesiastical persons and heresies be suppressed} 
 should enjoy free, full, and all corruptions and abuses 
 unquestioned liberty ;" &c. in worship and discipline 
 " It is the duty of the peo- prevented or reformed; and 
 pie to pray for the magis- all the ordinances of God 
 trates — and to be subject duly settled, administered 
 to their authority for con- and observed. For the bet- 
 science sake — from which ter effecting whereof, he 
 ecclesiastical persons are hath power to call Synods, 
 not exempted — much less to be present at them, and 
 hath the Pope any power to provide that whatsoever 
 or jurisdiction over them in is transacted in them, be 
 their dominions — and least according to the mind of 
 of all to deprive them of God." (Mr. H.'s Letter No. 
 their dominion or lives, if he 9.) 
 shall judge them to be her- 
 etics. 
 
 // 
 
 It seems peculiarly fit, in juxta-position 
 with the above, to advert to the decrees of 
 the council of 4th Lateran, (extracted into 
 my last letter, (for the extermination of here- 
 tics. You ask (1.) " Do you give it as a li- 
 teral and contiguous translation?" I answer 
 unhesitatingly — I do. It is as literal as the 
 sense will bear. (2) You ask," do you af- 
 firm that in the original, it has the same ge- 
 neral meaning that it seems to have in the 
 quotation?" I answer, it is from your own 
 '■Caranza's summa concilioruni"thatIquote.. 
 As I suppose you have the original, you can 
 compare it with any extracts, and with my 
 translation. I omitted the original for want 
 of space alone. I consider the 2d question 
 an indignity offered to the feelings of any 
 
 9 
 
7© 
 
 honest man. Go to the original, and give us 
 another translation, and if you can, prop a 
 sinking cause with good sense; but do not 
 think to turn the edge of these solid autho- 
 rities by charging me again with fdlsehood! 
 Your remarks on this decree against heretics 
 are most peculiar. You say (l) " The coun- 
 cil was held at a time ivhen the feudal system 
 was in full operation." You give no 2d, but 
 go on to add, '.' A Council was as it were a 
 general congress of Christendom, in which 
 
 ^states and sovereigns were represented," &c. 
 
 £ Next, "The secular representatives had 
 nothing to do with the definition of doctrines 
 and morals, " and the infallibility of the 
 church had nothing to do with any thing 
 else." Next, " The sovereigns, in conjunc- 
 tion with the clergy, deemed it a convenient 
 time and place, to adopt such measures as 
 might protect the altar and the throne;" last- 
 ly the Albigenses were endangering the uni- 
 versal state the universal church, and "the 
 sovereigns (of Europe) were obliged to provide 
 for their own safety" 
 
 (1) Now this council is acknowledged by 
 your church as a general council, lawfully 
 convened. — The necessary result on your 
 principles is, that its acts were infallible. 
 But you are driven to defend some of its de- 
 crees by abandoning others. Yours is a 
 strange alembic, by which you separate the 
 secular from the infallible decrees. But did 
 not this decree against the heretics directly 
 concern " faith and morals." Heresy is re- 
 lative to faith as departed from, and the mur- 
 der of heretics is a violation of the moral law; 
 and the command to do it supposes obedience 
 which is a moral act. The decree designates 
 
 " EVERY HERESY EXTOLLING ITSELF AGAINST 
 
 * THIS HOLY, ORTHODOX, CATHOLIC FAITH WHICH 
 
 ^VE BEFORE EXPOUNDED.'' " Those wllO be- 
 
 ^fttre expounded this faith" were of course not 
 " seculars," for you say " they had nothing to 
 do with the definition of doctrines and mo- 
 rals." — Therefore according to your own ad- 
 mission, it was done ecclesiastically — and 
 therefore infallibly. And what makes this 
 certain is, that a little below it says, " all 
 
 HERESIES, DENOTED BY THE CHURCH, MUST BE 
 EXTERMINATED BY THE SECULAR FOWER," &C. 
 
 The decree then is all your own. 
 
 (2) When you call this council, a " con- 
 gress of Christendom," you make the Pope 
 
 your own confession, the universal head 
 the state and the church. The Pope pie- 
 sided— it was an ecclesiastical general coun- 
 cil—the states and sovereigns were represent- 
 ed in it — and the body passed decrees on the 
 lives and property of subjects, on the crowns 
 
 A b J 
 
 •..ot 
 
 of princes; and on the allegiance of subjects, 
 as well as on matters of faith and morals; 
 and the ultimate, the supreme sanction for 
 bringing kings to their orthodoxy was this; 
 "But if the temporal lord, required and 
 warned by the church, shall neglect to purge 
 his territory from this heretical filth, let him, 
 by the Metropolitan and comprovincial Bish- 
 ops, be tied by the bond of excommunica- 
 tion;" — "and if he scorn to satisfy within a 
 year, let that be signified to the Pope, that 
 he may thenceforth denounce his vassals 
 absolved from their fidelity," (i. e. their alle- 
 giance to their prince) and may expose, (i. e. 
 the Pope may expose,) his country to be 
 seized on by Catholics, who, exterminating 
 heretics, may possess it without any contra- 
 diction — and keep it in the purity of faith." 
 (3.) While crowns are thus put at the 
 Pope's feet, and the lives of men are at his 
 disposal, not a word is said " about providing 
 for the safety of the sovereigns," at "this 
 congress of Christendom." No, their safety 
 was in submission and silence; — and they 
 felt themselves well off, if, after holding the 
 Pope's stirrup, and kissing his feet, they 
 could hold their crowns by doing homage for 
 them, and their lives by his lordly grant. 
 
 (4) And then to think of explaining this 
 atrocious decree, which deluged Europe in 
 blood, by referring to the poor Albigenses, as 
 disturbing the peace of kingdoms, and " obli- 
 ging sovereigns to provide for their own safe- 
 ty," by indiscriminate extermination of all 
 who did not think with them I They were 
 no more in strength and numbers, compared 
 with all Europe, than a little flock of kids 
 before a great army. 
 
 (5) But the strangestof all your expositions 
 is this — " had not then Catholic kings, and 
 Catholic barons, and Catholic vassals, all the 
 orders of feudalism in Catholic Europe, the 
 right by virtue of their majority, to take pre- 
 cautions against such consequences? No re- 
 publican I should think would deny it." 
 The argument is, that a majority have a 
 right to exterminate the minority ; for disagree- 
 ing with them in opinion. Heresy was the 
 sin for which all these bloody acts were pass- 
 ed. No sin against the state is mentioned; 
 nothing that it concerns the civil power to 
 punish; but just what the Protestants of this 
 land are doing, protesting against the Papa- 
 cy! — Yours is truly strange republicanism. 
 How well for us, in view of old decrees and 
 new arguments for them, that Protestants 
 have yet the majority in our country! 
 
 But my heart grows sick at the recital. 
 Indeed Sir, yours is a sad business, to de- 
 
77 
 
 fend or explain such enormities. But no 
 skill can torture it into propriety. No Je- 
 suit can cover, or excuse, or deny it. 
 
 I next pass to meet your demand and sus- 
 tain my statement, "that the' catechism of 
 the Council of Trent gives only four words 
 of the second commandment and closes with 
 an expressive etcetera." I find that you are 
 accustomed to make calls on me, which from 
 their wording, convey the impression to the 
 public that I am wholly in error as to some 
 authority or fact, and then, when I produce 
 the proof, instead of owning it, you drop it in 
 silence. So you did in reference to the 
 Pope's anathematizing Bible Societies, so 
 you did in reference to Bellarmine's " fere 
 de fide.'' Before the proof was adduced, 
 you brought a heavy charge against me. Af- 
 ter it was produced you do not say one word 
 in the way of interpretation or argument, but 
 pass the discussion with a petulant taunt. 
 So as to the three systems in your church as 
 to the Pope's supremacy — viz: a presiden- 
 cy, an unlimited monarchy, and deification. 
 Twice have I brought proof, you answer only 
 by a denial. 
 
 And now as to the second commandment 
 and the Council of Trent. You say my 
 statement is " untrue," and that it is " bear- 
 ing false witness against my neigl 
 Now for the proof. 
 
 Catechismus Concilii 
 Tridenti Ph. V. pontif. 
 max. Jussu promulgatus. 
 Primum Prceceptum Deca- 
 logi. 
 
 Ego sum Dominus Deus 
 tuus qui eduxi te de terra 
 Egypii, de Domo servitutis. 
 Non habebis Deos alienos 
 coram me. Non facies tibi 
 sculptile, &c. 
 
 Secundum Decalogi Prae- 
 ceptum. 
 
 Non assumes nomen Do- 
 mini Dei Tui in vanum. 
 
 Catechism of the 
 of Trent published 
 of Pope Pius V. 
 
 1st. Precept of the Deca- 
 logue. 
 
 1 am the Lord thy God 
 who led thee out of the land 
 of Egj'pt and out of the 
 house of bondage. Thou 
 shalt have no other Gods 
 before inc. Thou shalt not 
 make to thee a graven 
 image, &c. 
 
 Second Precept of the 
 Decalogue. 
 
 Thou shalt not take the 
 name of the Lord thy G< 
 in vain. 
 
 Here then we see even as I have said, that 
 four words only are given, viz., non facies 
 tibi sculptile, thou shalt not make to thee 
 a graven image, and then follows the ex- 
 pressive etcetera. It is true these four 
 words are fastened to the end of the first 
 commandment, and no doubt for the purpose 
 of casting even them into the shade. But it 
 is the real 2d commandment which begins 
 with these four words. But however you 
 class the long and expressive command 
 against making and bowing down to, and 
 worshiping images, where are all the other 
 portions of it? Are they not dropped? 
 
 And do we not clearly see why? Here 
 then is on one hand the catechism word for 
 word, and on the other, Mr. Hughes deny- 
 ing it and charging me with falsehood for re- 
 porting it. Truly your denial will presently 
 be to us, a stereotype proof of the truth of a 
 proposition. What is thus so clearly proved 
 from the catechism of the Council of Trent, 
 the translations into various languages, copy 
 in a greater or less degree according to circum- 
 stances. I have mentioned several instances 
 of the kind in my last letter. You take no 
 notice of them. There is now on my table 
 an example, "The most Rev. Dr. J. But- 
 ler's Catechism, enlarged, improved and re- 
 commended by tbe four Roman Catholic 
 Archbishops of Ireland, as a general cate- 
 chism for the kingdom." Philadelphia, pub- 
 lished by Eugene Cummiskey, 1827, lesson 
 14. 1st commandment, I am the Lord thy 
 God, thou shalt not have strange gods before 
 me, &c. 2d. Thou shalt not take the name 
 of the Lord thy God in vain. 3d, Remem- 
 ber the Sabbath day to keep it holy, &c. &c. 
 Here is not one single word about graven 
 linages. Have I not justly called this ex- 
 pressive silence ? 
 
 Once more, your attempt at explaining 
 Pope Nicholas' calling himself a god, is a 
 eil too thin to cover the deformity and 
 
 asphemy of the assumption. It is true that 
 quotes from the Emperor Constantine; 
 
 t he so quotes as to approve of what he 
 ad said. Upon your construction, there is 
 no meaning or sense in the reasoning of the 
 Pope. Whereas the Pope uses the refer- 
 ence to prove himself superior to all secular 
 authority. In proof of this, see his words; 
 Satis evidenter ostenditur a seculari potestate 
 nee ligari prorsus, nee solvi posse pontificem 
 quern constat a pio principe, Constantino 
 
 uod longe supeiius, memoravimus) Deum 
 
 pellatum, nee posse Deum ab hominibus 
 udicari manifestum est. It may very evi- 
 dently be shown that the Pope, who as we 
 have already related^ was called God by 
 Prince Constantine, can neither be bound 
 nor released by the secular authorities, for it 
 is evident that God cannot be judged by 
 men. 
 
 Your pompous challenge to a reference, 
 with the reason assigned for it, viz., that 
 the language and the books about ivhich ice 
 differ are unknown to the mass of our read- 
 ers, is curious enough; especially when we 
 consider that your public prayers and stan- 
 dard Bible are both in an unknown tongue. 
 I have uniformily studied to be simple, faith- 
 ful, and full in my references. I now greet 
 
78 
 
 your arrival at the principle of private inter- 
 pretation. If you will add to the points 
 you mention, the question about the cate- 
 chism of the Council of Trent, and the other 
 catechisms, and about the Pope calling him- 
 self God; also, the question of the true sense 
 of my extract from the 4th Council of Later- 
 an, and the interpretation of 2d. Peter i. 20. 
 then I will promptly agree to such a refer- 
 ence, it being understood that the parties 
 shall be neither Roman Catholics nor Pres- 
 byterians. 
 
 But now let us return to the line of our 
 argument. If I am not greatly deceived, 
 your reasoning in behalf of your rale of 
 faith "in thk apostolical succession" 
 has been fairly shown to be unscriptural and 
 fallacious — I proceed to remark still far- 
 ther. 
 
 I. One of your methods of defending your 
 church's infallibility, is this, "if the church be 
 not infallible, then the gates of hell have pre- 
 vailed against it, and the Redeemer has forgot- 
 ten his promise to his spouse." Now observe, 
 (1.) The question in debate is whether 
 this infallibility was ever promised; and 
 whether the existence, security, and triumph 
 of the church at all depend upon such in- 
 fallibility. We say not at all. The gates of 
 hell shall never prevail against the church, 
 because Christ her head is with her. By 
 such an inference therefore, you beg the- 
 question, but do not prove it. (2.) In this 
 way also you assume without proof that 
 yours is the true church, and then argue that 
 she is infallible. But you must first prove 
 yours the true church, and the only true 
 church; or else on your own system your 
 conclusion is worth nothing. You can only 
 prove it by private interpretation ; — you can- 
 not prove it all. (3.) Supposing that Christ 
 did promise (which we deny) an infallible 
 church on earth; there is another conclu-* 
 sion far more obvious than that which you" 
 draw. It is this — the church of Rome has 
 protect herself fallible in doctrine and falli- 
 ble in morals— therefore the gales of hell have 
 prevailed against her; — and she cannot be 
 the true Church of Christ. This is on your 
 own principles; and you cannot consistent- 
 ly escape the conclusion. 
 
 II. Allowing that Christ appointed an in- 
 fallible tradition of doctrine, and a succes- 
 sion of infallible teachers, then the church 
 which does not dispense his ordinances, and 
 teach his doctrines, as he instituted, and 
 taught, cannot be a true Church of Jesus 
 Christ. Now I will prove that your church 
 has corrupted the ordinances of Christ, and 
 
 the doctrines of Christ. If so, she is desti- 
 tute, of the true rule of faith, on your own 
 principles. I refer you for proof of this to 
 the decree of the Council of Trent, 21. Sess. 
 1st. and 2d. chap's. I suppose you have the 
 original, and can compare it with this trans- 
 lation — "Although Christ the Lord did in 
 the last supper institute this venerable sacra- 
 ment of the Eucharist, in the species of bread 
 and tmne, and thus delivered it to the Apos- 
 tles;" "and though from the beginning of 
 the Christian religion, the use of both kinds, 
 was not unfrequent — yet when in process of 
 time, that practice, was, for weighty and just 
 causes, changed, Holy Mother Church, re- 
 cognising her acknowledged authority, in the 
 administration of the sacraments, approved 
 the custom of communion in- one kind, and 
 commanded it to be observed as a law." 
 Chap, iv: Canon 1st. "Whosoever shall 
 affirm that all and every one of Christ's 
 faithful are bound by divine command to re- 
 ceive the most holy sacrament of the Eucha- 
 rist in both kinds, as necessary to salvation, 
 let him be accursed." 
 
 Here then is (1) a confession that Christ 
 instituted the sacrament of the supper in 
 bread and wine. (2.) That from the begin- 
 ning the use of both the bread and the wine 
 was^.common (not unfrequent.) (5.) That 
 there were weight;/ and just causes for 
 changing (mark it!) Christ's law. (4.) 
 That the Roman Catholic Church made the 
 change into a law. (5.) Whosoever finds 
 fault with this dreadful innovation is ac- 
 cursed. (6 ) Yet this is no less, than di- 
 viding in twain a solemn sacrament of Je- 
 sus Christ, and dropping one half of this 
 sealing ordinance! How expressive is the 
 prophecy (Daniel vii. 25.) ''And he shall 
 speak great words against the Most High; 
 and shall wear out the saints of the Most 
 High, and think to change times and laivs>" 
 
 VTo the two sacraments instituted by Christ 
 r church has added no less than^ue new 
 ones. One of these, viz. extreme unction, is 
 thus proved by the Council of Trent, sess. 
 14. chap. 1. " Truly the Holy unction of the 
 sick, was instituted as it were, truly and 
 properly a sacrament of the New Testament, 
 hinted at indeed, (insinuatum) by our Lord 
 Christ in Mark, but recommended and 
 preached to the faithful by James the Apos- 
 tle and brother of our Lord." In the canon 
 just below, it is said to have been "institu- 
 ted by Jesus Christ our Lord," but there is 
 no attempt at other or better proof than 
 that quoted before. A sacrament resting 
 on an " as it were," and a "hinted at" 
 
79 
 
 by Christ! And then the proof from James 
 (5 chap. 14, 15, ver.) is perverted in the 
 translation and use of it. " Anointing the 
 sick," as mentioned by James, " raised him 
 up," by miraculous power, to live again. 
 The Lord who "raised him up," "forgave 
 his sins." — But extreme miction, as the name 
 imports, is a last act; and the translation 
 from the Greek, in the decree of the Coun- 
 cil, changes the meaning to this, " the Lord 
 will ease him." But besides the fact that 
 this institution is utterly an innovation, 
 there is about it a most singular dilemma, 
 which explains in part the cautious language 
 of the decree. The Council had decreed 
 (3d chap, of sess. 14.) that "the proper 
 ministers of this sacrament are either Bish- 
 ops, or Priests regularly ordained by them." 
 The same Council decreed that "In the last 
 supper, our Lord appointed his Apostles 
 priests of the New Testament." (sess. 22d. 
 chap. 1st.) When the Apostles administer- 
 ed the unction to the sick, (Mark vi. 14.) 
 they were then priests, or they were not 
 priests. If they were priests then, they 
 were not made priests at the last supper; 
 and the Council in affirming they were have 
 erred: or if they were not priests then, or 
 till the last supper, the unction, not being 
 administered by priests, was no sacrament; 
 and the Council in declaring it was a sacra- 
 ment, has greatly erred. In either case, the 
 Council has overthrown its own infallibility, 
 and that of the Church of Rome. Space 
 alone is wanting to apply the same train of 
 reasoning with equal effect to show that your 
 church has corrupted the doctrines of Christ 
 and his Jlpostlts; so that many of those 
 which you hold to be cardinal, are novelties 
 and errors; such are Transubstantiation, 
 Purgatory, Indulgences, the Pope's supre- 
 macy, &c, which, if my life be spared, I 
 hope in due time to make appear. So that it 
 is easier to show that our religion urns before 
 Luther, than yours before the Council cf 
 Trent. The inference is most conclusive 
 that since the church of Rome has altered 
 and added to the sacraments of Christ, and 
 corrupted his doctrines, she is not unchange- 
 able, that she has not been an "infallible 
 teacher," and of course lacks that rale of 
 faith, which Mr. Hughes himself says the 
 true church must have! 
 
 III. The canon of Scripture used by yoxir 
 church, is not the canon of the Christian 
 church. As to the canonicity of all the books 
 of the true Bible, you and we are agreed. It 
 is true you have often in this discussion 
 taken common ground with the Infidel, and 
 
 attempted to perplex the proof of the authen- 
 ticity of the Bible, in order to carry your 
 system. We did not receive the Bible exclu- 
 sively through the church of Rome. But al- 
 lowing that we did, so did you receive the 
 Old Testament canon exclusively through 
 the Jews. If then because we receive it 
 from you, we ought to take your traditions 
 with the text from you, so ought you, be- 
 cause you receive the Old Testament from 
 the Jews, to take their traditions with the 
 text from them. Again — Though you get 
 the Old Testament from the Jews, you add 
 many books to their canon, -which they re- 
 jected. Why have you done this? If you 
 may add what the Jews rejected, and yet 
 hold a part in common with them as you do, 
 may not the Christian church reject what 
 you add, and yet hold a part in common with 
 you? This is what the Christian church has 
 t l„ ne . — Now as to the Old Testament canon, 
 it is conceded by your church that the Jews 
 rejected, as not canonical, those books called 
 " Apochryphal," which the Council of Trent 
 decreed to be a part of the canon. Neither 
 Christ nor his Apostles ever found fault with 
 the Jews for rejecting true Scripture* from the 
 canon, or adding false books to it; though 
 their false glosses and traditions were con- 
 tinually exposed by them. So far from this, 
 Christ and his Apostles continually quoted 
 from the present Old Testament; yet not a 
 word from your' additional books — Macca- 
 bees, Tobit, &c &c. But they referred the 
 Jews "to whom were committed the oracles 
 of God" (Rom. 3. 2.) to their own Scrip- 
 tures — "search the Scriptures, for in them 
 ye think ye have eternal life — and they are 
 they which testify of me." — (John 5. 39.) 
 "As it is written,"" "that it might be fulfill- 
 ed," &c. were the familiar and unqualified 
 approbation of Jesus and his Apostles, to the 
 Jewish Scriptures. And by comparing the 
 27th with the 44th verse of Luke's 24th 
 chapter, you will find Christ saying that " all 
 the Scriptures" were comprised in the " law of 
 Moses, and the Prophets and the Psalms." 
 That was the common division of the whole 
 Jewish Scriptures, without the Maccabees, 
 Tobit, &c. &c. 
 
 Again — these Apocryphal books, (accor- 
 ding to the present canon of the Protestant 
 churches) are excluded from the true canon 
 by the earliest Christian writers. Justin 
 Martyr, (A. D. 150.) quotes not one word 
 from "these Apocryphal books. The first ca- 
 talogue of the Old Testament Scriptures, 
 which we have after the days of the Apostles 
 is that of Melito, preserved by Eusebiu?. 
 
80 
 
 (Ecc. Hist. Lib. v. c. 24.) This precisely 
 accords with our canon, (excluding all the 
 Apocryphal books,) except that after the 
 " Proverbs of Solomon," -he mentions " Wis- 
 dom" which Rupin and Pineda, a Romanist, 
 say, means the same with Proverbs, i. e. 
 " Proverbs or Wisdom." — Athanasius, in 
 his synopsis, gives our canon. Hilary, who 
 was cotemporary with Athanasius, rejects 
 the "Wisdom of Sirach," "Judith," "To- 
 bit," &c. Augustine calls the Jews, the 
 " Librarians" of the Christian Church. The 
 Council of Laodicea, (Can. 60th, See Lab- 
 bseus and Cossarte on the sacred councils,) 
 gives our canon and excludes the Apocry- 
 pha,; — And so from age to age, down to 
 Erasmus, we have a line of testimony against 
 the canon decreed by the Council of Trent. 
 Itis true these Apocryphal books were consid- 
 ered by the early Christians as ecclesiastical 
 Histories, which might be read with profit, 
 bating their errors and extravagancies ; but 
 not inspired, and therefore not canonical; 
 and it was by unperceived degrees, and 
 through a series of ages, that the way was 
 prepared for canonizing them at Trent, in 
 the I6ih century. Your church therefore has 
 not the pure word of God. Instead of handing 
 down the truth, it has exceedingly corrupted 
 it, and that at the fountain head. At this 
 we need not be surprised, when we call to 
 mind, that many of her doctrines rest for 
 authority on these Apocryphal books. 
 
 By the same facts it appears that the Pro- 
 testant canon is the true word of God, as 
 held by his people from the beginning. 
 When therefore you ask me how we know 
 that such and such books are canonical, you 
 may hereafter know that we do not learn it 
 from the Church of Rome, which has corrupted 
 the canon. And when you say, at the 6th 
 head of your last letter, " How does he, (the 
 Protestant,) know that the Book, (the Bible,) 
 is in all respects now the same that it was, 
 when it came from the hands of its inspired 
 authors? Has it heen correctly translated? 
 Has it been fairly copied, from one manu- 
 script to another previous to printing?" I 
 reply, full well we know, that if this matter 
 had been left to those hands that added the 
 Apocryphal books to the word of God — that 
 forged decretals, and erased the testimony 
 of the Fathers — we might have trembled for 
 the ark, and despaired of the word of God. 
 But a gracious Providence, before the canon 
 
 was corrupted by your church, and before it 
 was in its power to shut in the Bible, had 
 caused it to be translated into many langua- 
 ges — published in many countries — and pre- 
 served and transmitted it by so many hands, 
 and channels, that we need look not at all to 
 the Church of Rome for this precious trea- 
 sure. I regret that room is wanting to ex- 
 tend the argument for the true rule of faith. 
 But I must, before I close, notice your most 
 wanton admission, as to the evidences of the 
 Saviour's divinity in the sacred volume. In 
 the 1st head of your last letter, No. 9, you 
 hold the following language; "Let him, (the 
 Protestant reader,) take up the Bible, and 
 read these words of our blessed Redeemer, — 
 ' the Father and I are one' — turn then to the 
 other words — ■ the Father is greater than I.' 
 That one passage is to be explained by the 
 other is certain; but which shall take the 
 preference of the other, the sacred writings 
 do not determine.^ The obvious tendency 
 of this statement is to sacrifice that eternal 
 doctrine of the Christian scheme, or else ar- 
 rive at it by the authority of your church. 
 Indeed in so many words you admit, that 
 " the sacred writings do not determine which 
 shall lake the preference of the other." And 
 will you say then that the Bible contradicts 
 itself, and that God cannot so speak to man 
 in his word, that he shall not contradict him- 
 self? And that men are necessary to pre- 
 vent God from contradicting himself in his 
 Revelations? And is Bellarmine so lucid, 
 and so plain, that you insult me for differ- 
 ing from you as to his meaning, and yet tell 
 us that God cannot so speak as to be consis- 
 tent or intelligent without the glosses of coun- 
 cils and the mediation of Popes? Does lan- 
 guage lose its sense, or thought its lustre, 
 and point, in the hands of the Holy Spirit 
 alone? Truly I know not whether it be 
 most prof ane or puerile — to speak as you have 
 done! But there is this good from so great 
 an evil, that all the world may in this 
 
 SEE HOW IT IS THAT RoME AND HER SONS 
 LIGHT THEIR CANDLES TO HELP THE SUN TO 
 
 shine. — In fine, he who runs may reconcile 
 the passages you cite, and so greatly slander. 
 Without the full and proper meaning of both 
 Christ could not have been the Saviour of 
 the world. 
 
 Yours, &o 
 
 John Breckinridge. 
 
CONTROVERSY N°. 11. 
 
 Rule of Faith. 
 
 Philadelphia, April 12, 1833. 
 
 To the Rev. John Breckinridge. 
 
 Rev. Sir, — The polite charge with which 
 you begin your last letter, where you accuse 
 me with having " departed from the dignity 
 of a minister, and the decencies of a gentle- 
 man," is not in good keeping with that evan- 
 gelical meekness, which is the loveliest, if 
 not the most brilliant, ornament of the min- 
 isterial character. I had stated indeed, that 
 several of your assertions were " untrue;" 
 but I did not charge you with either, " de- 
 liberate falsehood" as you assert, or with a 
 " want of veracity." On the contrary, I 
 suggested that you had been deceived by fol- 
 lowing in the beaten path of calumny and 
 misrepresentation, which has been trodden 
 with impunity, by many of your predecessors 
 in controversy. You seem to have imagined 
 that I should receive your unfounded state- 
 ments, with the same implicit confidence as 
 the young lady in Baltimore, to whom you 
 addressed the famous epistle published in 
 the Christian Advocate of last August. But 
 was this expectation reasonable? 
 
 I engaged in the controversy, neither as 
 the enemy of Protestants, nor as the echo of 
 their prejudices; but as the advocate of 
 truth; and shall I not oppose assertions 
 which are untrue, so often as you leave it in 
 my power? It is not my business to inquire 
 who was guilty of the "deliberate false- 
 hoods," and " want of veracity," which you 
 are pleased to consider as charged upon 
 yourself. It is enough for me, that on each 
 of the six heads enumerated in my last let- 
 ter, you have asserted what is " untrue." 
 To the arguments of that letter on the whole 
 question, I refer the reader, and I appeal 
 with confidence to his candour, to say whe- 
 ther in it, I have departed from either the 
 "dignity of a minister," or the " decencies 
 of a gentleman." If I found in your letters, 
 assertions which are untrue, had I not a right, 
 nay, was I not bound to expose them as 
 such? Which of us offended — you in mak- 
 ing, — or I in detecting them? When you 
 insisted, did I not propose that a sworn in- 
 terpreter of languages should decide be- 
 
 M 
 
 tween us ? Was this ungentlemanly? If 
 you were as convinced that those assertions 
 are true, as I am, that they are untrue, would 
 you not have been glad of such an opportu- 
 nity to have them cleared up? Would not 
 this course have been much more honourable 
 to you and your cause, than that which you 
 have adopted, by indulging a fretful pen, 
 and imputing to me a " departure from the 
 dignity of a minister, and the decencies of 
 a gentleman." Did you dread the presence 
 of a sivorn interpreter ? Then, there must 
 be cause for your timidity. This, I think, 
 is the legitimate inference which your shrink- 
 ing from so impartial a test, will warrant in 
 the mind of the intelligent reader, no matter 
 what may be his creed. 
 
 But you will say you have not shrunk from 
 it — and refer to the following passage for the 
 evidence: " If you will add to the points 
 you mention, the question about the cate- 
 chism of the Council of Trent" — (certainly 
 I will) "and the other catechisms" (there 
 has been no dispute about them) "and 
 about the Pope calling himself God;" (The 
 Pope never called himself God,) also the 
 question of the true sense of my extract from 
 the Council of Lateran" (with great plea- 
 sure) " and the interpretation of 2d Peter i. 
 20. — "(What! abandon the Protestant rule 
 of faith ? A sworn interpreter to decide the 
 meaning of Scripture — to " help the sun to 
 shine!") ''then I will promptly agree to 
 such a reference, it being understood that the 
 parties shall be neither Roman Catholics nor 
 Presbyterians." The "party" may be a 
 Turk, or a Jew; — provided he be a good 
 Latin scholar, and an honest man. I am 
 satisfied to leave the points on which we are 
 at issue, to the decision of the Professor of 
 languages in the University of Pennsylvania. 
 Will you agree to this reference ? If so, 
 advise me of it in your next letter. He is a 
 Protestant clergyman, but he is a scholar, and 
 a gentleman of literary, as well as moral in- 
 tegrity, and I want no more. 
 
 With regard to the Westminster Confes- 
 sion of Faith from which I quoted, it is now 
 on my table, and I invite any gentleman 
 
82 
 
 who may choose, to come and see, whether 
 I have made even a mistake, in my quotation 
 from it. It is the original, genuine, West- 
 minster Confession of Faith. — And any other 
 book, containing either more or less, is not 
 the original, genuine Westminster Confes- 
 sion. I considered it as the standard of 
 Presbyterianism on the authority of Dr. 
 Miller, who tells us that, by the act of the 
 Synod of Philadelphia in 1729, Called the 
 *' Adopting Act,'' not only candidates but 
 professed ministers were obliged to adopt it 
 as such. Now it did not occur to me, that 
 a book, which in 1729, ministers were 
 " obliged" to adopt as the summary of doc- 
 trines contained in the Scriptures, could so 
 far have degenerated, as to become a spuri- 
 ous authority in 1833. Have the doctrines 
 contained in the Scriptures changed ? If 
 not, why was the summary of them changed? 
 But without explaining this, you tell us, that 
 some fifty years ago, the " offensive pas- 
 sages," which I have quoted, were "solemn- 
 ly rejected." What! Part of the summary 
 of the doctrines contained in the Scriptures, 
 " solemnly rejected!" And rejected, why? 
 because they were "offensive!" But may 
 not the same authority adopt them again, 
 as soon as political circumstances may make 
 it convenient to do so? You say, "they 
 are not, and never were, a part of your 
 standards." But Dr. Miller asserts posi- 
 tively, the contrary; and you are both Pres- 
 byterians, who can, no doubt, reconcile the 
 contradiction without the intervention of 
 an interpreter. You are both teachers in 
 Israel, and it is not for me to say which of 
 you has stumbled in the testimony. 
 
 That the Westminster Divines were "ap- 
 pointed by order of Parliament to make a 
 religion for the united kingdoms of Great 
 Britain and Ireland," is an historical fact, 
 at which I am surprised you should take ex- 
 ception. The Act of Parliament by which 
 they were "appointed," and the wages 
 which they received from the public trea- 
 sury, four shillings per diem, for their la- 
 bour and expenses, are on permanent record. 
 What, then, were they appointed and paid 
 for, if it was not for "making a religion for 
 the three kingdoms?" 
 
 So much then, for the Westminster Con- 
 session of Faith, and my quotations from it. 
 As to your charge against me for having gar- 
 bled Tertullian, I shall do full justice to it in 
 the sequel of this letter. In the mean time 
 permit me to say that you have entirely, (in- 
 tentionally or otherwise) violated your engage- 
 ment, in departing from the subject of discus- 
 
 sion, which is the rule of faith. You had fre- 
 quently informed me in our preliminary ar- 
 rangements, that your object was the inves- 
 tigation of truth. If this then is your object, 
 why do you shun that process by which truth 
 and error may be distinguished ? Why do 
 you discuss doctrines, before you have deter- 
 ed or at least examined, the principle, by 
 which true doctrines are to be tested ? The 
 rule of faith, and not the prejudices of 
 our readers, is the tribunal at which doc- 
 trines must stand, or fall. The rule of faith 
 is a primary question; on this depends the 
 solution of every other. The Protestant rule 
 of faith, stripped of its sophistry, is " every 
 man's opinion of the Bible" — which is a very 
 different thing from the Bible alone. Pro- 
 testants, in following their own opinions, 
 have taken it for granted that they were fol- 
 lowing the "pure word of God," the "Bi- 
 ble alone" — and their education, books, pa- 
 rents and ministers have all conspired to 
 enbalm this delusion. In my last letter I 
 exposed in six distinct arguments, the falla- 
 cy of the Protestant rule of faith, and instead 
 of attempting to answer them, you indulge in 
 a strain of invectives against the popes. 
 They obliged kings to " hold their stirrup," 
 and " kiss their feet." But every Protestant 
 child knew this before. These are mere 
 nursery tales — and those who have been con- 
 versant with the most abusive productions 
 against the Catholic religion, I am sure your 
 letters do not convey a single new idea, much 
 less an argument. And how will this meet 
 the expectation of intelligent Protestants ? 
 They look for argument and reasoning — and 
 you furnish them with the mere elements of 
 prejudice. They ask for bread, and you 
 give them a stone. What have you opposed 
 to the arguments of my last letter? Nothing 
 that I can perceive, except assertion, invec- 
 tive and misrepresentation. Your first has 
 reference to the Council of Lateran. Catho- 
 lics, as I have repeatedly stated, understand 
 the distinction between doctrine, discipline, 
 and ceremonies — and candid Protestants 
 will not be at a loss to comprehend your 
 reason for extending the infallibility of the 
 church to every enactment recorded in her 
 history. You have even coined infallibility 
 for the 3d canon of the Council of Lateran, 
 and put it into circulation in several para- 
 graphs of your last letter — as genuine Ca- 
 tholic doctrine. It is however, decidedly spu- 
 rious. I again repeat, that the infallibility 
 secured to the church by the word and pro- 
 mise of Jesus Christ, is claimed for the pre- 
 servation and definition of those dotrines of 
 
83 
 
 faith and principles of morality of which Je- 
 sus Christ made the revelation to the world. 
 But according to your misrepresentation, 
 every thing done by a council or pope must 
 be infallible! The explanation of this canon 
 given in my last letter, will satisfy the can- 
 did reader, that it was an arrangement enter- 
 ed into, by the common consent of the 
 church and states, for a special purpose, and 
 a temporary duration. It had no relation to 
 sovereigns, but only to lords of fees, who, 
 according to the system which then prevail- 
 ed, were the possessors of frank-allodial pro- 
 perty. It enacted that " if the lord of a fee, 
 patronise the Albigenses, he shall be excom- 
 municated by the Metropolitan and the Bish- 
 ops of the province; that if he does not 
 amend within twelve months, his contumacy 
 shall be denounced to the Pope who shall 
 declare his vassals from their oaths of fealty, 
 and shall expose his lands to be occupied by 
 others." Now this decission was based on 
 a principle which is universally recognized. 
 The conditions of every engagement are 
 reciprocal — and if the lord of the fee was 
 the first to violate the conditions on which 
 his vassals swore fealty, were they not virtu- 
 ally absolved by the very fact, from the obli- 
 gation of their oaths. But it was, you tell 
 us, persecution. Well, admitting that was; 
 is it for a disciple of John Knox, who held 
 that it was not a privilege, but a duty to 
 persecute " unto the death;" and of Beza, 
 who wrote in defence of persecution; and of 
 John Calvin, who wrote and preached and 
 practised this doctrine; is it, I say, for the 
 disciples of such men, to brand their neigh- 
 bours with the charge of persecution ? Why, 
 Rev'd Sir, do you not give me argument to 
 refute on the rule of faith, instead of brand- 
 ishing weapons which, if they cut at all, inflict 
 the deeper wound on him who is the first to 
 wield them. Why not dismiss the rule of 
 faith, asyour signature at the head of this letter 
 binds you to do 1 If we were treating of per- 
 secution, I should find it as ready to enlight- 
 en the public mind, with a faggot snatched 
 from the pile which consumed Servetus, as 
 you can, by a reference to the "decree" of 
 the Council of Lateran against " the little 
 flock of kids," the Albigenses. But we 
 should leave these criminations to the in- 
 fidel, who makes them a pretext for sneering 
 at your religion as well as mine — and for the 
 bigot, who is ever ready to point at the mote 
 in his brother's eye, but cannot see the beam 
 in his own. 
 
 Before I pass to the review of your letter, 
 I must notice the injustice of charges 
 
 which have been insinuated by yourself, and 
 formally urged in several Protestant papers, 
 not excepting even the sober-minded Church 
 Register of this city. When I argue against 
 the Protestant rule of faith, I am represent- 
 ed as arguing against the Bible! Is this just? 
 Is it honourable? I defy the Church Register, 
 and all the ministers in the United States, to 
 point out one single passage that can even 
 be tortured into an argument against the Bi- 
 ble, as a book of divinely inspired authority. 
 When I point out and prove the destruction 
 which the Protestant rule of faith, brings 
 upon the Bible, I am represented as taking 
 "common ground with the infidel," and as 
 aiming a blow at the sacred volume itself! 
 When I exposed bad logic, it appears I insult 
 the Bible! No sir; but I show that the Bible, 
 under the Protestant rule of faith, is as de- 
 fenceless as the desolate vine of Judah; the 
 " bear from the woods" may ravage it. Is it 
 not by that rule applied to the Bible, that 
 some Protestants have robbed Jesus Christ 
 of his Deity — that others, have annihilated 
 by an opposite error, the two other per- 
 sons of the Holy Trinity? Is it not by that 
 rule of faith, that Calvin taught the blasphe- 
 mous doctrine that God created some men 
 under an unavoidable necessity to be damned 
 for his glory? And when I prove that your 
 rule faith, gives identically the same sanction 
 to all these doctrines — I am represented as 
 arguing against the Bible! It is astonishing 
 that pious and sincere Protestants do not 
 shrink from the approbation of a principle, 
 which makes it lawful for one sect of Protes- 
 tants to teach from the Bible that Christ is a 
 mere creature; and for another to teach from 
 the same Bible, that the Father and the Holy 
 Spirit are only mere attributes of Christ, to 
 express different operations. Now blend 
 these two consequences of the Protestant 
 rule of faith into one, and you see the belief 
 of a supreme being, destroyed by the combi- 
 nation; — and pure atheism extracted, not from 
 the Bible, but from the Protestant mode of 
 interpretation! According to one party, 
 Christ is not God; according to the other if 
 Christ is not God, there is no God! But you 
 will say they interpret erroneously. I answer 
 that they interpret strictly according to the 
 rule of faith, by which you interpret. You 
 say that the Bible alone is your religion; they 
 say the same of theirs. You say that God 
 speaks plainly in the Scriptures; they say that 
 God speaks plainly in the Scriptures — and 
 that by the authority of the Protestant ride of 
 faith, and your own acknowledgment, they 
 have as good a right to understand what God 
 
84 
 
 says in the Scriptures, as you have. You 
 may say they pervert the Scriptures, but 
 they may retort the charge upon yourself. 
 In a word I defy you to use a single argu- 
 ment, which is not as good for them as it is 
 for you. As a Catholic I know that the 
 church never ceased to teach since the days 
 of Jesus Christ the doctrines which both you 
 and they\mve rejected — but for the rest I look 
 upon them to be as sincere and as moral, as 
 Presbyterians are. They may have depart- 
 ed further from the doctrines of Christ; but 
 the difference is in the degree of error, and 
 not in the principle by which it was engen- 
 dered. 
 
 Just pause, then, I pray you, and survey 
 with a cool mind and a dispassionate eye, the 
 field of Protestant Christianity. Consider 
 the diversities of doctrine, and the multitude 
 of sects which it presents, and ask yourself 
 whether it is possible that this is the " one 
 sheep fold'' of that church which Jesus Christ 
 established on the earth. If your own breth- 
 ren who call themselves Presbyterians are 
 charged with the impending crime of heresy, 
 for a slight departure from your standards, 
 how numerous must be the heresies of other 
 denominations who condemn your standards 
 and the doctrines contained in them. Heresy 
 as you know is a crime, and every crime 
 supposes moral culpability. But to what 
 source will you trace the guilt of Protestant 
 heresy, as you understand the word? To the 
 Bible? That would be blasphemy. To wil- 
 ful perversion? That is uncharitable and pre- 
 sumptuous, since God alone can judge in the 
 sanctuary of men's thoughts. 
 
 Where then, is the error, of those that err 
 most ? — for you are among the first to pro- 
 claim that there is error of doctrine- among 
 Protestants, and consequently heresy, crime 
 and culpability. But does not the man of 
 extreme heterodoxy do all that is required by 
 the Protestant ride of faith ? And if he does, 
 how, according to your own principles, can 
 he be guilty of heresy ? The only heresy is, 
 that his opinion and your opinion about the 
 meaning of the Bible, are different, one. 
 from the other. And if this be heresy, the 
 number of the elect will be small indeed. 
 But you will remember that the Protestant 
 rule of faith destroys all possibility of de- 
 termining who is right or who is wrong. 
 Can this then be that "infallible rule," 
 which Christ "established to guide us in 
 matters of religion, and to determine disputes 
 in his church ?" 
 
 I mentioned in my last letter that Jesus 
 Christ says of himself in one place " the Fa- 
 
 ther and I are one," in another, "the Father 
 is greater than I'"— and asked you as a fa- 
 vour, to show me how, in the comparison of 
 these two passages, you could save the divi- 
 nity of Jesus Christ from the destructive 
 operation of the Protestant rule of faith in 
 the hands of a Unitarian. This, you either 
 could not, or would not undertake. But 
 your mode of defending the Protestant rule 
 of faith in presence of this test, is so curious 
 that I cannot withhold it from the reader. 
 I shall merely use a few parentheses as I pro- 
 ceed, which shall contain corrections of mis- 
 representation. My remark on the two pas- 
 sages above was, that one of them was to be 
 explained by the other, but that the sacred 
 writings do not determine which shall take 
 the preference. Mr. Breckinridge clears up 
 the difficulty in the following manner: "The 
 obvious tendency of this statement is to sa- 
 crifice that eternal doctrine of the Christian 
 scheme, (viz. the divinity of Christ,) or else 
 arrive at it by the authority of your church. 
 (The tendency, Rev. Sir, was to show the 
 utter fallacy of the Protestant rule of faith.) 
 Indeed in so many words you admit (I pro- 
 claim, rather) that the sacred writings do 
 not determine which shall take the prefer- 
 ence of the other. And will you say then 
 that the Bible contradicts itself, and that 
 God cannot so speak to man in his word, 
 that he shall not contradict himself. (I have 
 not said any such thing.) And that men are 
 necessary to prevent God from contradicting 
 himself in his Revelations? (Not at all.) 
 And is Bellarmine so lucid and so plain, 
 that you insult me (I would not insult a child 
 intentionally — but when you misquote au- 
 thors, it is my duty to correct you,) for dif- 
 fering from you, as to his meaning, and yet 
 tell us that God cannot so speak as to be con- 
 sistent or intelligent (intelligible) without 
 the glosses of councils and the mediation of 
 Popes? (I never told you so.) Dues lan- 
 guage lose its sense, or thought its lustre and 
 point in the hands of the Holy Spirit a/one? 
 (I am arguing against the Protestant rule of 
 faith, and not against the Holy Spirit.) Tru- 
 ly I know not whether it be most profane or 
 puerile — to speak as you have done. (It 
 would be both profane and puerile to speak 
 as you have taken the liberty to misrepre- 
 sent.) But there is this good from so great 
 an evil, that all the world may in this 
 see how it is that Rome and her sons 
 light their candles to help the sun to 
 shine. (And yet, Protestant ministers enjoy 
 larger emoluments for their " lighted can- 
 dles" than even the "sons of Rome.'') In 
 
85 
 
 fine, he who runs may reconcile the pas- 
 sages you cite, and so greatly slander. (I can- 
 not see how I slandered them.) Without the 
 full and proper meaning of both, Christ could 
 not have been the Saviour of the world." 
 What a strange mode ot getting clear of 
 a difficulty! 
 
 After this lucid exposition, the orthodox 
 reader will have no difficulty in saving the 
 divinity of Jesus Christ, from the destructive 
 operation of the Protestant rule of faith, in 
 the hands of the Unitarian. 
 
 You give your opinion at large on the ca- 
 non of Scripture — and although I should 
 respect your opinion, I cannot consider it of 
 equal authority with the fact, that the Catho- 
 lic canon had been established and recog- 
 nised by the whole church, for more than a 
 thousand years before the pretended Refor- 
 mation. Luther put the Epistle to the He- 
 brews among the Apocryphal books. Cal- 
 vin conferred a similar honour on the Apoca- 
 lypse; and you or I have quite as good a 
 right to strike a book from the canon, as 
 either of them. The " canonizing" of what 
 you call the Apochryphal books, you tell us, 
 took place at the Council of Trent " in the 
 16th century." Here you have committed a 
 slight anachronism of about 1150 years. 
 This event took place in the 4th century 
 A. D. 397, in the Council of Carthage. 
 However, this is a mere trifle, and you will 
 never think of it again. You were pleased 
 in a former letter to tell us that none but the 
 Apostles were inspiredor infallible; and con- 
 sistently with this assertion the two Gospels, 
 and the Apostles' Acts were uninspired ! — Do 
 you mean then, that these books shall be con- 
 sidered as Apochryphal? If not, why do 
 you not recall the assertion alluded to, by 
 which you sapped with all the influence of 
 your signature, the foundation of their in- 
 spired authority? What will Protestants 
 think of their champion, who denies the in- 
 spiration of St. Mark and St. Luke, by the 
 unqualified assertion* that none but the Apos- 
 tles were inspired? I respectfully asked an 
 explanation of this on a former occasion, but 
 like the affair of "Usher's authority among 
 Romanists," you forgot it. It seems you 
 have adopted the memorable words of a 
 Roman governor — "what I have written, I 
 have written." Thus you publish on the 
 authority, as you say, of a '* most respecta- 
 ble and responsible gentleman," that one of 
 the Priests of this city, on a particular day, 
 warned the people against reading this con- 
 troversy. Now this statement is untrue. 
 Will you then give the name of your author? 
 
 Will you mention the church in which he 
 was on that day? Will you do any thing to 
 explain this strange affair? Will not the 
 public consider yourself as the author of the 
 statement, as long as you do not choose to 
 say who the author is ? And how can you 
 leave yourself exposed in this manner? 
 
 Again, you insist that the Pope anathema- 
 tized the Bible Society. This is untrue. 
 You attempted on a former occasion to prove 
 it, but your authority, as the reader may per- 
 ceive by a reference to it, proved only that 
 the Pope warned the faithful against your 
 Bibles, and Bible Societies, just as you warn 
 the people against the Unitarian Bible! The 
 motives assigned in the document, are such 
 as every man of good sense will approve. 
 How then, Rev. Sir, can you have the cour- 
 age to repeat this unfounded assertion, when 
 the document adduced by yourself, supplies, 
 not the proof, but the refutation ! Truly the 
 Protestant rule of faith must be a magnifi- 
 cent, cause when these are the means by which 
 you are obliged to support. These things 
 may do very well in Protestant pulpits; they 
 may excite prejudice and uncharitableness 
 towards the Catholics and their religion; but 
 in a public discussion, when Bt>TH sides 
 have anequal hearing, you should be cautious 
 in having re-course to them. 
 
 The manner in which you refute my argu- 
 ments on the rule of faith is truly curious. I 
 will give the heads of your demonstrations. 
 
 I. "One of you methods of defending 
 your church's infallibility, is this, if the 
 church be infallible then the gates of hell have 
 prevailed against them, and the Redeemer has 
 forgotten his promise to his spouse. '' This 
 argument you placed between inverted com- 
 mas, to show that you had taken it from my 
 letter. It is not mine, however; — and its 
 want of sense renders it very easy of refuta- 
 tion. My argument was, that Christ pro- 
 mised that " the gates of hell should not pre- 
 vail against his church'' — and that the infal- 
 libility of this promise, clearly proves the 
 delusion of Protestantism, since the Refor- 
 mation was founded on a supposition which 
 clashes with the promise of Christ, viz. the 
 supposition that the gates of hell had prevail- 
 ed against the Church; — and that her doc- 
 trines required to be " reformed;" that is, 
 thrown back into the Bible, in order that all 
 future generations might enjoy the glorious 
 uncertainty of private interpretation. My 
 argument is this — if Christ did not fulfil his 
 promise, what is to become of his iafalUbili- 
 ty? But if he did fulfil it, then he was still 
 with the Church, redeeming his promise, when 
 
86 
 
 Martin Luther, John Calvin, Henry the 8th, 
 and Socinus undertook to make experiments 
 in her doctrine, and to dignify the battle of 
 their various and conflicting opinions, with 
 the general name of " Reformation." 
 
 II. "Allowing that Christ appointed an 
 infallibletradition of doctrineand a succession 
 of infallible teachers, then the church thatdoes 
 not dispense his ordinances, and teach his doc- 
 trines, as he instituted and taught cannot be a 
 true church of Jesus Christ." Agreed. " Now I 
 will prove that jour church has corrupted the 
 ordinances of Christ, and the doctrines of 
 Christ.'' And how, Rev'd Sir, do you prove 
 this? By taking it for granted that the doc- 
 trines which Protestants have rejected, are 
 errors} But since the Church had the pro- 
 mise that Jesus Christ would be with her ' ' all 
 days," how could she continue to teach 
 these errors, unless Christ had abandoned 
 her, and violated his promise. And if you 
 prefer to say that the promise was made to 
 the Protestant Church or churches, how 
 comes it, that these churches were born after 
 a mysterious gestation of some 1500 years 
 from the period when Christ made those pro- 
 mises— -which were to be fulfilled in all 
 days, even to the consummation of the' world? 
 If Protestantism be the Church of Christ, 
 where was the Church of Christ before Mar- 
 tin Luther? 
 
 III. " The canon of Scripture," you say, 
 "used by your church, is not the canon of 
 the Christian church." Why yes, it is the 
 canon of what was the Christian church from 
 the days of Christ, until the time when the 
 gentlemen mentioned above, undertook to 
 make Christian churches of their own. I 
 defy you to show that the Christian church, 
 previous to Luther, ever held a different 
 canon. Your arguments are generally very 
 unfortunate, for the reason that they are ge- 
 nerally in direct opposition to facts, and 
 without facts, in a discussion of this kind, 
 zeal, learning, and even logic, are absolutely 
 useless. 
 
 The question is the " rule of faith." In 
 other words, the question is, how shall we 
 know the doctrines, of which Jesus Christ 
 said, " he that believeth not shall be con- 
 demned." Now the Protestant rule of faith 
 reduces the doctrines of Jesus Christ to the 
 sincere opinion of each individual in reading 
 or hearing the Bible. If I have misrepresent- 
 ed the Protestant principle, I request you to 
 give me the true practical definition. I think 
 that every Christian who can and will reason 
 consistently, will conclude with me, that 
 Christ never did appoint so doubtful and pre- 
 
 carious a principle of guidance. For the 
 proof of this position, I refer the reader to 
 the unanswered arguments of my last letter 
 on this branch of the subject. 
 
 Reason tells us that since Christ made the 
 belief of his doctrines necessary for salvation, 
 he must have provided some infallible means 
 for ascertaining what those doctrines are. 
 This, my Rev. opponent, has admitted. And 
 yet, he does not attempt to show that the Bi- 
 ble, interpreted by each individual for himself, 
 constitutes that infallible means. Why? 
 Because his arguments would be as good for 
 the Unitarian, as for the Presbyterian, — as 
 good for the Universalist, as for the Metho- 
 dist, Baptist, or Episcopalian. If the Protes- 
 tant rule of faith is right, then are all right. 
 If it is wrong, they are all equally bound, 
 before their conscience and their God, to 
 abandon it — for truth, next to God, is great- 
 er than all. 
 
 Reason tells us, moreover that no society can 
 subsist; and history assures us, that no society 
 ever did subsist, without the right of judg- 
 ment, and the supreme power of decision, in 
 cases of controversy among its members. 
 Even in this country where freedom is sup- 
 posed to be unbounded, the laws are not left 
 to the arbitrary interpretation of each private 
 individual. Is it consistent then, with reason 
 to suppose, as the Protestant rule of faith 
 teaches, that the Son of God revealed a reli- 
 gion, — made the belief of it necessary to sal- 
 vation, and yet left it at the discretion of 
 every individul who can read, to determine, 
 with all the certainty of opinion, what it is? 
 So far reason and history are directly against 
 the Protestant rule of faith. But what says 
 the written word of God? I will merely 
 state its historal testimony. 
 
 How were controversies decided under the 
 Jewish dispensation? Not by the private in- 
 terpretation of the Bible? Read " Parlip. 
 ch. xix. v. 10 and 11. Every cause that shall 
 come to you of your brethren, that dwell 
 in their cities, between kindred and kindred, 
 wheresoever there is question concerning the 
 law, the commandment, the ceremonies, the 
 justif cations, show it to them, that they 
 may not sin against the Lord, and that wrath 
 may not come upon you and your brethren, and 
 in so doing you shall not sin. And Amarias 
 the priest your high priest shall be chief in 
 the things which regard God." This is the 
 principle appointed by God, in the old law. 
 Why should it be different in the new? Jo- 
 sephus testifies in like manner (lib 2. contra 
 Apionem) that the " High Priest sacrifices to 
 God before the other Priests, guards the 
 
87 
 
 laws and determines controversies." And 
 even Herod, though a Jew, instead of inter- 
 preting the Scripture as Protestants do, by 
 private opinion, — "assembling together all 
 the chief priests and scribes of the people, 
 inquired of them where Christ should be 
 born." Matth. xi. 4. 
 
 Did the Saviour of men appoint a different 
 principle whereby to " determine disputes in 
 his church?" Did he not say, " Hear the 
 church; he that will not hear the church, let 
 him be to thee, as a heathen and a publican." 
 But how can we obey Jesus Christ, if in- 
 stead of "hearing the church," we make our 
 private explanation or opinion of the Bible, 
 our rule of faith ? Christ would not, could 
 not enjoin on us to hear the church, under 
 such a penalty, if the church were not an in- 
 fallible authority. That it is an infallible 
 authority, I have already proved in my fifth 
 letter, to which I refer the reader. Again, 
 look at the usage and practice of the church 
 from the earliest days of her history. Look 
 at the decision of the Apostles, in the first 
 council of Jerusalem. (Acts xv. 28.) "It 
 hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to 
 ws," &c. See again, (Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 23. 
 et sequent) the controversy about the time 
 of celebrating Easter, settled finally by the 
 decision of Pope Victor, A. D. 198. 
 
 In 255, Novatian was condemned by the 
 Roman Council under Pope Cornelius, for 
 teaching that sinners whe had relapsed after 
 baptism, could not be reconciled to God on 
 their repentance, by the absolution of the 
 church. (See Baronius on this year.) 
 
 Sabellius was condenmed in the Council 
 of Alexandria, under Pope Sylvester, in the 
 year 319, for teaching that there is but one 
 person in God. Of the Council of Nice, 
 held a few years afterwards, it is unneces- 
 rary for me to speak. 
 
 Thus, then, it appears, that the Catholic 
 rule of faith is found to be consistent with 
 the light of reason and philosophy, with the 
 experience of history, with the testimonies of 
 Revelation, with the practice of the Jewish 
 and Christian Church — whilst the Protestant 
 principle is contradicted by them all. But 
 why should I not refute that delusive princi- 
 ple, by a reference to the practice of Protes- 
 tants themselves. If God speaks so plainly 
 in the Scripture that every man can under- 
 stand what he says — why, I should like to 
 know, do you, ministers, intrude yourselves 
 between God and the people to help the 
 Almighty to speak, and your hearers to un- 
 derstand ? With us a ministry is consis- 
 tent — with you it is a palpable contradiction. 
 
 Why your Confessions of Faith and Articles? 
 But so it is, that those who depart from the 
 rules of religion instituted by Christ, — those 
 who quit the rock of truth, to build upon the 
 quicksands of opinion, will ever be involved 
 in the labyrinths of self-contradiction and in- 
 consistency. 
 
 I shall now conclude by giving the passage 
 from Tertullian, which you accuse me of 
 having garbled. But first I must correct 
 your misstatement of my argument, in sup- 
 port of which it was introduced. You say, 
 it was "intended to show that Rome was 
 the seat of the true church, and the Pope the 
 supreme head and successor of St. Peter." 
 It was not, I assure you, Rev'd Sir, intended 
 for any such purpose; although it is, even for 
 that, a very appropriate testimony. It was 
 intended to show that in Tertullian's time, 
 heretics alone had recourse to the rule of 
 faith which Protestants now profess to fol- 
 low; — and that the Catholic Church possess- 
 ed by prescription, in the succession of teach- 
 ing and belief, the doctrines which was re- 
 ceived from the Apostles. Tertullian was 
 showing where the true doctrines of Christ 
 existed, and how they could be distinguished 
 from the errors, which private interpretation 
 pretended to discover in the pure word of 
 God, the Bible alone. Let me then give 
 what you have quoted as the " ungarbled 
 passage," and see whether it does not bear 
 me out more strongly than the briefer ex- 
 tract which I had furnished. " Survey the 
 Apostolic churches in which the very chairs 
 of the Apostle still preside over ther sta- 
 tions, in which their own letters are recited, 
 uttering the voice, and representing the pre- 
 sence of each of them. Is Achaia nearest 
 thee? Thou hast seen Corinth. If thou art 
 not far from Macedonia, thou hast the Phillip- 
 pians and Thessalonians. If thou canst go 
 to Asia, thou hast Ephesus; but if thou art 
 near Italy, thou hast Rome, whence to us also 
 authority is near at hand." Now, if this 
 does not prove against the Protestant rule of 
 faith, I am at a loss to understand what 
 proof is. How does he refute the heretics? 
 By the Bible alone? Not at all— But by 
 comparing their doctrines, with those held by 
 the succession of teaching in the Apostolic 
 churches — which were numerous in his time. 
 He refutes heresy by the argument of pre- 
 scription — by showing that in the Christian 
 Church, truth existed before the heresy was 
 broached, and that the first or oldest doc- 
 trines, are the true doctrines. In reference 
 to the Church of Rome, read the conclusion 
 of the chapter from which you have quoted — 
 
 
88 
 
 Let Protestants reflect upon it: "heresies 
 were not of that church; because they went 
 out from her, and have since their apostacy 
 turned all the malice of their united efforts 
 against her. v One would suppose that in 
 this short sentence, Tertullian was the histo- 
 rian, or prophet of the calumnies that have 
 been heaped on the church of Rome for the 
 last three hundred years. But no: he was 
 the historian of his own times, for the adver- 
 saries of the church, have always been dis- 
 tinguished by the same characteristics. 
 
 Let me entreat you, in conclusion, not to 
 consider me as intending to insult you, 
 whenever I find it necessary to correct the 
 unfounded statements of your letters; and 
 to name, or authorize your friend to agree 
 with me on the selection of a sworn inter- 
 preter, to decide the questions on which we 
 are at issue, as I wish the decision to be 
 published before the meeting of the General 
 Assembly. Yours, very respectfully, 
 
 Jno. Hughes. 
 
CONTROVERSY N°. 12. 
 
 Rule or Faith. 
 
 Philadelphia, April 18, 1833. 
 To the Rev. John Hughes. 
 
 Sir, — It is difficult for me to express to 
 you my surprise at the pertinacity with 
 which you reiterate the charge of «* intole- 
 rance" against the Presbyterian church. 
 After the statement of facts made in my last 
 letter, ignorance can no longer be your 
 apology,- and the plea of inadvertence, which 
 we were ready to make for you in our 
 minds, is silenced by your assurance that 
 "you have not made even a mistake in 
 quoting." You insist that " it is the ori- 
 
 final, genuine Westminster Confession of 
 aith, and any other book containing either 
 more or less is not the original genuine West- 
 minster Confession." But the question was 
 whether this was the Confession of Faith 
 of the Presbyterian Church under the care of 
 the General Assembly? Mr. Hughes had 
 said (Letter 7th,) "The standard of Presby- 
 terianism in the United States of America, 
 and in the 19th century, makes it a sin 
 against the second commandment to tolerate 
 a false religion ;'' and he had identified it 
 with our church, by a direct reference to its 
 supreme judicatory, viz: " It is true the 
 General Assembly has not told us what reli- 
 gion it regards as false." And to show us 
 that he did not quote from an antiquated 
 copy, or a foreign edition, (which might have 
 been the. standard of the -Scotch church, or of 
 some other church) he informed us that it 
 was published by Towar & Hogan in this 
 city, in 1829! 
 
 In vain do we tell him that our church ! 
 does not adopt the Westminster Confession 
 on the subject of " Intolerance ; " that 
 Towar & Hogan printed no edition of out- 
 standards in 1829— that the Synod of 1729 
 was not the "General Assembly of the Pres- 
 byterian Church," and that the very union 
 which incorporated that and other parts of 
 our church into one body was based upon the 
 principles of equal rights and universal tole- 
 ration. Having then so grossly misrepresent- 
 ed the public standards of the Presbyterian 
 Church ; having asserted that something is 
 found in her accredited book, not one word 
 
 N 
 
 of which, as every well informed person 
 knows, is contained in it; and having been 
 convicted of this mis-representation, you have 
 the hardihood to deny that you have done 
 our church the smallest injustice! I had 
 really expected from you a different course; 
 if not from a love of justice and truth, at 
 least from a regard to your own reputation! 
 Dr. Miller's repose will hardly be disturbed 
 by your efforts to put his " Letters to Pres- 
 byterians" at issue with our standards. 
 You have certainly been in good company 
 while writing at his side, and as his friend, 
 I feel quite willing to leave his defence to 
 be gathered from the expressive contrast be- 
 tween your letters and his, as they have si- 
 multaneously appeared in the columns of the 
 Presbyterian. I close my notice of this sub- 
 ject, by noting it as one of the items of the 
 proposed reference. 
 
 I have been much struck (and not I alone) 
 with your summary method of replying to 
 my arguments. You called with great con- 
 fidence, for proof that the catechism of the 
 Council of Trent " took liberties" with the 
 commandment touching the making and wor- 
 shiping of images. When I adduced the 
 proof, you drop the subject. You called 
 on me to vouch for the faithfulness of the 
 translation and the continuity of the sense 
 of the long extract from the Council of 4th 
 Lateran about burning heretics. I met your 
 call; and exposed your " feudal" defence of 
 that atrocious act — you drop the subject. 
 
 Again, in reply to a whole series of facts 
 and reasonings on subject after subject in dis- 
 pute, you say "I refer the reader to 
 my fifth letter," or some other letter: 
 and when we turn to your fifth letter, lo! 
 there is no answer there! Your letters aid 
 each other in this respect, like the idle 
 boys who combined to deceive their master. 
 "Jack," said he to one of them, "what 
 are you doing?" "I am helping Dick, 
 Sir." "Dick, what are you doing?" "Noth- 
 ing, Sir. v Such defence is almost as 
 easy and as victorious as the colloquies got 
 up in Kentucky by the Bishop of Bairds- 
 town, in which two strolling priests, in Thes- 
 
90 
 
 pian style, personated the Romanist and the 
 Protestant. The Protestant fought long, and 
 died hard; but was always beaten! 
 
 I had at least supposed that you would de- 
 fend the sacraments of your church. But in 
 reply to what has been said as to lier abuse of 
 the eucharist, and her promotion of extreme 
 unction into a sacrament, you say not one 
 word. I have called until I am weary for 
 your reply as to the admission of the Rev. 
 Mr. M'Guire. As the whole controversy 
 turns on this point I will present it once 
 more; and your silence, if persisted in, must 
 be construed, even by your friends, into a 
 confession that you cannot meet it. The 
 admission is this, "that the catholic has 
 
 ONLY TO EXERCISE HIS PRIVATE JUDGMENT 
 UPON THE SCRIPTURE PROOFS OF THE AU- 
 THORITY OF THE CHURCH : THAT ONCE ES- 
 TABLISHED, THE CATHOLIC IS ENABLED TO 
 MAKE AN ACT OF FAITH UPON DIVINE AU- 
 THORITY." Now is this so, or is it not? 
 
 I have still further to say, that in all this 
 discussion, the obligation of proof is on your 
 side. Your church claims to be the only 
 true church, and asserts that out of her there 
 is no salvation. Here is an exclusiveness 
 so great and so peculiar, and so unlike to 
 all other churches, that the whole world 
 has a right to claim the proof, or the sur- 
 render of it. Your rule of faith, contrary to 
 all other churches, claims the authority to 
 decide, I. « What is Scripture? 2. "What 
 that Scripture means?" This is a most unu- 
 sual, a super-human claim. Especially by 
 one who is a party in all these questions. 
 If you have these awful trusts committed to 
 you, surely you ought to make out your title 
 to them very clearly, before we can commit 
 our consciences implicitly to your lordly 
 sway; and if you have these powers from 
 God, the proof is very clear. Moses and 
 Aaron, the ancient Prophets, the Apostles, 
 and the Lord of all, made out their commis- 
 sions very clearly, by such proofs as appealed 
 to the outer senses as well as to the reason 
 and conscience of men. 
 
 It is for this reason, you ought to have be- 
 gun with your own ride of faith. But claim- 
 ing to be Apostolical, you come to us, and 
 say I am of the only true church; your church 
 is false, prove that yours is not false. We 
 answer, prove to us that you are what you 
 say, and we will believe you. But you de- 
 cline. Suppose Jesus had said to the Jews, 
 ' ' / am the true Messiah; prove to me that I 
 am not." Did he not proceed to prove it by 
 such evidence as no man could honestly re- 
 sist? As you come in his name, and to the 
 
 exclusion of all others, call yourselves the suc- 
 cessors of his Apostles, why do you not fol- 
 low his example? And when we say we will 
 prove you false, while you cannot prove your- 
 selves true, you crv out, that we ought to de- 
 fend our own Rule"! Surely, then, until your 
 rule is proved, and your claims are fortihed 
 by proper evidence, our rule, the usual, uni- 
 versal, good old rule, stands, and withstands, 
 and will still stand. 
 
 Your last letter is so jejune, that I really 
 see scarcely a thought in the shape of an ar- 
 gument, which is not a "familiar acquain- 
 tance," that has appeared and re-appeared 
 until it has at least this claim to antiquity, 
 that it has lost all novelty. Allow me, then, 
 to pass to some additional considerations. 
 
 You have, with great frequency and confi- 
 dence, charged the Protestant rule of faith, 
 i. e. "The Holy Ghost, speaking in the 
 Bible," with producing Unitarianism and 
 every species of heresy. Even as recently 
 as the close of your letter, No. 9, you ven- 
 ture to assert that no one can, without your 
 infallible church's guidance, decide whether 
 Jesus Christ was equal to God the Father or 
 not. 
 
 I. For the reviving of your own recollection, 
 let me give you the following coincidences. 
 Rev'd Mr. Hughes, (Letter No. 9.) "Let 
 him, (the Protestant reader,) take up the 
 Bible and read these words of our blessed 
 Redeemer, ' the Father and I are one' — turn 
 then to the other words — i the Father is 
 greater than /.' That one passage is to be 
 explained by the other is certain; but which 
 shall take the preference of the other, the 
 sacred writings do not determine." Unita- 
 rians are more consistent than yourself, 
 for they admit that the word of God (as 
 well as Bellarmine) has some meaning, and 
 is not dependent on the Roman Church to 
 preserve it from contradiction and absurdity. 
 But you agree with them in this respect, that 
 you say Christ's Divinity cannot be proved 
 from the Bible, without infallible interpreta- 
 tion; and they say it cannot be proved at cdl. 
 It is true you would, by authority, make the 
 Bible mean what you say its obvious sense 
 does not teach. But who ever heard of au- 
 thority giving to words a sense contrary to 
 their true meaning. It is absurd: therefore, 
 if you are right, so are they, by your own 
 concession; and in the end you reach the 
 same fearful issue with them. It is a cardi- 
 nal point with Unitarians that " The doc- 
 trine of a Trinity in the Godhead is not 
 taught in the word of God." Bale, a Roman 
 Catholic writer, asks (see Protestant, Vol. 4. 
 
91 
 
 page 358.) " where is it plainly written that 
 there are three persons in the Trinity?" 
 Tract 1. qties. 9- Here both parties agree 
 that the unaided Bible does not prove the 
 doctrine of the Trinity. The Unitarian 
 asks for a new revelation before he will be- 
 lieve it. The Romanist asks for a new and 
 superadded authority before lie will receive 
 it. But as for the Bible alone they agree 
 that the doctrine is not to be looked for 
 in it. 
 
 Rev'd Mr. Hughes' Letter No. 3. "It 
 is a fact, that^ Christ never appointed this 
 rule; — because he never wrote any part of 
 the Old or New Testament himself; — he 
 never commanded any part to be roritlen by 
 his Jlpostles." 
 
 Unitarians take precisely the same 
 ground; they contend that the sacred pen- 
 men were credible historians who wrote as 
 circumstances required, and according to 
 the dictates of their own judgment, but not 
 under the .impulse of inspiration. Their ob- 
 ject is to prove, that the word of God is not 
 an infallible book. The object of Mr. 
 Hughes is to show that it is not sufficient of 
 itself. Unitarians make inspiration unne- 
 cessary. Mr. Hughes makes it useless and 
 even injurious, without the aid of the Church 
 of Rome. They agree wonderfully in this, 
 that they dishonour and degrade the inspired 
 word of God. 
 
 Bellarmine, and indeed Romanists at large, 
 are accustomed to affirm that many of the I 
 canonical books have perished. Bellarmine I 
 says expressly (book the 4th chap. 4. on the 
 unwritten word of God) " Many books truly 
 sacred and canonical have perished." "Mul- 
 ti libri vere sacri et canonici, perierunt." 
 Socinus, Valkelius and others affirm the same, 
 viz. "// is understood that many of the books 
 of the Old Testament have perished.'''' The 
 romanist would drive you in this way to the 
 traditionsand teachingof his infallible church. 
 The unitarian would reduce you by the ir- 
 reparable defect of the canon to natural reli- 
 gion, and uninspired records. But is it not 
 a fact which stares us in the face, that they en- 
 tirely agreed to cripple and lay in the dust 
 the Bible alone as a sufficient rule of faith? 
 
 In fine, when Dr. Priestly says the Apos- 
 tles reasoned "inconclusively" and that 
 Moses gives "a lame account of the crea- 
 tion," wherein does he differ from the Rev. 
 Mr. Hughes who says, letter No. 3. 6th head. 
 "does the bible determine the dispute 
 between you and the unitarian on the 
 
 DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST? SlNCE THE BEGIN- 
 NING of Christianity until the present hour 
 
 no dispute has been determined by that rule^ 
 — the Bible alone. " I hope, therefore that 
 your empty clamour about the tendency of 
 the Protestant rule of faith to make Unita- 
 rians, will cease until you have satisfied the 
 public on the above evidences; and that hence- 
 forth you will bear in mind that because Uni- 
 tarians and we use the same Bible we do not 
 hold the same doctrines. Our rule, like the 
 sun of our system, is common property. It is 
 your rule, if you will use it. It is our rule, 
 it is the universal and only rule, of all men, 
 and you had as well attempt to put your fee- 
 ble shoulder to the burning orbit of the lumi- 
 nary in the heavens and heave it back into 
 the night, as to stop the freedom of inquiry, 
 or arrest the ''free course of the word of 
 God." 
 
 II. Much has been said during this discus- 
 sion on the subject of the true canon. In my 
 first letter, I called upon you to defend the un- 
 heard of violence done to the word of God by 
 your church, in " adding" to it a large vol- 
 ume of spurious books called " Apochry- 
 phal." In my last letter this difficulty was 
 pressed upon you at some length. It was 
 shown that the Jews, the Lord Jesus and his 
 Apostles, the early Fathers, the Council of 
 Laodicea, and the ancient church at large 
 rejected these Books — and that our present 
 I canon coincides with that of Christian anti- 
 quity. You have not attempted to account 
 for the absence of these spurious books from 
 the canon for so many ages, nor to meet the 
 objections made in my letter No. 1, 6th 
 head. 
 
 While you thus elude the force of truth and 
 faet, as to the Old Testament, you have stri- 
 ven repeatedly to perplex the question about 
 the genuineness and authenticity of the New 
 Testament. The arguments which you urge 
 against Protestants are in singular resem- 
 blance to those used by infidels against Chris- 
 tianity itself; and you seem to have proceed- 
 ed upon the plan of making Romanists if you 
 can, or infidels if you must. Thus in the 
 9th letter, 4th head, you say " you cannot be 
 ignorant that several books, which in the 
 first ages laid claim to inspired authority, 
 are not in the canon. Of these I may name 
 a few — the Gospel according to the Hebrews, 
 or according to the Apostles — the memoirs 
 of the Apostles — quoted frequently by Justin 
 Martyr, and different tracts under the names 
 of Peter, Paul, Matthias and other Apostles." 
 And in the same letter, 6th head, you write a9 
 follows: " How does he, (the "Protestant) 
 know that the book, (the Bible,) is in all 
 respects now the same that it was when it 
 
92 
 
 came from the hands of its inspired authors? Isent generation, amidst the assaults of open 
 Has it been correctly translated? Has it been enemies and pretended friends. 
 
 fairly copied, from one manuscript to ano 
 ther previous to printing ?" 
 
 I have often been curious to know how 
 you would meet an Infidel or a Pagan on 
 this question. Bellarmine was rightly com- 
 pared by the writer of a former day, to the 
 amphibious bird in the fable, which was 
 sometimes a bird and sometimes a fish. He 
 was a bird when the king of fishes exacted 
 a tribute; and a fish when the king of birds 
 exacted it. Bellarmine speaks like a Pro- 
 testant when he reasons for the Bible as the 
 word of God against the Libertines, and 
 others. He refers, in proof, to such evidence 
 as this: "At sacris Scripturis, qua; Pro- 
 pheticis et Apostolicis Uteris continentur, 
 nihil estnotius, nihil certius, ut stultissimum 
 esse necesse sit, qui illis fidem esse haberi- 
 dam neget. Notissimas enim esse testis est 
 orbis Christianus, et consensio omnium gen- 
 tium, apud quas multis jam seculis summam 
 semper auctoritatem obtinuerunt : certissi- 
 mas autem atque verissimas esse, nee hu- 
 mana inventa, sed oracula divinacontinere." 
 Bellarm. De Verbo Dei, lib. I. cap. II. 
 
 "Nothing is better known, nothing more 
 certain than the sacred Scriptures which are 
 contained in the Prophetical and Apostolical 
 writings, — insomuch that he who refuses to 
 believe in them is to be esteemed a fool. 
 For the whole Christian world bears testi- 
 mony to their notoriety, as well as the con- 
 sent of all the nations among whom for so 
 many ages their supreme authority has been 
 acknowledged; and they are most certain 
 and true, comprising no human inventions, 
 but the oracles of God." 
 
 He proceeds to deduce proof. 1. From 
 the truth of Prophecy. 2. From the won- 
 derful divine harmony of the sacred writers, 
 though of so many different ages, places, oc- 
 casions, languages, &c. 3. From the in- 
 terposition of divine Providence for the pre- 
 servation of the Scriptures. 4. From the 
 book itself; which claims inspiration. 5. 
 From the testimony of miracles. 
 
 Now will this reasoning lose any of its 
 force when turned against yourself? If not, 
 admit it, or else answer it. But let me go 
 on to say to you once more, that we do not, 
 and never did, depend on the Church of 
 Rome for the proof, or the preservation of 
 the word of God; and while you drop apolo- 
 gies to the Infidel, remember that there is a 
 high road of evidence through which the 
 Bible has nassed unhurt, from God to the pre- 
 
 It would require a volume, (while I have 
 room only for a few paragraphs) to do justice 
 to this subject. But let me refer the reader 
 to Paley, and a crowd of other writers, who 
 have reduced to order and fortified with un- 
 rivalled power the evidence of the genuine- 
 ness, and authenticity of our Bible, against 
 the assaults of infidelity, and the Church of 
 Rome. In the mean time let me say a few 
 words, that there is no evidence, that any of 
 the spurious books you name existed in the 
 first century of the Christian era: that they 
 were excluded from the churches, and from 
 the catalogues of the canonical books : were 
 not noticed by friends or foes in discussions 
 about Christian doctrines: and besides the 
 silence of the early ages, they were rejected 
 and "reprobated with a consent nearly uni- 
 versal by the writers of succeeding ages." 
 You will hardly deny these facts; or that the 
 converse of all this is true of our present ca- 
 non. And finally, for all this proof, we make 
 no more reference to the authority of the 
 Church of Rome, than we do to the authority 
 of the Caesars or of the great Mogul. It is such 
 proof as does not depend upon her testimony 
 as a church, or her authority as a judge of 
 controversies. Indeed it is a very singular 
 fact, that the church of Rome, as late as the 
 fourth century rejected Paul's Epistle to the 
 Hebrews! "Apud Romanos usque hodie, quasi 
 Pauli Apostoli non habetur — Jerome (A. D. 
 345 to 420 De viris. Illus.) Among the Ro- 
 mans, even at this day, it is not held to be the 
 apostle Paul's." If this mean the church of 
 Rome, locally, then where is her supremacy. 2 
 If universally, then where is her infallibility? 
 one must fall. 
 
 III. I come next to your argument in defence 
 of your church as a judge of controversies. 
 Here as usual, you make no attempt to prove 
 that the church of Rome is the true church of 
 Jesus Christ. This you take for granted. But 
 passing this in silence, you ask, " How were 
 controversies decided under the Jewish dispen- 
 sation?" 
 
 This is a very important question, and, as 
 will appear below, of most unhappy omen to 
 the church of Rome. You cite (Paralipo- 
 mena) 2 Chron. 19 chap, verse 9. 10. You 
 omit the 8th, which is as follows, "Moreover 
 did Jehoshaphat set for judgment, &c." Ob- 
 serve then, that this was a court of the king's 
 ordering. 
 
 You also omit the latter part of the 11th 
 verse, viz — " Jind also Zebediah the son of 
 Ishmael shall be chief in the things which 
 
i)3 
 
 regard the King.'''' (I quote as you have done 
 from the Vulgate.) This verse shows that 
 there were two Presidents of this court, — 
 one for the ecclesiastical causes, "the things 
 which regard God," the other for the civil, 
 "for all the things regarding the King." 
 But we suppose the resemblance is near 
 enough, especially as you have sometimes 
 had three Popes; — and as the councils were 
 sometimes convoked by the -Emperors. 
 
 And now as to the argument. You say, 
 " This is the principle appointed by God 
 in the old law; ivhy should it be differ - 
 
 unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the 
 Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye 
 shall see the Son of man sitting on the right 
 hand of power, and coming in the clouds of 
 heaven. Then the high priest rent his 
 clothes and saith. What need we any fur- 
 ther witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphe- 
 my: what think ye? And they all condemned 
 him to be guilty of death." 
 
 4. They then handed him over to the civil 
 power. Mark xv. 1: " And straightway in 
 the morning the chief priests held a consulta- 
 tion with the elders and scribes, and the 
 
 ent in the new?" "Even Herod, though a whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried 
 Jew, instead of interpreting the Scripture as \him away, and delivered him to Pilate." 
 Protestants do, by private opinion, — as- 5. And the civil power ordered him to be 
 sembling together all the chief priests and | crucified, and Pilate executed their will 
 scribes of the people, inquired of them where 
 
 Christ should be born." Matth. xi. 4.' 
 Your reasoning, then, is this, that the high 
 priest and the sanhedrim were the judges 
 of controversy under the old law; — and of 
 course by the same principle, the Pope and 
 council are the judges of controversy under 
 the new. This you assert when you ask, 
 "did the Saviour of men appoint a dif- 
 ferent principle whereby to determine dis- 
 putes in his church." And again, this judge 
 of controversy was ultimate and infallible. 
 For Josephus, as quoted by you, tells us, li the 
 High Priest guards the law and determines 
 controversies.'' The High Priest, then, and 
 the Council were the judges of controversy, 
 and from their decision which was final and 
 infallible, there was no appeal. Let us ap- 
 ply the reasoning to the condemnatiun of 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 1. Jesus was arrested by order of the " high 
 priests, scribes and elders." Mark xiv. 43: 
 "And immediately, while he yet spake, 
 cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with 
 him a great multitude, with swords and staves, 
 from the chief priests, and the scribes, and 
 the elders.'' 
 
 2. When arrested he was brought directly 
 before the regular tribunal. Mark xiv. 53: 
 " And they led Jesus away to the high priest: 
 and with him were assembled all the chief 
 priests, and the elders, and the scribes." 
 
 3. They proceeded to try him, and con- 
 demn him for pretended ''Heresy'' — "as 
 Judges of Controversy," and they charged 
 him "with blasphemy" and condemned him 
 to die! Mark xiv. 60—64: "And the high 
 priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, 
 saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it 
 which these witness against thee ? But he 
 held his peace, and answered nothing. 
 Again the high priest asked him, and said 
 
 though he pronounced Jesus an innocent 
 man ; and he died for his doctrines. No 
 other charge was brought against him. Matt. 
 xxvii. 24 — 26: " When Pilate saw that he 
 could prevail nothing, but that rather a tu- 
 mult was made, he took water, and washed 
 his hands before the multitude, saying, I am 
 innocent of the blood of this just person; see 
 ye to it. Then answered all the people, and 
 said, His blood be on us, and on our children. 
 Then released he Barabbas unto them; and 
 when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered 
 him to be crucified." 
 
 Never did the universe witness so bloody 
 a drama! Never did a council commit a 
 deed so atrocious ! But here was the " judge 
 of controversies," the high priest, the Pope's 
 original, — here the regular council, and sit- 
 ting in judgment " on doctrine," not as a 
 "feudal," or civil, but "ecclesiastical court." 
 Then were they fallible or infallible? Did 
 they decide right or wrong? Such is your 
 reasoning, that you are bound by consist- 
 ency to defend their acts, — or by candour, 
 to say that a council though regularly con- 
 vened, and general, with the Pope presiding, 
 may err in matters of doctrine and morals! 
 
 IV. The Scripture, according to the ancient 
 Fathers, is the sole judge of controversies and 
 interpreter of itself . 
 
 It was Augustin who laid down this great 
 radical principle, " there a man is said to be 
 judge where he has power and authority to 
 correct." On this principle your church 
 has actually proceeded, in assuming to be 
 judge of controversies, for she has added 
 a large volume to the word of God; (as we 
 proved in letter No. IX.) and though a par- 
 ty in the controversy, she assumes to judge 
 with authority in her own cause. 
 
 Optatus, A. D. 370, held the following 
 language : " You say it is lawful, we say it 
 
94 
 
 is not lawful; the people's souls do doubt 
 and waver, let none believe you nor us, we 
 are all contending parties, judges must be 
 sought for: if Christians,- they cannot be 
 given on both sides, (for truth is hindered by 
 affections.) A judge without must be sought 
 for; if a Pagan, he cannot know the Chris- 
 tian mysteries; if a Jew, he is an enemy to 
 Christian Baptism: no judgment therefore of 
 this matter can be found on earth; a Judge 
 in heaven must be sought for. But why 
 knock we at heaven, when we have the Testa- 
 ment of Christ in the Gospel." (De ccelo 
 quasrendus est Judex, sed ut quid pulsa- 
 mus ad coelum habemus in Evangelio Testa- 
 mentutn. Opt. lib. 5 contr. Par men. Donat.) 
 The above is on the question of re-baptizing, 
 in his discussion with " Heretics." 
 
 Chrysostom, who was ordained Bishop of 
 Constantinople A. D. 398, makes the follow- 
 ing very striking and appropriate comments 
 upon the subject at issue: " Let us follow the 
 scope of the Holy Scripture in interpreting 
 itself: when it teacheth some hard thing, 
 it expoundeth itself, and suftereth not the 
 hearer to err. Let us not fear, therefore, 
 to put ourselves with full sail into the sea of 
 ' Scriptures,' because we shall be sure to find 
 the word of God for our pilot, (Chrys. Horn. 
 13, in Gen. Chrys. in 1 Thes. Horn. 7.) 
 The same author prompts a Gentile to the 
 use of the word of God in the following lan- 
 guage: " When thou buyest a garment, 
 though thou have no skill in weaving, yet 
 thou sayest not I cannot buy it, they will 
 deceive me: but dost use all means to learn 
 how to know it : do, therefore, those things 
 which are to be done, seek all those things of 
 God, and He altogether will reveal it unto 
 thee." (Idem. Homit. 33. in Act. 
 
 Athanasius, who flourished about the 
 year 335, speaking of the Bible says: " For 
 the holy and divinely inspired Scriptures 
 are of themselves sufficient for the discovery 
 of the truth." (Speech against the Gentiles.) 
 It is very important here to observe, that this 
 Father, in his catalogue of the books of 
 Scripture, gives precisely our canon, exclud- 
 ing from the inspired word the Wisdom of 
 Solomon, Judith, Tobias, &c. &c. From 
 this it appears, 1. That ours is the true 
 canon, while Roman Catholics have corrupt- 
 ed the word of God, by the addition of wri- 
 tings called by Athanasius "not canoni- 
 cal." 2. That this our very canon is a svffi- 
 cient rule for the discovery of divine truth. 
 
 I might cite many other testimonies from 
 the Fathers; but these may serve as speci- 
 mens in proof of the fact, that they held the 
 
 Protestant rule of faith. It is true "The 
 Fathers" were not unanimous, neither were 
 they inerrable. The Roman Catholic rule 
 of faith as we have elsewhere shown, binds 
 its followers "never to take or interpret 
 them (the sacred Scriptures) otherivise than 
 according to the unanimous consent of the 
 Fathers." The defect of such unanimity ut- 
 terly explodes the rule which rests upon it. 
 But that the Protestant rule was known, 
 owned, practised from the earliest ages, is 
 sufficiently evident from the quotations al- 
 ready adduced; and as the pruning-knife 
 of Papal expurgation has been applied even 
 to these Fathers, we may well suppose that 
 what is left in the form of proof for our own 
 rule is indisputable authority with Roman 
 Catholics. In a word, it appears according 
 to testimony which you have admitted to be 
 authentic, that the word of God is the sole 
 Judge of controversy and its own interpreter. 
 
 As to the famous passage from Tertullian, 
 I would ask you, with all due respect and 
 candour, why you did not cite the passage in 
 the first instance, as you have cited it at last? 
 You charge me with injustice as to the pas- 
 sage from Bellarmine on the power of the 
 Pope. But here the whole sense of the pas- 
 sag is altered, and the very shape of it is 
 changed. Yet even upon your own admis- 
 sion, Tertullian makes many apostolical 
 churches and many apostolical chairs. And 
 these churches and these chairs were of equal 
 authority one with another; and to be consult- 
 ed indifferently according to their vicinity to 
 the inquirer. And also, "the letters of the 
 apostles, uttering their voice and represent- 
 ing the presence of each of them, are re- 
 cited" as supreme authority. Then, on your 
 own reasoning, Philippi, Thessalonica, Ephe- 
 sus, and Corinth, as well as Rome, were 
 apostolical seats. And " the writings of the 
 apostles," and not a living infallible judge 
 '•'was the infallible rule of faith established 
 by Christ to guide us in matters of religion 
 for the purpose of determining disputes in the 
 Church of Christ. 
 
 Your attempt to pervert my argument, on 
 the apostolical succession, shows the despera- 
 tion of a defence, which was feeling for a 
 foundation, and could find none. You say, 
 in letter No. 9, "If the Apostles alone were 
 inspired and infallible, as you assert, then 
 what is to become of the two Gospels of St. 
 Luke and St. Mark, what is to become of 
 the Acts of the Apostles? It is well known 
 that the authors of these books were not 
 Apostles, and had not seen the Lord." Here 
 you but resort to the old practice of injur- 
 
95 
 
 ing the canon, rather than spare the Protestant. 
 It is known to yourself, that Mark's writings 
 received the sanction of Peter, and Luke's of 
 Paul. The Apostle Paul says, in his Epistles, 
 " Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ and Timo- 
 theus our brother." "Paul called to be an 
 Apostle and Sosthenes our brother." The 
 writings were theirs, whether penned by 
 themselves, or others under their eye. 
 
 And now as to the reference to a sworn 
 interpreter, you contradict yourself and mis- 
 represent me in two successive paragraphs, 
 by saying in the first, "You shrink from so 
 impartial a test." "Did you dread the 
 presence of a sworn interpreter?" and then 
 own that, in my last letter, I agree to such a 
 reference. 
 
 On this whole subject I would say, 1. By 
 this very proposal you abandon the principle 
 on which you heretofore proceeded; which 
 is, that a fallible interpreter cannot be au- 
 thority. 2. While the opinions of learned 
 and good men, shall always have great 
 weight with me, yet my principles forbid me 
 to commit the last decision to any human 
 tribunal. 3. We are at issue about transla- 
 tions, and about facts. For example, you 
 deny that your church forbids the reading of 
 the Scriptures. I affirm it. So of several 
 other facts, some clothed in a dead language, 
 and some not. In the reference proposed, 
 I wish to settle each class of questions so 
 far as a reference can do it. 4. I wish the 
 fair translation of several passages of Scrip- 
 ture, particularly that mentioned in my last 
 
 letter, that the same may be spread out be- 
 fore the public. 5. With these statements, 
 I do most cordially agree to the reference it- 
 self, and to the Rev. Dr. Wylie, the re- 
 spected Professor of Languages, named by 
 you as our referee ; and I agree to make 
 him a standing referee, so that whenever 
 you please, he may be called on for this pur- 
 pose. As soon as convenient, I am prepared 
 through a friend to proceed in this refer- 
 ence. 
 
 A gentleman, who knew the feelings 
 of a gentleman, should have understood, 
 without explanation, the delicate nature of 
 my situation in regard to the name of my 
 informant, as to " the warning against read- 
 ing the controversy." I did not proceed in 
 this matter without a responsible name; and 
 even then, knowing the defects of tradition, 
 I asked it of you as a question, whether my 
 informant was mistaken, and left it open for 
 correction. I have now the name before me, 
 and the permission to make it public, if re- 
 quested by the Bishop. If he demand it, 
 therefore, it shall be given. 
 
 I wish to say, in conclusion, that our rules, 
 which you profess greatly to respect, require 
 us to pass at some time, and I think the public 
 expect us to pass soon, to other topics. I give 
 you notice, therefore, that I shall avail myself 
 very soon, if my life is spared, of this privi- 
 lege, reserving the right to respond to your 
 arguments, if you choose to linger on the 
 threshold. Yours, &c. 
 
 John Breckinridge. 
 
CONTROVERSY N b . 13 
 
 Rule of Faith. 
 
 Philadelphia, April 26, 1833. 
 To the Rev. John Breckinridge. 
 
 Rev. Sir, — As ray reference to the West- 
 minster Confession of Faith, touching the 
 power and duty of magistrates, seems to have 
 given you some pain, I shall commence by 
 saying all I have to say on that subject. 
 This is the more necessary, as you recall the 
 plea of "ignorance and inadvertence," which 
 you had hitherto mercifully extended. 
 
 It is a fact that Towar & Hogan published 
 the Westminster Confession in 1829. It is 
 a. fact that it contains the passages I quoted, 
 as to intolerance and the magistrate's duty 
 in matters of religion — and it is a. fact, which 
 rests on the authority of Dr. Miller, that 
 ministers and candidates were " obligeiV to 
 adopt this Confession as the " standard of 
 Presbyterianism," exactly one hundred years 
 before. Consequently, it is a fact, that if 
 this be not now your standard, it is because 
 you have departed, in so much, at least, from 
 the faith once delivered to the " saints." 
 The passages, which you now call " offen- 
 sive,'''' were supported by seven or eight dif- 
 ferent texts of Scripture; and I thought, 
 that these texts might, possibly, have the 
 same meaning now, that they had in 1729. 
 Indeed, until you advised me of it, I did 
 not conceive how these scriptural authori- 
 ties could have become so "offensive," 
 in the interval, that they deserved to be 
 "solemnly rejected.''' The doctrines, which 
 they were intended to support, are as true 
 (though perhaps not so palateable) since the 
 revolution, as they had been before. If, in 
 theirs/ instance, they were false, it was in- 
 jurious to the written Word of God to em- 
 ploy it so profusely for their support — and it 
 was tyrannical to "oblige" either "professed 
 ministers" or candidates to adopt them. If, 
 on the other hand, they were true, I do not 
 see why they have been " solemnly rejected. " 
 The doctrines of Christ do not change with 
 the shiftings of every political gale. And 
 though the British Lion gave place to the 
 Eagle of Independence, " some fifty years 
 ago," yet, I find it difficult to discover, by 
 what mysterious process, this event could 
 o 
 
 have nullified the scriptural doctrines of your 
 standards, or converted them into "offensive 
 passages." Albeit, it seems that the work 
 of "Reformation" in the doctrines of Christ, 
 is not the peculiar privilege of any age — that 
 the children are not satisfied with what their 
 fathers have done in this behalf — and that I 
 was led astray by taking it for granted that 
 the "Standard of Presbyterianism" in the 
 19th century was the same, that ministers 
 had been "obliged to adopt" in the 18th. 
 What it will be, in fifty years more, is not 
 known to any man living. One thing is cer- 
 tain, that the melody of Calvin and the cho- 
 rus of the Westminster divines, have been 
 enriched with variations in every key. I 
 suppose, however, that in reference to your 
 standards I might venture (with safety) to 
 go as far back, as the year 1821. In the 
 " amended" edition of that year, although 
 the civil magistrates are shorn of the preroga- 
 tives, with which the Westminster divines 
 and the "Adopting Act" of 1729 had invest- 
 ed them, as to the words, yet they are clothed 
 with undefined attributes, in which a keen 
 eye mav discover the lurking essence of the 
 very passages, which are so offensive. In 
 page 105 they (civil magistrates) are honour- 
 ed with an office full of tenderness and pa- 
 rental affection. " As nursing fathers, it 
 is their duty to protect the church of our 
 common Lord, without giving the preference 
 to any denomination of Christians above the 
 rest," &c. The latter clause might seem to 
 have been added, to prevent the passage from 
 being " offensive." But as soon as it will be 
 convenient for the Assembly to tell us, what 
 is the "church of our common Lord," may 
 not one half of the Christian denominations, 
 who enjoy the equal protection of the Con- 
 stitution, be astonished to find themselves 
 excluded from the pale — and regarded by 
 the "nursing fathers" of the other half, as 
 step-children — or worse ? And again, if the 
 babe should languish, would it not be natural 
 for the General Assembly, as the physician, 
 to prescribe a little of that political nutri- 
 ment, by which it waxed strong in Geneva, 
 Scotland and England itself, when the ma- 
 
98 
 
 gistrates were, in very deed, its " nursing 
 fathers?" I will pursue this topic no far- 
 ther — except to say that, in my humble 
 opinion, the magistrates of this Republic are 
 well employed, if they study the laws and 
 administer them with justice and impartiali- 
 ty — and that it is an insult to the spirit and 
 language of the Constitution, to invoke them 
 as " nursing fathers" to what the General 
 Assembly may think, proper to call the 
 " church of our common Lord." 
 
 The other paragraphs of your first column 
 contain two pretty little stories — one. about 
 "Dick doing nothing and Jack helping him," 
 — the other about the two " strolling priests 
 in Kentucky" — one of whom, it seems, per- 
 sonated the Protestant and evidently under- 
 stood his part, since he " fought long, died 
 hard, but was always beaten" This was 
 genuine acting, so much like the reality — for 
 
 Halting on crutches of unequal size, 
 One leg by truth supported, one by (flies), 
 They sidle to the goal with awkward pace 
 Secure of nothing but to lose the race. 
 
 So it was with the antagonist of the Rev. 
 Mr. Maguire, whom you have introduced. 
 Mr. Pope, the king of Protestant controversy 
 in Ireland, had the courage to enter the lists 
 with him, where he fought long, and though 
 I will not say he was beaten, lest I should 
 offend you, yet it is certain that from that 
 day to this, he has carefully shunnod every 
 thing like controversy with a Catholic priest. 
 He did not possess that happy talent for 
 which Goldsmith immortalized the village 
 schoolmaster. So it was with the celebrated 
 Claude, whose glory it was, says Eustace, to 
 have fallen by the hand of the illustrious 
 Bossuet. So it was with the Pope of Cal- 
 vinism in France, Du Plessis, in the discul- 
 sion held at Fontainbleau in the presence of 
 Henry IV. in the year 1600. (see Sully's Me- 
 moirs, Vol. 2. page 354.) This case is so 
 illustrative of the manner in which Protes- 
 tant controversialists assail the Catholic reli- 
 gion, that I will give a brief sketch of it. 
 
 Du Plessis had written a book, not to prove 
 his own religion, but to refute the Catholic 
 doctrine of the Eucharist and the Mass. The 
 Catholics were startled, as usual, with the 
 number of falsehoods it contained, and spoke 
 so freely of them, that the author in his rash- 
 ness challenged any one to point out a single 
 false quotation in the whole book. M. Du 
 Perron then Bishop of Evreux, and after- 
 wards Cardinal, undertook to show as many 
 as five hundred and fifty. The parties 
 met before the king. Judges were appointed 
 by him, some of whom were Catholics and 
 
 some Calvinists. Fifty passages were to be 
 examined every day; but after the examina- 
 tion of nine of them, in which he was unani- 
 mously convicted, Du Plessis became sick at 
 the stomach, and the investigation proceeded 
 no farther. " Every one knows," says Sully, 
 (a Protestant,) "how the dispute was termi- 
 nated. Du Plessis' defence was weak and 
 ended in his disgrace." One of the commis- 
 sioners, Fresne-Canaye, a Calvinist, and 
 Sainte Marie Du Mont, another eminent 
 Protestant, were roused from the " delusion" 
 of Protestantism, by the issue of this contro- 
 versy, and soon after embraced the divine, 
 but calumniated religion of the Catholics. 
 
 Having disposed of your anecdotes in re- 
 ference to the Priests in Kentncky, with the 
 citation of a few instances, in which Protes- 
 tant disputants had the privilege of speaking 
 for themselves, — in which they " fought long, 
 died hard, and were always (substantially) 
 beaten," I shall now proceed to follow you 
 through the heterogeneous materials, of which 
 your letter is composed. 
 
 ," You have called until you are weary for 
 my reply to the admission of the Rev. Mr. 
 Maguire." But pray by what right do you 
 call on me, to adopt the language used by Mr. 
 Maguire? Supposing I were to call on you to 
 adopt and defend the language of some Pres- 
 byterian brother, would you, on that ac- 
 count, feel yourself bound to answer? Not 
 that I mean to decline answering your call, 
 but to intimate that I am able to meet you 
 in my own words, without having recourse 
 to those even of Rev. Mr. Maguire. The 
 sum of the quotation is this: — "You (Mr. 
 Hughes) prove the authenticity and inspira- 
 tion of the Holy Scriptures by the testimony 
 of the church. But how do you prove the 
 authority of the church ? Mr. Maguire says, 
 it is " by your private judgment on the 
 Scripture proofs" And therefore you (Mr. 
 Hughes) are obliged to have recourse for the 
 proof of the church to the principle of pri- 
 vate interpretation." Is not this what you 
 mean ? 
 
 Answer 1st. Protestants admit the testi- 
 mony of Scripture, and on this account, I 
 quote it to prove the authority of the church. 
 2. I quote it, not as an inspired book, if 
 you prefer to take the ground of a Deist, 
 but I quote it, in that case, as historical evi- 
 dence of the fact, in which sense you will be 
 obliged, even as a Deist, to admit its testi- 
 mony. 3. The history of Christianity proves 
 the authority of the church. From the days 
 of the Apostles, the church proscribed here- 
 sies, — preached the doctrines of Christ to all 
 
99 
 
 nations, — determined, by a final decision, all 
 controversies, — and in all matters of religion 
 exercised supreme authority. So that the 
 authority of the church is proved with, or 
 without, the Scripture. It seems that you 
 cannot comprehend the distinction between 
 a fact and an opinion. When I quote Scrip- 
 ture to show that Christ appointed a minis- 
 try in his church, or that lie was crucified, 
 I merely furnish historical evidence bearing 
 on a fact, with which private interpretation 
 has nothing to do. But when Protestants 
 quote Scripture to support their private 
 opinions, which they call their doctrines, then 
 it is that they use it, not to establish facts, 
 but to support speculations, and thus degrade 
 the written word of God, by making it a 
 book of contradictions, as various as their 
 minds, or their sectarian prejudices. This 
 is manifest, from the multitude of your sects, 
 and your endless disputations among your- 
 selves, about the meaning of the Bible. 
 
 But I should have proved, you say, my 
 own rule of faith. I answer that I have 
 done so, and as long as you are pleased to 
 shun a struggle with the reasoning and facts 
 of my letters, I need not repeat what has 
 already been said. You complain of my 
 monotonous reference to them ; but you 
 should remember, that although you have 
 catered industriously for the prejudices of 
 Protestant readers, by indulging in the an- 
 tiquated calumnies of your predecessors 
 against the Catholic Church and the Bishops 
 of Rome, you have not had the courage to 
 close with me in a single argument. Even 
 in your last epistle, although our discussion 
 professes to be on the rule of faith, you tell 
 us with great self-complacency, that "you 
 had supposed at least that / xvould defend 
 the Sacraments of our churcli" — and with 
 the happiest versatility of talent, you wind 
 up by expressing a desire to pass to "other 
 topics," — as if you had not confused your 
 letters on the " rule of faith," by the intro- 
 duction, pell-mell, of every topic that has 
 been discussed since the days of Martin 
 Luther. 
 
 In my last I took occasion to protest 
 against the injustice of those, who represent 
 me as arguing against the Bible: and in- 
 stead of admitting my protest, you return to 
 the charge, and employ nearly the whole of 
 your second column, to show that my argu- 
 ments and those of Unitarians coincide in 
 our estimate of the Bible! Whether or not 
 you have done justice to their doctrines, it is 
 not for me to determine. My reference to 
 them was not for the purpose of canvassing 
 
 their doctrines, but merely to show that they 
 and you are children of the same parentage — 
 your rule of faith is the same — not the Bible, 
 but your own respective opinions as to the 
 meaning of the sacred book: to show far- 
 ther, that, under the guidance of this fallacious 
 principle of private opinion, they have the 
 same right to hold their doctrines, that you 
 have for yours. I have multiplied arguments 
 to show that Protestant Christianity, whether 
 it be Presbyterian or Unitarian, rests not on 
 the Bible, but on opinion, as its basis, and 
 that every article in the superstructure of be- 
 lief, shares the uncertainty of the foundation. 
 What is heresy among Protestants ? Opi- 
 nion. What is orthodoxy among Protes- 
 tants ? Opinion. Every thing is opinion; 
 and yet it is certain that opinion formed no 
 part of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, and 
 that there is not a single opinion in the whole 
 Bible!! Now if this be so, is not the Pro- 
 testant rule of faith a mere prelude to in- 
 fidelity? Does it not destroy the certainty 
 of Revelation, and the sacred character of 
 the divine volume, which, with insidious em- 
 brace, it affects to cherish? But if it is not so, 
 why do you not deny it, and show your Pro- 
 testant readers, how they may have, by your 
 rule, a better foundation for their religious 
 belief, than they have for their politics: viz. 
 opinion. To illustrate the truth of these ob- 
 servations, I will insert a u [ew facts" taken 
 from an article, in the Vermont Chronicle, 
 the production, evidently, of a Protestant 
 pen. 1. "Out of about one hundred and 
 eighty Unitarian Societies in England, about 
 one hundred and seventy are orthodox 
 Presbyterian Societies revolutionized. 2. In 
 Ireland a large number of Presbyterian min- 
 isters and churches have become Arian. 3. 
 A large proportion of the Unitarian Societies 
 in Scotland were once Presbyterians. 4. 
 The Presbyterian churches in Geneva and in 
 Switzerland generally, have gone over in a 
 body to Unitarianism, or to something equal- 
 ly hostile to vital piety." One thing more I 
 have to say, that you will do well never to 
 engage in a controversy with an educated 
 Unitarian, unless it be for the improvement 
 of your logic. Not that I would side with 
 him against you on doctrine, but because it 
 is the inevitable misfortune of all those, who 
 adopt the Protestant rule of faith, to have no 
 better foundation for true doctrines, even 
 Christ's Divinity, than their brethren have 
 for the contrary opinion. 
 
 Now for your remarks on the canon of 
 Scripture, in which you are as unfortunate as 
 before. You say, " it was shown that the 
 
100 
 
 Jews, the Lord Jesus and his apostles, the 
 early fathers, the Council of Laodicea, and 
 the ancient church at large, rejected these 
 books" — (meaning what- Protestants call 
 Apocryphal books.) Now I reply boldly, 
 that you cannot furnish proof of what you 
 have asserted. That there is not a single 
 evidence on record, that they were " reject- 
 ed" either by our Saviour, or his apostles; 
 and if you assert thus inconsiderately what 
 is untrue, can you blame me for reminding 
 you of it? With regard to the "fathers," 
 "councils" and "church at large," when 
 you appeal to them to determine what books 
 are canonical, and what books are not, you 
 act as a rational man; and I take your in- 
 vocation of their testimony on the matter, as 
 a tribute paid to the Catholic principle of 
 belief. If, therefore, their authority moves 
 you in your selection of scriptural books, 
 then I hail you as the child of tradition, no 
 less than myself. But then, what becomes 
 of your rule of faith? The Scripture alone 
 does not determine the canonical books. 
 Our Lord and the apostles are silent on the 
 subject, notwithstanding your assertion to 
 the contrary. And lo! you are constrained 
 to invoke the aid of "fathers" and "coun- 
 cils" to tell you what is Scripture and what 
 is not. But what say you of the later " fa- 
 thers?" — of Father Luther, for instance, for 
 having rejected the epistles of St. James, 
 and St. Jude, and that of St. Paul to the 
 Hebrews? What say you of Father Calvin, 
 for having expunged the Apocalypse from the 
 canon? Were these apocryphal ? If not, 
 why did these " fathers" reject them? And 
 the two Gospels and Acts, written by St. Luke 
 and St. Mark — were they apocryphal? Their 
 authors were not apostles, and you have told 
 us, that none but the apostles were inspired. 
 I had pressed this difficutly before, and in- 
 stead of meeting it, you accuse me of a dis- 
 position " rather to injure the cause than 
 spare the Protestant." You certainly injure 
 my intentions in this charge, whilst you in- 
 directly invoke my forbearance. Still, you 
 try to extricate yourself. "Mark's wri- 
 tings received," you say "the sanction of 
 Peter, and Luke's of Paul." So did those of 
 Barnabas and Clement. But what then? 
 Again, the Apostle Paul says in his epistles, 
 " Timotheus our brother." But what then? 
 and "Sosthenes our Brother." What then? I 
 really cannot imagine what you mean by all 
 this. But to come to the point — were St. 
 Mark and St. Luke inspired to write or were 
 they not? If they were, then you were 
 wrong in saying, that none but the apostles 
 
 were inspired: and for the sake of the Gospel 
 of Christ, you should not leave your testimony 
 to that effect on record. 
 
 In reference to what you call apocryphal 
 scriptures, which, you say, have been added 
 by our church, I have to reply again, that 
 your accusation is a manifest acknowledg- 
 ment of the necessity of ecclesiastical infalli- 
 bility. You pretend that the Bible alone is 
 your rule of faith — and yet it is by tradition 
 that you attempt to show " what is Bible and 
 what is riot.™ Catholics possess that canon 
 of Scripture, which has been recognised by 
 the Christian church since the beginning. 
 Some of the early fathers hesitated about the 
 canonicity of certain books, but during the 
 same period, the same doubts were entertain- 
 ed respecting several books in the Protestant 
 canon; and the fact would go to exclude the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse, and 
 several other books ot the New Testament. 
 Calvin on this account rejected the revela- 
 tions of St. John. Why then will you not 
 be consistent and reject all, or receive all? 
 The Syriac version, so much praised by Pro- 
 testant critics, and which, they say, dates 
 from about the time of the Apostles, contains 
 our canon. The council of Carthage in 397, 
 composed of J 27 Bishops, gives our canon, 
 expressly naming every book, and adds, 
 that these had been received from the fathers 
 as divine and canonical — "A Patribus ista 
 accepimus in ecclesia legenda." Innocent 
 I. in his letter to Exsuperius in 405, makes 
 the same enumeration. So does the Roman 
 Council under Gelasius I. in 494. Melito, 
 to whose catalogue you refer, was only an 
 individual.* He mentioned the books of the 
 Old Testament which were then recognised 
 every where, but did not say that the others 
 were vncanonical. And he omits the book 
 ot Esther, which I find in your Confession 
 of Faith of 1821. The synopsis, attributed 
 
 * When, therefore, I went to the East, and 
 came as far as the place, where these things 
 were proclaimed and done, I accurately ascertain- 
 ed the books of the Old Testament, and send 
 them to thee here below. The names are as fol- 
 lows. Of Moses five books, Genesis, Exodus, 
 
 Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Jesus Nave, 
 
 Judges, Ruth. Four of Kings. Two of Paralipo- 
 mena {Chronicles,') Psalms of David, Proverbs of 
 Solomon, which is also called Wisdom, Ecclesias- 
 tes, Song of Songs, Job. Of Prophets, Isaiah, Jere- 
 miah. Of the twelve prophets one book — Daniel, 
 Ezekiel, Esdras. From these, I have, therefore, 
 made the selection, which I have divided into six 
 books. (Melito according to Cruse's Euseb. p. 
 164. 
 
101 
 
 to Athanasius, is considered by critics, as 
 the production of the 6th century. The 
 Council of Laodicea in 375 was composed of 
 only 22 Bishops, and if you had taken the 
 pains to be informed on the subject, you 
 would not have exposed yourself, by saying on 
 its testimony, that "your present Protestant 
 canon coincides with that of Christian anti- 
 quity." First, 22 Bishops did not represent 
 "Christian Antiquity:" and secondly, they 
 made no mention of the Apocalypse. So that 
 the " coincidence"isdestroyed, except in your 
 own imagination. One of the most ancient ca- 
 talogues, cited by Beveridge gives the Catho- 
 lic canon. Eusebius(lib. 3. c. 3. x. 25) says, 
 that some rejected the Epistle to the He- 
 brews, and regarded as doubtful that of St. 
 James, St. Jude, the 2d and 3d of St. John, 
 and the Revelation. Are these therefore 
 Apocryphal? Is not one part of the inference 
 as well deduced as the other? As to the books 
 o'f the Old Testament, the Catholic canon 
 corresponds with the Greek version, which 
 was used in the synagogue of Alexandria, and 
 by the Jews in Asia Minor, Africa, and gene- 
 rally wherever the Greek language prevailed. 
 Some of them were written, after the canon 
 of Esdras had been formed — and this, I trust, 
 will account for their not being there enume- 
 rated. Origen, in his letter to Julius Afri- 
 canus, speaks of them, as having been in use 
 from the commencement of the church. And 
 St. Augustine, writing against the semi-Pe- 
 lagians, who denied the canoniciry of some 
 of these books, as you do, appeals to the au- 
 thority of preceding ages in their support, — 
 "tarn longa annositate" — and if their antiqui- 
 ty was an argument in the 4th century against 
 the semi-Pelagians, I do not see why it should 
 not be as good, against Protestants in the\9th 
 century. Our canon is that held by the 
 Christians of Syria to this day, whether Ma- 
 ronites or Catholics, Jacobites or Eutychians. 
 It is used by the Cophts nf Egypt, by the 
 Ethiopians, and the Nestoriaus, separated as 
 than they have been from the church, for more 
 1200 years, (see Perpet. de la Foi. t. 5. I. 7. 
 also Biblioth. Orient, t. 3 and 4.) The Greek 
 schismatics, in their Synod held in Jerusalem 
 in 1672, under the Patriarch Dositheus, give 
 the Catholic canon, and add, " these books 
 we hold to be canonical, and confess them to 
 be sacred Scripture, since they have been 
 handed down to us as such by ancient usage, 
 or rather by the Catholic church." Shall we 
 then turn aside from this mass of authority 
 and hearken to the ipse dixit of Martin Lu- 
 ther, John Calvin, or the Rev. John Breck- 
 inridge, about Apocryphal books? Did not the 
 
 two former gentlemen expel books even from 
 the Protestant canon, in the most arbitrary 
 and capricious manner? Read over, I pray 
 you, these testimonies, and reflect how im- 
 prudent you were, in a former letter, when 
 you asserted that our canon of scripture was 
 framed only " in the sixteenth century by 
 the Council of Trent." And hereafter, if 
 you should feel disposed tochallenge " Priests 
 and Bishops to the field of controversy," re- 
 memember that there are other books to be 
 consulted, besides " Taylor's Dissuasive from 
 Popery." 
 
 In the Jewish dispensation controversies 
 were decided by the judgment of the High 
 Priest and Sanhedrim — in reference to which 
 you make me say, that "of course by the 
 same principle the Pope and Councils are 
 the judges of controversies under the new 
 law." You will observe, Rev. Sir, that I did 
 not institute any such direct comparison. I 
 spoke of the principle being the same Hnder 
 both dispensations. I must again refer the 
 reader to the proofs contained in letter No. 
 5, to show that it is not by any feeble analogy, 
 but by the positive institution of Jesus 
 Chkist, that the ministry of his church are 
 clothed with power to preach the Gospel, ad- 
 minister his sacraments, and proscribe the 
 heresies of innovaters in religion. They 
 have exercised this prerogative from the be- 
 ginning of Christianity. And it would have 
 been iniquitous so to have excercised it, if 
 the Son of God had appointed the Bible alone 
 according to private interpretation, as the in- 
 fallibe rule of faith. 
 
 But the reference to the condemnation of 
 Christ, in which the High Priest erred, is no 
 argument on the subject. Jesus Christ the 
 Sunol Righteousness, had already manifested 
 himself to the world, by his miracles and doc- 
 trines, and thus superseded the authority of 
 the Synagogue. Previous to this manifesta- 
 tion by miracles, the decision of the Jewish 
 Council, as to the birth-place of Christ, was 
 true. And even in the conspiracy against 
 his life, when Caiaplias declared it expedient 
 that one man should die for the people, the 
 evangelist adds, that " this he spoke not of 
 himself; but being Me High Priest of that year, 
 he prophesied that Jesus should die for the 
 nation." John xi. 15. You ask me then was 
 the tribunal, appointed by Almighty God in 
 the old law, "fallible or infallible?" An- 
 swer, it was infallible, until it was supersed- 
 ed by Him, to whom " was given all power in 
 heaven and earth." "Did they decide right or 
 wrong?" Answer, they decided wrong— be- 
 cause Christ had already proved to them, that 
 
102 
 
 He was the Messiah, and they shut their eyes 
 against the evidence of truth. The term of 
 their commission had virtually expired. It 
 was known to themselves that their authority 
 would be superseded by the coming of the 
 Holy One — and consequently their defection 
 after His coming is no argument against their 
 infallibility before — much less is it an argu- 
 ment against the infallibility of the church, 
 secured in the commission given by Christ 
 to her pastors, when he said: " Go, teach 
 all nations.... and lo I am with you all days, 
 even to the consummation of the world.'' 
 
 "The Scripture," you say, "according 
 to the ancient fathers, is the sole judge of 
 controversies and interpreter of itself." 
 Here again you appeal to the fathers, and 
 give up the Bible alone. That the ancient 
 fathers spoke in the most eloquent language 
 of the Scriptures, is certain. That all Ca 
 tholic theologians so speak of them, is equal- 
 ly certain. That they quoted them against 
 heretics, who afectcd to admit no other testi- 
 mony, is indubitable. But to say that they 
 regarded the Scripture alone, as the rule of 
 faith or the judge of controversies, is an un- 
 founded assertion. I defy you to show one 
 single instance of it in all ecclesiastical his- 
 tory, in which heresy was condemned by the 
 testimony of Scripture alone. The Church 
 was in possession of the true doctrines of 
 Christ — and heresy began, in every age, by 
 some individual pretending to have disco- 
 vered in the Bible, tenets, with which the 
 church had never been acquainted. This 
 was novelty; and until a new revelation be 
 made, novelty of doctrine and error are, and 
 will be, the same thing. Is not this the 
 principle even of Presbyterianism itself? 
 When you argue against Catholics you ac- 
 cuse them of denying the sufficiency of the 
 Scriptures alone, as a rule faith; whereas 
 they contend that God never appointed them 
 as an exclusive rule. But when you argue 
 against your brethren of the low church 
 party, you drop the boasted sufficiency of the 
 Scriptures as a proof rule, unless your stand- 
 ards be superadded// Your standards as 
 "amended" by the General Assembly of 
 1821, have attained the venerable antiqui- 
 ty of twelve years : and yet you talk of "new 
 lights.'/" Heresy has always appealed to the 
 Bible alone, for the purpose of secession from 
 truth ; but so soon as it had seceded, it ne- 
 ver failed to give up the sufficiency of the 
 Bible, and to fence itself around with arbi- 
 trary Creeds, Articles of belief and Confes- 
 sions of Faith. 
 
 You ask me, why I did not cite the pas- 
 
 sage from Tertullian at first, as I did at last. 
 Answer: I did not wish to make the quota- 
 tion too long. But you are at liberty to cite 
 the whole chapter, or the whole book, and 
 you will find that every sentence, taken one 
 with another, will be a dagger of testimony 
 against the principle of Protestantism, on 
 the rule of faith. You pretend to have won 
 a great concession, when you say, that "even 
 on my own admission, Tertullian makes 
 many Apostolical churches, and Apostolical 
 chairs." Answer, There were many church- 
 es, but only one doctrine. And you as- 
 sert what is utterly unfounded in fact, when 
 you say, on Tertullian's authority, that the 
 "writings of the Apostles" constituted the 
 infallible rule of faith. In this you are as 
 unjust towards your author, as you had 
 been in other instances; and yet you allude 
 to this case as an offset to your affair of Bel- 
 larmine, in which you say, "I charge you 
 with injustice to the passage." My charge 
 
 was much stronger than Ihis. I charged 
 upon you, that in six distinct instances you 
 had quoted authorities, and that in reference 
 to each of these six authorities, your asser- 
 tions were untrue. I challenged you to meet 
 me before a sworn interpreter, or even Dr. 
 Wylie, and you shrink from this alterna- 
 tive. I now challenge you for the third time: 
 and I trust that, without clogging the pro- 
 posal with irrelevant conditions, you will 
 either meet me, or give up your pretensions. 
 Certainly you will understand this language. 
 With regard to "the warning against 
 reading this controversy," I insist upon an 
 explanation. In the first instance, it was 
 Bishop Kenrick, who gave the warning. He 
 denied — you apologized — and he was satis- 
 fied. But still, the " most respectable and 
 responsible gentleman insisted that such a 
 warning was given in one of our churches 
 and on the day named." And in your last 
 letter you, soften it down into a mere ques- 
 tion "left open for correction!" But how 
 could that be, since the gentleman still " in- 
 sisted," even after the correction was given ? 
 The information was false: and now I re- 
 quire of you, in the name of the clergymen, 
 who officiate in the other churches, to give 
 the name of your informant. Shall you give 
 circulation to false testimony, persist in 
 maintaining it, and yet plead "the delicate 
 nature of your situation" for concealing the 
 name of its author? Even public morals 
 will not tolerate such trilling. We require 
 then that the charge be proved, or retracted, 
 or else the name of the author given. 
 
 And now with reference to Dr. Miller, I 
 
103 
 
 have not a word to say against the encomi- 
 ums you have passed upon him. I know him 
 only by his writings, of which I may be permit- 
 ted to speak, since they are public property. 
 He seems to be one of those happy mortals, 
 who, if I may judge from his last letter, are 
 perfectly acquainted with the Catholic reli- 
 gion, without ever having taken the trouble 
 to study it. On that subject he can instruct 
 others, without having learned himself. He 
 has put forth in his last letter to Presbyte- 
 rians, for Catholic doctrines, assertions, for 
 which he cannot find authority in any Catho- 
 lic approved writer in the whole universe. If 
 he can, I pledge myself to give $500 to the 
 Bible Society, provided he, or any other Pres- 
 byterian will give me the same sum for the 
 Orphans, in case he cannot. The Doctor's 
 other writings have been made sufficiently 
 free with, by Protestant adversaries; and 
 though I have never seen a criticism on his 
 style, yet I have been often compelled to 
 laugh at the expense of his logic. You have 
 no doubt seen the treatise of Dr. Cook of 
 Kentucky, in which the author has the ad- 
 vantage of being able to use Catholic ar- 
 guments, in support of Episcopacy. — For, 
 our friend of Princeton has wielded his pen 
 against his Episcopal brethren, no less than 
 against Catholics. And as his testimony 
 will no doubt be dear to you, I will give 
 you a specimen of his language, touching the 
 Bible alone. His first position was against 
 Episcopalians. " The sufficiency," says he, 
 "and the infallibility of the Scriptures alone, 
 as a rule of faith and practice, was assumed 
 as the grand principle of the Reformation from 
 Popery, and is acknowledged to be the foun- 
 dation of the Protestant cause." (Dr. Miller, 
 Vol. 1, p. 26 ) A Presbyterian clergyman in 
 Baltimore, Rev. Mr. Duncan, happening to 
 understand the Doctor literally, concluded, 
 that of course, the Confession of Faith was 
 superfluous, since the Bible alone was suffi- 
 cient; and proceeded accordingly to dispense 
 with the standards of the church. Whereup- 
 on the wisdom of the Catholic principle, in 
 reference to the rule of faith, broke in upon 
 
 the Doctor, and he wrote as follows: — "How 
 is she (the church) to ascertain the character 
 of her candidates for the holy ministry, when 
 according to the brother, whom I am con- 
 strained to oppose, she is forbidden to employ 
 any other test than that, (the Bible,) which 
 the most corrupt and unqualified will 
 bear just as well as the most excellent: and 
 which i3 of course, in reference to the point 
 to be decided, no test at all." (Letter to a 
 Gentleman in Baltimore, pa^e 24.) 
 
 Now, pray, what more have I said touch- 
 ing the Bible, as a test of doctrine, than that 
 it is a test, which the "most corrupt" as well 
 as the "most excellent will bear;" and that, 
 in the Professor's own language, "in refer- 
 ence to the point to be decided, it is no test 
 at all." And if it is " no test at all," then 
 it is not " sufficient" as the only rule of faith 
 and practice. Here then is the testimony, 
 even of Dr, Miller coming to support my 
 argument, which is strong enough without it. 
 As you seem to be anxious to quit the rule 
 of faith, which, by the way, you had quit from 
 the beginning, I need not remind you, that 
 according to our agreement the next question 
 will be—" Is the Protestant religion the reli- 
 gion of Christ ?" Now I hope that you will 
 not undertake to prove the Protestant, by 
 assailing the Catholic religion. I do not say 
 that I will follow you immediately: but in 
 the mean time, be pleased to let me know 
 what I am to understand by the "Protestant 
 religion?" Give me your own definition and 
 I will respect it. Above all, let us have the 
 six passages, on which we are at issue de- 
 cided by Dr. Wylie,or any other interpreter 
 of languages. I shall be ready on the 6th 
 of May, next Monday, if it meet your con- 
 venience. Please also to favour us with the 
 name of the gentleman who abused your 
 confidence, by asserting and " insisting" 
 that the people were warned by one of the 
 Catholic Priests in this city, against reading 
 this controversy. 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
 Jno. Hughes. 
 
CONTROVERSY N°. 14. 
 
 Rule of Faith. 
 
 Philadelphia, May 2d, 1833. 
 
 To the Rev. John Hughes. 
 
 Sir, — At an early day in the present con- 
 troversy, "with all the pomp and circum- 
 stance of war," you announced to the Ame- 
 rican public your confident determination 
 
 «' TO DRIVE THE PLOUGHSHARE OF REASON, 
 EVIDENCE, AND ARGUMENT, THROUGH THE 
 RADICAL DELUSION OF PROTESTANTISM." It 
 
 now becomes that candid public, rather than 
 myself, to judge whether you have redeemed 
 a pledge so self-confident and presuming. 
 The smile which was provoked by the peru- 
 sal of these lofty pretensions, was probably 
 succeeded in many a Protestant's breast, as 
 well as mine, by the recollection of Ahab's 
 admonition to Benhadad, " Let not him that 
 girdeth on his harness boast himself as he 
 that putteth it off." Sounding epithets, your 
 readers find, are not synonymous with solid 
 arguments,- and the skill of the Jesuits, and 
 the mad zeal of the Crusaders, with all the 
 enginery of Rome, must ever prove them- 
 selves impotent against "the truth as it is in 
 Jesus." 
 
 Nothing can more strongly evince the 
 weakness of your cause, and your own con- 
 sciousness of it, than your repeated efforts to 
 divert me from the course of the discussion, 
 by the introduction of various and irrelative 
 details. As to the Rev. Dv. Miller, whom 
 you so feebly assail, and so indelicately in- 
 troduce, it is superfluous for me to say to you, 
 or to the country, that he stands in no need 
 of defence from me. Your notice of his tri- 
 umphant exposure of the devices and errors 
 of your church (in a late letter addressed to 
 Presbyterians) is good proof of the efficacy 
 of that appeal. As it regards your prof- 
 fered bet of $500, you may not be aware 
 that Protestants are not accustomed to 
 gamble: and if, as I suspect, he should not 
 close in with the wager you have laid, you 
 must attribute his declining it to our prin- 
 ciples, and not to our fear of defeat. I am 
 pleased to find Dr. Miller, in one of his 
 works published more than twenty years 
 ago, distinctly avowing that " the Bible is 
 the only infallible and the sufficient rule of 
 
 faith and practice :" and you will excuse me 
 for expressing my utter amazement, that any 
 one who claims a character for either candour 
 or common sense, should see any contradic- 
 tion between this proposition and another, 
 which maintains that the church is bound to 
 be careful, that those whom she receives in- 
 terpret this rule as she thinks right, before she 
 agrees to walk with them in ecclesiastical 
 communion. Does it imply any contradic- 
 tion to the principle that the rule is infalli- 
 ble and sufficient, that a body of Christians 
 refuse to receive any but those whom they 
 consider as interpreting this rule in a scrip- 
 tural and correct manner? And, besides, 
 does not every Confession of Faith profess 
 to found itself solely on the Scriptures; to re- 
 ceive nothing but what the Scriptures teachj 
 and to receive it simply and solely, because 
 it is found there ? It is, therefore, a defini- 
 tive evidence of what a church does be- 
 lieve, not an authoritative rule by which to 
 believe; and of what the Bible does say, not 
 what it should say. 
 
 In reference to the extract from the Ver- 
 mont Chronicle, true or false, we freely al- 
 low that Presbyterian churches may become 
 Unitarian, and"that at different times certain 
 congregations have become so. But if there 
 be weight in the fact, where does its pres- 
 sure lie? Thousands of congregations, mil- 
 lions of individuals, yea, nations, in chief 
 part, and they the most enlightened, free 
 and virtuous, of the ages in which they lived, 
 once Roman Catholics, and who under that 
 denomination never read the Bible, have at 
 different times become evangelical Protestants 
 and from that hour have been diligent, de- 
 vout, and affectionate students of the Bible. 
 Does this prove that their former profession 
 and creed were erroneous? It must be so, 
 according to your argument. 
 
 And now a final word in regard to your 
 slander of our Confession of Faith. And it 
 is simply this, that your misstatements, so 
 pertinaciously repeated, though greatly to 
 your own detriment, are its best defence. 
 I. Your vain struggle to extricate yourself 
 from the difficulties of your argument on the 
 
106 
 
 Jewish Sanhedrim as an infallible judge of 
 controversy, moves one's compassion. Hav- 
 ing been driven to the alternative (on your 
 own principles) of justifying the crucifixion 
 of our blessed Lord, or of rejecting the doc- 
 trine of Infallibility, you say " even in the con- 
 spiracy against his life, when Caiaphas declar- 
 ed it expedient that one man should die for 
 the people, the Evangelist adds, that "this 
 he spoke not of himself; but being the High 
 Priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus 
 should die for the nation," John xi. 15. Then 
 you plainly mean to say that as Caiaphas de- 
 livered a true prophecy as High Priest, he 
 was infallible in doctrine. Now in the same 
 council, by the advice of the same High 
 Priest, it was determined that Christ should 
 die; and we are told that (John xi. 53) ii from 
 that day forth they took council together, to 
 put Him, (Christ) to deaths Either then, 
 (by your argument,) the High Priest was 
 infallible in the prophecy, and fallible in the 
 decree, that is fallible and infallible at the 
 same time; or else Christ was righteously 
 condemned. 
 
 You proceed thus, "You ask me then was 
 the tribunal, appointed by Almighty God in 
 the old law fallible or infallible? Answer; 
 It was infallible, until it was superseded by 
 Him, to whom, 'was given all power in 
 heaven and earth.' Did they decide wrong? 
 Answer; They decided wrong, because Christ 
 had already proved to them, that he was the 
 Messiah, and they shut their eyes against the 
 evidence of truth. The term of their commis- 
 sion had virtually expired." Here then, you 
 admit " that this tribunal was infallible until 
 it was superseded." When was it supersed- 
 ed? Was it superseded before the death of 
 Christ? Was it not after this decree, that 
 Christ died, and in the act of breathing out 
 his soul unto death, said "it is finished?" 
 Was it not after this that he arose from the 
 dead, instituted Christian Baptism, and com- 
 missioned the Apostles " to go into all the 
 world, and preach the Gospel to every crea- 
 ture?" Then, was this tribunal superseded 
 at the time of that decree? On what a pre- 
 cipice's brow do you stand, rather than give 
 up your fatal system ! 
 
 Probably, afraid of this dreadful dilemma, 
 you attempt to explain by adding — "the term 
 of their commission had virtually expired!" 
 But what do you mean by virtually expired? 
 Either it had, or had not, expired. If it had 
 actually expired, why do you say virtually — 
 only? If it had not actually expired, it was 
 still existing, and hence by your reasoning 
 infallible; and therefore we are again 
 
 brought to the horrible conclusion, that Christ 
 was righteously put to death. 
 
 You admit that " a tribunal" (for example 
 the Church of Rome or its Pope and Coun- 
 cil) " may be superseded when it is proved to 
 them, that they shut their eyes against the 
 evidence of the truth;" consequently your 
 church may be superseded, and of course lose 
 its infallibility. How striking in this connex- 
 ion does the Apostle Paul's warning to the 
 Roman Church appear, especially as he by 
 divine inspiration was comparing the Jewish 
 with the Roman Church. " And if some of 
 the branches be broken off, and thou, being a 
 wild-olive tree, wert graffed in among them, 
 and with them partakest of the root and fat- 
 ness of the olive tree; boast not against 
 the branches. But if thou boast, thou bear- 
 est not the root, but the root thee. Thou 
 wilt say then, the branches were broken off, 
 that 1 might be graffed in. Well ; because 
 of unbelief they were broken off, and thou 
 standest by faith. Be not high minded but 
 fear: for if God spared not the natural 
 branches, take heed lest he also spare not 
 thee." Rom. II. Chapter. 
 
 This passage proves without a question that 
 the Church of Rome may be cast off, like the 
 Jewish Church. And here we see the pre- 
 sumption of your church, in first calling her- 
 self supreme and universal, and then con- 
 tending that if she fails, the universal Church 
 fails! The universal, the true Church of Christ 
 cannot fail; and the only way to prove that it 
 can, is to prove that the Church of Rome 
 means the only true and universal Church. 
 
 II. You have not even attempted to answer 
 the body of my arguments on the " Apocry- 
 phal Books." For example, why did the 
 Jews reject them? especially as they had 
 (you say) "an infallible tribunal until super- 
 seded by the coming of Christ!" Why did 
 our Lord and his apostles sanction their re- 
 jection of them? Why, for several centuries 
 after the death of Christ, are ancient writers, 
 and the earliest catalogues silent about them? 
 Why do some of these catalogues explicitly 
 exclude them from the canon ! It is a fact 
 that the oldest Syriac version does not con- 
 tain these books. I assert also the following 
 propositions concerning these books, and 
 shall prove them, if you dispute them. 
 
 1st. They possess no authority whatever, 
 either external or internal, to procure them 
 admission into the canon of Scripture. 
 
 2d. They contain many things which are 
 fabulous, contradictory, and directly at vari- 
 ance with the canonical Scriptures. 
 
107 
 
 3d. They contain passages, -which are in 
 themselves, false, absurd, and incredible. 
 
 4th. They do not even claim to be inspir- 
 ed. And yet they are made by your'* in- 
 fallible church," a part of the Holy Word o« 
 God ! 
 
 III. You seem to be utterly unwilling to 
 meet the question which was put to you in the 
 words of the Rev. Mr. M'Guire. He allowed 
 
 " THAT THE CATHOLIC HAS TO EXERCISE HIS 
 PRIVATE JUDGMENT UPON THE SCRIPTURE 
 PROOFS OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH." 
 
 Dr. Milner says in his " End of Contro- 
 versy," chapter 13, "Hence it is as clear 
 as noon-day light, that by solving this one 
 question, which is the true church? you will 
 at once solve every question of religious con- 
 troversy that ever has, or that ever can be 
 agitated." " It is agreed upon then that all 
 we have to do, by way of discovering the 
 true church, is to find out which of the rival 
 churches, or communions, is peculiarly One, 
 Holy, Catholic and Apostolic." "Yes, my 
 dear sir, these marks of the true church are 
 so plain in themselves, and so evidently 
 point it out, that fools cannot err, as the 
 Prophet foretold, Isa. xxxv. 8, in their road to 
 it. They are the flaming beacons, which for- 
 ever shine on the mountain at the lop of the 
 mountains of the Lord's house, Isai. 22." 
 Bellannine also thus writes : 
 
 " Dicimus ergo, notas 
 Ecclesiae, quas adfere- 
 mus, non fa cere eviden- 
 tiam veritatis simpliciter, 
 quia alioqui non esset ar- 
 ticulus fidei, hanc cccle- 
 siam esse veram eeclesi- 
 am;nequeulliinvenirentur 
 qui id negarent, sicut ne- 
 mo invenitur, qui neget 
 sententias, quas Mathe- 
 matici demonstrant, sed 
 tamen efficiuntcvidentiam 
 credibilitatis, juxta illud 
 Psalm. 92. " Testimonia 
 tua credibilia facta sunt 
 nimis." Apud eos autem, 
 qui admittunt Scripturas 
 divinas, et historias, ac 
 Patrum veterum scripta, 
 faciunt etiam evidentiam 
 veritatis. Tametsi eniin 
 articulorum fidei Veritas 
 non potest nobis esse evi- 
 dens absolute, tamen po- 
 test esse evidens ex hypo- 
 thesi, id est, supposi- 
 ta veritate Scripturarum ; 
 quod enim a scriptura evi- 
 denter deducitur, est evi- 
 denter verum, suppositis 
 Scripturis. 
 
 We say, therefore, that 
 the marks of the church 
 which we shall adduce do 
 not plainly (or of them- 
 selves) constitute the evi- 
 dence of truth, because 
 otherwise it would not be 
 an article of faith t/iatsuch 
 a church is the true church, 
 nor could any persons be 
 found who would deny 
 that article, just as no per- 
 son can be lound who will 
 deny the points which 
 the mathematicians de- 
 monstrate. Yet they (the 
 marks of the church) con- 
 stitute the evidence of cre- 
 dibility according to the 
 92d Psalm. » Thy testimo- 
 nies are very credible." 
 But among those who ad- 
 mit the divine Scriptures 
 and histories, and the wri- 
 tings of the ancient Fa- 
 thers, they constitute the 
 evidence of truth. For al- 
 though the truth of the arti- 
 cles of faith is not absolute- 
 ly evident, yet it is evident 
 by hypothesis, that is, the 
 truth of the Scriptures 
 being admitted; for what- 
 
 ever is evidently deduced 
 from the Scriptures, is evi- 
 dently true, the Scriptures 
 being admitted. Chap. 3. 
 Book 4. concerning the 
 marks of the church. 
 
 Such are the admissions of your standard 
 writers. Then it is acknowledged, that the 
 marks of the true church are not self-evident, 
 but that the proofs of them must be deduced 
 from the sacred Scriptures. It is also acknow- 
 ledged that there is one subject on which 
 private judgment must be exercised, viz. 
 In finding out from the word of God, the 
 marks of the true church. All the passages 
 of the word of God, then, that go to show 
 which is the true church, are to be judged of 
 by private judgment. There are fifteen 
 marks of a true church mentioned by Bellar- 
 mine, viz. 1 " The name Catholic. 2. Jln- 
 tiquity. 3. Duration. 4. Jimplilude of Be- 
 lievers. 5. The succession of Bishops. 6. 
 Agreement in doctrine with the primitive 
 church. 7. Union of the members among 
 themselves and with the Head. 8. Sanctity 
 of doctrine. 9. Efficacy of the doctrine. 10. 
 Holiness of life. JL\. The glory of miracles. 
 12. The light of Prophecy. 13. Confession 
 of adversaries. 14. 1 he unhappy end of the 
 churches enemies. 15. Temporal felicity." 
 These marks must be found out, before you 
 know whether the Greek, or Episcopal, or 
 Roman, or Presbyterian, or any other church, 
 be the true church. But a very large amount 
 of Scripture is to be interpreted in order to 
 find the true church. For example, to make 
 out the 6th mark, a man must know what the 
 doctrines of the Primitive church were, (in a 
 word must know the whole word of God) 
 before he can compare its doctrines with 
 those of the churches now existing. 
 
 So too in finding the 8th mark, "sanctity 
 of doctrine." Bellannine tells us, "The 
 church is said to be holy, because its profes- 
 sion contains nothing false as to doctrine of 
 faith, nothing unjust as to doctrine of mor- 
 als." It is true Dr. Milner says (as quo- 
 ted above) " these marks of the church are 
 so plain in thejnselves, and so evidently 
 pointed out, that fools cannot err in their 
 roud to it." But when you come to ex- 
 amine the proofs which are brought from 
 the Scripture, they will be found as a whole 
 to be less clear than the body of Scripture is, 
 and far less so than those portions of the 
 word of God on which fundamental doctrines 
 and practical duties rest. 
 
 [f private interpretation is ruinous in the 
 use of all other Scripture, why is it not ruin- 
 
108 
 
 ous here ? If private interpretation is suffi- 
 cient to explore the whole word of God, in 
 order to find out the true Church, why is it 
 not sufficient for the rest? And if truth 
 stands out as clear as the mountain tops, so 
 that the fool cannot err, in whatever relates 
 to the church, how does it become suddenly 
 and impenetrably dark in all things relating 
 to Jesus and salvation, to sin, and holiness, 
 to all doctrine, and all duty? If private in- 
 terpretation may, with moral certainty, and 
 indisputable credibility, lay the foundation 
 of your whole system, why may it not avail 
 for the whole volume of truth, and the whole 
 catalogue of doctrine ? Here then, by the 
 admission of your own writers, private inter- 
 pretation is the only guide in a search after 
 salvation, and all the articles of faith; for 
 you say, there is no salvation out of the true 
 Church, and the true Church alone teaches 
 infallibly the articles of faith; and private in- 
 terpretation must find out the true Church! 
 Is not this, then, a ruinous chasm; a palpa- 
 ple contradiction; a most disingenuous and 
 deceitful argument? 
 
 It may simplify and enforce the above re- 
 marks to give the following dialogue between 
 a Romanist and a Protestant, extracted from 
 an able work on the subject of infallibility: 
 
 Papist. I pity your condition, Sir, to see 
 you live at such uncertainties for your reli- 
 gion, and obstinately refuse to consult that 
 living oracle and infallible judge, whom 
 God hath placed in his church, to decide 
 all controversies in faith and worship. 
 
 Protestant. Sir, I thank you for your 
 charity; and though I do not find myself so 
 uncertain as I perceive you think I am, yet 
 I should be glad of^guch an infallible guide 
 as you tal*of, if I knew where to find him. 
 
 Papist".- H& is to be found in the church 
 of Rome; for that is the church which is the 
 pillar and ground of the truth; there is St. 
 Peter's chair, whom Christ made the su- 
 preme governor of his church, whom he com- 
 manded to feed his lambs and his sheep; 
 that rock on whom Christ promised to build 
 His church, and that the gates of Hell 
 should not prevail against it; and, therefore, 
 in communion with this church and in obe- 
 dience to the supreme pastor of it, you can- 
 not err. 
 
 Protestant. But pray how shall I be sure 
 of this? 
 
 Papist. Do you ask that now, when I 
 have referred you to such plain texts of 
 Scripture for the proof of it? 
 
 Protestant. Will you allow me then, to 
 interpret these texts according to my own 
 
 private judgment? And why then may I 
 not use my judgment in other matters? 
 for I think all the articles of my creed are 
 as plain in Scripture, as that the Pope or 
 church of Rome is the supreme infallible 
 judge; and indeed, if I must stand to my 
 own judgment in this matter, I can find 
 no such thing in these texts as you have al- 
 leged. 
 
 Papist. Your own judgment! No, by 
 no means; this causes all the heresies in the 
 world, that men will presume to judge for 
 themselves. 
 
 Protestant. What course must I take 
 then? 
 
 Papist. You must stand to the judgment 
 of the church, which cannot err; and what- 
 ever heretics say, she will tell you, that 
 these texts prove the church's infallibility. 
 
 Protestant. Hold, Sir, what is it we are to 
 prove? 
 
 Papist. That the church is infallible. 
 
 Protestant. And this I must prove from 
 Scripture? 
 
 Papist. Yes. 
 
 Protestant. And must not rely on my 
 own judgment for the sense of Scripture, 
 but on the interpretation of the church? 
 
 Papist. Right, this is the true Catholic 
 way. 
 
 Protestant. That is, I must take the 
 church's word that she is infallible? 
 
 Papist. No, you must believe the Scrip- 
 tures, which says so. 
 
 Protestant. But I must believe the Scrip- 
 ture, not because I understand this to be the 
 sense of it, but because the church so ex- 
 pounds it? 
 
 Papist. Right, for heretics expound it 
 otherwise. 
 
 Protestant. And what is it then but to 
 take the churches word for her own infalli- 
 bility; to believe it because she says it herself, 
 or to believe it because she makes the Scrip- 
 ture say it? Jind so then you can never be 
 infallibly certain of your church's infalli- 
 bility; — and of course you can never be infaU 
 libly certain that its teaching is true. Then 
 as to any doctrine, say the divinity of Christ, 
 Protestants believe it, because the inspired 
 word of God in its plain and obvious sense 
 clearly teaches it. Papists believe it be- 
 cause the church says so — and they believe 
 the church to be infallible because they think 
 the plain and obvious sense of Scripture 
 teaches it. In a word the faith of the Pro- 
 testant is resolved into the infallibility of 
 Christ and his Apostles; — whereas the faith 
 of Papists is resolved into the infallibility of 
 
109 
 
 Popes and councils. "Whether it be right 
 in the sight of God to hearken unto you 
 more than unto God, judge thou!'' Peter, 
 Acts iv. 19. 
 
 IV. 7/ is agreed between us, that one great 
 end of the infallible rule of faith established 
 by Christ, was to determine disputes in his 
 Church. (See rule 2d.) One of the artifices 
 of jour reasoning upon the rule of faith, is 
 to insist that no rule is infallible which does 
 not finally settle all disputes, and since the 
 Bible fails to settle all disputes it cannot be, 
 (you say) an infallible rule of faith. Now 
 all that you can say of your boasted rule of 
 faith (unless you resort to fraud or force) is 
 that it settles disputes among all who will 
 submit to it. The same in the strictest sense 
 is true also of the Bible. But if men 
 will not submit to the Bible, then disputes 
 cannot be determined by the Bible. If men 
 will resist its authority, and pervert its true 
 meaning,- then we say there is no remedy on 
 earth. You on the contrary insist that there 
 is. We say if the Bible is not sufficient, no- 
 thing is, and they who go beyond it and re- 
 sort to other means, are guilty of fraud, 
 usurpation, and rebellion against God. In a 
 word, — I shall prove that the method of de- 
 termining disputes in the Church of Rome, 
 is anti-scriptural, and anti- Christian, and, 
 therefore not that infallible rule established by 
 Christ. 
 
 1st. In order to secure a pretended and 
 apparent union, you draw a distinction be- 
 tween doctrines and opinions. All those 
 points upon which the Church is divided, 
 however important, are called opinions; and 
 those are called doctrines, upon which you 
 are agreed. Of course, you are always 
 agreed upon doctrines or points of faith. 
 Thus, for example, it is a cardinal doctrine 
 with you, that your church is infallible. 
 But where this infallibility is located, is a 
 matter of opinio?!, or in other words, it is a 
 thing about which you are not agreed. The 
 least observation will convince any one, that 
 infallibility is useless, unless you can locate 
 it. Suppose, for example, I wish to bring a 
 suit before the Supreme Court of the United 
 States. When I ask, "who compose this 
 court," anil "where this court holds its ses- 
 sions," I seek for information which it is in- 
 dispensable for me to possess, in order to se- 
 cure a decision. Now what if it should be 
 replied, " there is a Supreme Court appoint- 
 ed by the President of the United States, with 
 the approval of the Senate, which is supreme 
 judge in certain controversies; but who 
 compose this court, and where it holds its 
 
 sessions, is a matter of opinion." " It is not 
 agreed who they are, or where they meet; 
 but this court, and this alone, takes cogni- 
 zance of such cases!" Is it not equally 
 absurd to say that there is a living infallible 
 judge of controversies in the Church of 
 Rome; but who he is, or where he has his seat, 
 we are not agreed; it is a matter of opinion; 
 we cannot tell? It seems to be the opinion 
 of Mr. Hughes, that the Pope and the coun- 
 cil united are infallible; a host of writers 
 are of opinion that infallibility is seated in 
 the Pope; and another host commit it to the 
 church universal. But it is not a doctrine in 
 any case; it is only a matter of opinion. 
 Again the church of Rome has for ages been 
 divided upon the question, " whether the 
 Virgin Mary was conceived in the womb of 
 her mother, with the same purity that is ak ' 
 tributed to Christ's conception in her womb. < 
 Multitudes contend for both sides of the 
 question. If it be true that she was thus con- 
 ceived that is, immaculately, then the Bible 
 account on the whole subject of sin is utter- 
 ly false. It is therefore a question of im- 
 mense importance. Yet even the Council of 
 Trent were divided on this question, and the 
 heated disputants were finally left unsatis- 
 fied, and the question unsettled; and finding 
 it could not be made a doctrine without a 
 schism, they finally agreed to decline any 
 interference with the point in dispute, and 
 leave it undecided and free. Now bv such a 
 procedure your church holds out a "show of 
 union, when in fact evangelical Protestants 
 do really agree more in doctrines that are 
 essential to salvation, than the members of 
 the church of Rome. As to agreement in 
 " doctrines that are damnable," we confess 
 we covet it not; and in this respect, yield 
 to you the unenviable distinction of such a 
 concert. 
 
 Here let me add, that this is a very curious 
 process for an infallible church. Why leave 
 some points untouched? Why ignorant; or if 
 informed about them, why silent, on some 
 points, and infallibly certain and fiercely 
 zealous about others? Does the Holy Ghost 
 enlighten only the " hemisphere" of truth to 
 the eye of Rome? Do "light and darkness 
 thus dwell together" in the Roman Councils? 
 Why, for example, are you so infallibly cer- 
 tain that infants cannot be saved without the 
 baptism of a Priest, and that his baptism is 
 null ivithout his intention in administering 
 it, and yet not be able to say whether all the 
 race were conceived in sin? Why hold one 
 part as opinions and another part as doctrines? 
 Have you not said (see letter 3d tenth head) 
 
 / 
 
110 
 
 
 tl that Christ nevtr inculcated the belief of an 
 opinion?" Why then as all are doctrines, do 
 you not teach all? If you are ignorant of some, 
 then how are you infallible? If you withhold 
 your decisions for fear of schisms, is not your 
 union a fiction or a fraud? 
 
 2d. But when this passive way of settling 
 disputes fails, you have a more vigorous meth- 
 od, at which we have before hinted. It is 
 worthy of a more distinct and ample exhibi- 
 tion. And here I refer to your own Bellar- 
 mine, who (as you informed me) is a v stand- 
 ard writer with you, who was the nephew of 
 a Pope (Marcellus the 2d;) was a cardinal in 
 the church; and, above all, whose works re- 
 ceived the sanction of the Pope. I extract 
 parts of the 21 and 22d chapters of his 3d 
 book on the laity. 
 
 'Posse hatreticos ab ec- 
 clesia damnatos tempora- 
 libus poenis et etiam morte 
 mulctari. 
 
 Nos igitur breviter os- 
 tendemus hsereticos incor- 
 rigibiles ac praesertim re- 
 lapsos, posse ac debere ab 
 ecclesia rejici, et a secu- 
 laribus potestatibus tem- 
 poralibus poenis atque ipsa 
 etiam morte mulctari. 
 
 Primo probatur scrip- 
 turis. Probatur secundo 
 sententiis et legibus impe- 
 ratorum, quas ecclesia sem- 
 per probuvit. Probatur ter- 
 tio legibus ecclesia:. Pro- 
 batur quarto testimoniis 
 Patrum. Probatur ulti- 
 mo ratione naturali. Pri- 
 
 Ciiapter 21st. 
 That heretics condemn- 
 ed by the church may 
 be punished with tem- 
 poral penalties, and even 
 with death. We will 
 briefly show that the 
 church has the power, 
 and it is her duty, to cast 
 off incorrigible heretics, 
 especially those who have 
 relapsed, and that the se- 
 cular power ought to in- 
 flict on such temporal 
 punishments, and even 
 death itself. 1st. This 
 may be proved from the 
 ScriptarSs.' 2d. It is 
 pr6ved from the opinions 
 and laws of the Emperors, 
 jiohich the church has al. 
 
 mo hseretici excommuni- i ways approved/ 3d. It ts 
 cari jure possunt, ut om- pr#wd"&y" J t?ie laws of th& 
 
 nes fatentur, ergo et occi- 
 di. Probatur consequen- 
 tia quia excommunicatio 
 est major poena, quam 
 mors temporalis. Secundo 
 experientia docet non esse 
 aliud remedium, nam ec- 
 clesia paulatim progressa 
 est ct omnia remcdia ex- 
 perta; primo solum ex- 
 communicabat dcinde ad- 
 didit mulctam pecuniari- 
 am; turn exilium, ultimo co- 
 acta est ad mortem venire : 
 mittere illos in locum su- 
 um. Tertio, falsarii om- 
 nium judicio merentur 
 mortem ; at hajretici fal- 
 sarii sunt verbi Dei. 
 Quarto, gravius est non 
 servare fidem hominem 
 Deo, quam feminam viro ; 
 
 church. 4th. It is proved 
 by the testimony of the 
 fathers. Lastly. It is 
 proved from natural rea- 
 son. For first : It is 
 owned by all, that here- 
 tics, may of right be ex- 
 communicated — of course 
 they may be put to death. 
 This consequence is pro- 
 ved because excommuni- 
 cation is a greater pun- 
 ishment than temporal 
 death. Secondly. Expe- 
 rience proves that there 
 is no other remedy ; for 
 the church has step by 
 step tried all remedies — 
 first excommunication 
 alone; then pecuniary pe- 
 nalties ; afterward banish- 
 ment ; und lastly has been 
 
 dendos esse ; prima causa 
 est ne mali bonis noceant ; 
 secunda est, ut paucorum 
 supplicio multi corrigan- 
 tur. Multi enim quos im- 
 punitas faciebat torpentes 
 supplicia proposita exci- 
 tant ; et nos quotidie idem 
 videmus fieri in locis ubi 
 viget Inquisitio. Denique 
 harelicis obstinatis benefi- 
 cium est quod de hac vita 
 tollantur ; nam quo diu- 
 tius vivunt eo plures er- 
 rores excogitant, plures 
 pervertunt, et majorem si- 
 bi damnationem acquir- 
 unt. 
 
 sed hoc morte punitur, cur forced to put them to death; 
 
 non illud : Quinto, tres to send them to their 
 
 causae sunt propter quas own place. Thirdly, All 
 
 ratio docet homines occi- allow that forgery deserves 
 
 Caput 22d. 
 
 Solvuntur objectiones. 
 Superest argumenta Lu- 
 theri atque aliorum hcereti- 
 corum diluere. Argument, 
 primum, ab experientia to- 
 tius ecclesia? : Ecclesia in- 
 quit Lutlierus ab initio sui 
 usque hue nullum combus- 
 'sit hareticum. ergo non vi- 
 detur esse voluntas Spiri- 
 tus ut comburantur. 
 
 Respondeo, argumen- 
 turn hoc optime probat, 
 non sententiam, sed impe- 
 ritiam, vel impudentiam 
 Lutheri : nam cum infiniti 
 propemodum, vel combus- 
 ti, vel aliter necati fuerint, 
 aut id ignoravit Lutherus, 
 et tunc imperitus est, aut 
 non ignoravit, et imp'u- 
 dens, ac mendax esse con- 
 vincitur : nam quod hse- 
 retici sint saepe ab eccle- 
 sia combusti, ostendi po- 
 test, si adducamus pauca 
 exempla de multis. 
 
 Argumcntum secun- 
 dum ; experientia testatur 
 non profici terroribus. 
 Respondeo, experientia est 
 in contrarium ; nam Do- 
 natistae, Manichaei, et Al- 
 bigenses armis profligati, 
 et extincti sunt. / 
 
 death; but heretics are 
 guilty of forgery of the 
 word of God. Fourthly, 
 A breach of faith by man 
 toward God, is a greater 
 sin, than of a wife with 
 her husband. But a wo- 
 man's unfaithfulness is 
 punished with death ; why 
 not a heretic? Fifthly, 
 There are three grounds 
 on which reason shows 
 that heretics should be 
 put to death : the 1st is 
 lest the wicked should in- 
 jure the righteous — 2d, 
 that by the punishment of 
 a few, many may be re- 
 formed. For many who 
 
 WERE MADE TORPID BY IM- 
 PUNITY ARE ROUSED BY THE 
 FEAR OF PUNISHMENT; AND 
 THIS WE DAILY SEE IS THE 
 RESULT WHERE THE IN- 
 QUISITION flourishes. Fi- 
 nally, It is a benefit to 
 obstinate heretics to re- 
 move them from this life ; 
 for the longer they live the 
 more errors they invent, 
 the more persons they mis- 
 lead : and the greater 
 damnation do they trea- 
 sure up to themselves. 
 
 Chapter 22d. 
 
 Objections answered. 
 
 It remains to answer 
 the objections of Luther 
 and other heretics. Ar- 
 gument 1st. From the his- 
 tory of the church at large. 
 The church, says Luther, 
 from the beginning, even 
 to this time, has never 
 burned a heretic. There- 
 fore it does not seem to 
 be the mind of the Holy 
 Spirit, that they should be 
 burned ! I reply, this ar- 
 gument admirably proves 
 not the sentiment, but the 
 ignorance, or impudence 
 of Luther ; for as almost 
 
 AN INFINITE NUMBER WERE 
 EITHER BURNED! OR OTHER- 
 WISE PUT TO DEATH, Lu- 
 
 ther either did not know 
 it, and was therefore igno- 
 rant ; or if he knew it, 
 he is convicted of impu- 
 dence and falsehood m for . 
 that heretics were often 
 burned by the church may 
 be proved by adducing a 
 few from many examples. , 
 Argument 2d. Experi- 
 ence shows that terror is 
 not useful (in such cases.) 
 I reply experience proves 
 
 THE CONTRARY — FOR THE 
 
 ' 
 
Ill 
 
 Argumentum decimum Donatists, Maniuheans, 
 
 tertium: Dominus attri- and Albigenses wkreJ 
 
 buit ecclesia? gladium spi- routed, and annihilated 
 
 ritus, quod est verbum dei, by arms. 
 
 non autem gladium ferri ; Argument 13th. The 
 
 immo Petro volenti gladio Lord attributes to the 
 
 ferreo ipsum defender*, church "the sword of the 
 
 ait : Mitte gladium tuum Spirit, which is the word 
 
 in vaginam. Joan 18. Res- of God;" but not the 
 
 pondeo, ecclesia sicut ha- material sword ; nay 
 
 bet Principes Ecclesiasti- He said to Peter, who 
 
 cos, et scculares, qui sunt wished to defend him with 
 
 quasi duo ecclesia; bra- a material sword, "m( up 
 
 chia, ita duos habet gla- thy sword into the scab- 
 
 dios, spintualem, et mate- bard." John 18th. I an- 
 
 nalem, et ideo, quando swer; 4s the church has 
 
 man us dextera gladio spi- ecclesiastical and secular 
 
 rituah non potuit hsereti- princes, who are her two 
 
 cum convertere, invocat arms; so she has two 
 
 auxihum brachii sinistri, swords, the spiritual and 
 
 ut gladio ferreo hoercticos material; and therefore 
 
 coerceat. -^ wnen her right hand is 
 
 Argumentum decimum unable to convert a heretic 
 
 octavum : Numquam Ap- with the sword of the Spi- 
 
 ostoh brachium seculare rit, she invokes the aid of 
 
 contra haereticos invoca- the left hand, and coerces 
 
 verunt. Respondet S. Au- heretics with the material 
 
 gustinus in epist. 50. et sword. 
 
 alibi, Apostolos id non fe- Argument 18th. The 
 
 cisse, quia nullus tunc Apostles never invoked 
 
 erat Chnstianus Princeps, the secular arm against 
 
 quern invocarent. At post- heretics. Answer (ac- 
 
 quam tempore Constan- cording to St. Augustine, 
 
 tini........Ecclesia auxilium in letter 50 and elsewhere) 
 
 seculans brachii implora- The Apostles did it not, 
 
 ■■ because there was no Chris' 
 
 y tian Prince whom they 
 could call on for aid. But 
 afterwards in Constan- 
 
 tine's time, the church 
 
 called in the aid of the 
 secular arm. 
 
 The mere translation of these infamous 
 passages discloses the very " mystery of ini- 
 quity" which for ages has been working in 
 the church of Rome. Here we have the ex- 
 traordinary fact, that the Old Testament and 
 the New, the laws of the Church, the tes- 
 timony of the Fathers, the history of the 
 Church, reason, the good of other men, and 
 even mercy towards the unhappy victims, 
 are all adduced in one cumulative argument 
 to prove that the church of Rome has^the au- 
 thority, and that it is her duty to put to death 
 men ivho differ incorrigibly from her in their 
 doctrines! You will hardly say, these are 
 opinions; for here, we find, that he adduces, 
 1st ecclesiastical law ! Nor can you say 
 that the church did not burn these heretics 
 but that the evil power did it, for we see, 
 M. that "the civil power (as stated above,) 
 is one of the arms of the church, and its sword, 
 one of t/ ie swords ofihe ehunhf „ and that 
 
 the church has always approved" the edicts 
 
 and acts of emperors in this way— and 
 
 that heretics were often burned 'by the 
 
 ": 
 
 church P Perhaps you have read the life of 
 George W.shart, who was martyred by your 
 Cardmal Beaton, of bloody memory. In it 
 you will find that when the cardinal failed to 
 secure from the Regent the condemnation of 
 W .shar for heresy, without a fair trial, he 
 returned for answer, that^he had sufficient 
 authority to condemn heretics without the 
 mterpos.t.on of the civil power; and accord- 
 ingly he actually tried, condemned, and 
 burned W.shart, in despite of the distinct 
 prohjb.t.on of the Regent of the country. 
 3d. rh.s your standard author, calls Lu- 
 ther a tool or a knave for denving that the 
 church had burned heretics. He says » al 
 most an infinite number of heretics were burn- 
 ed by the church, and instances the Donatists 
 Manicheans, and Albigenses." 4th. He tells* 
 us that the only reason why the church did not 
 burn heret.es before Constantine, was that 
 there was no prince who would do it,— but 
 as soon as she could have it done she did it 
 Query Why is it not done in the United 
 Mates ? It is done in Spain! I be ff Mr 
 Hughes to tell us why! 5th. And this is 
 the unchangeable church ! Of course, she is 
 the same now that she was then,— and 
 would .f she could, do the same now she 
 ever d.d. She does not lack the will, but 
 the power; and wo to this land if that power 
 be ever acquired! 6th. This passage may 
 be compared with the long extract which I 
 gave in letter No. 8. from the Great Lateran 
 Council decreeing the destruction of heretics, 
 winch you so strangely passed, on a for- 
 mer occasion. 
 
 Illustration from History— Massacre of St. 
 Bartholomew. 
 Mezerai's History of France, foh vol. 
 2. p. 1098. (Paris 1646.) During two 
 months, this horrible and cruel tempest 
 overspread France, in some places more, and 
 m some less, and destroyed not less than 
 25,000 persons. Davila page 275, says, 
 The report constantly prevailed, that in the 
 course of a few days not fewer than 40,000 
 of the Huguenots had perished. 
 
 The holy father and all his court displayed 
 a great rejoicing, and went in solemn pro- 
 cession to the church of St. Louis, to lender 
 thanks to God for so happy a success. 
 
 The following extracts from the letter of 
 Pope Pius V. book 3. let. 45. incontestably 
 proves that the massacre of St. Bartholomew 
 owes its origin to the vindictive councils of 
 the Popes. "To our most Dear Son in 
 Christ, Charles, the molt Christian King of 
 the French. The public joy of this city has 
 
 * V 7 i 
 
113 
 
 very much augmented our pleasure, which at 
 the first certain intelligence of so great a 
 victory, rejoiced and does rejoice. The frui 
 of this victory consists in tins, that by a just 
 animadversion, the wicked heretics, the 
 common enemies being removed out of the 
 way, its former peace and tranqui lhty may 
 be restored to that kingdom." Thuanus in 
 his History, book 53, tells us, that on the 
 news of this massacre being received at Koine 
 it was instantly resolved, that the Pope with 
 the Cardinals should straightway go to the 
 church of St. Mark, and should solemn y re- 
 turn thanks to the Lord for so great a bless- 
 ing conferred upon the Roman See and the 
 _ » . . ii ii__i. *i,«^^ a mi ( >p should 
 
 as?^«a%te£ft 
 
 Bishop in his own diocese, or a number of 
 Bishops assembled in a Provincial Council, 
 made inquisition of those errors which arose 
 in the diocese or Province; but the more 
 weighty matters were always referred to the 
 Apostolical seat (Rome;) and thus every Bisft- 
 op or Provincial council took care to bring to 
 its proper issue whatever was decreed by the 
 Apostolical See. But in process of time, 
 when greater evils pressed, it became neces- 
 sary for the Pope to send legates into those 
 regions in which heresy had long and wide y 
 spread, that they might assist the Bishops in 
 restraining the audacity of abandoned men, 
 and in deterring Christians from foreign and 
 But when new errors 
 
 Unristian "«»«) *•«** -• ', J . . 1,1 
 
 be published in the whole Christian world 
 -Its causes were declared to be, that they 
 should return thanks to God for the destruc- 
 tion of ^e enemies of the truth and of the 
 church in France," &c. &c 
 
 Finally, Fleuri in his Ecclesiastical His- 
 tory, vol. 123. book 173. p. 557. tells us. 
 
 denraveu uuiuuics. -"-- . 
 
 da ly sprung up, and the number of heretics 
 wasgreatly increased-seeingthat the legates 
 could not always be at hand, nor apply the 
 proper remedy, it was determined to insti- 
 tute a standing tribunal, that should al- 
 ways be present, and at all times, and m 
 every country, should devote their minds to 
 ci^/y ^, f.,,th. and to 
 
 tory'voLV book 173. p. 557- te lis us wry ^ ^, -- ~ - &f ^ ^^ 
 Gregory the 13th, only regarding the g>od preser nng . ^ hcy 
 
 which he thought likely to result from this, , to | ^ train ljf J 1 it W J S ; t hat the Inquisitors 
 toe Catholic religion in France, ordered ^ a. ose. Thus ^ , ^ ^ ^ q/ 
 
 procession, in which he himself joined, from "g^JJ* ^fito ^ ^ as m a matter 
 [he church of St. Peter's totheehdrch of I St. I ™J^ ™ the preservation of the purity 
 Louis, to return thanks to God for so happy so weighty as t ne p ^ ^ 
 
 a result; and to perpetuate the memory of fjfcfo^^^^^-^ 
 this event, he caused several medals to oe union ■ ■ j. , g as the centre „f unity, 
 struck, wherein he ^^ 
 on the one side, and on the oto ^, s ,d * a » iZembl, or congregation of Cardinals mwhch 
 
 v, 
 
 suuciv, «»..~.~— .(,.. ,,„ an were w ««!«««;») '» " u ;»„ , . J ,. , 
 
 on the one side, and on the ™™* X fJ\\ l ™ se M 
 
 angel carrying a cross in one hand la nd a | asemu ./ * g This J congregation is the 
 
 sword in the other, exterminating the heie- ^Jopej J isilors , over the whole world; 
 tics. . , • L th ; c , n a jjL «// f e /er /A«r more difficult matters; 
 
 Allow me to add one item more to this 
 delectable catalogue. Among he ex trac :s 
 from Bellarmine given above, the, e is this 
 distinct approval of the inquisition 'W 
 
 BAILY SEE THE SAME RESULTS (viZ. .the good 
 
 done in putting an end to heresy) in pla- 
 ces WHERE THE INQUISITION »«*««■•■ 
 
 You are not a stranger, I suppose, to Joannes 
 Devotus. His Institutions have the highest 
 sanctions of your Church at Rome itself, as 
 containing nothing contrary to faith or good 
 morals. Of course, his authority will not be 
 questioned; and as his writings are of compa- 
 ratively recent date, (1793) they give us glan- 
 ces at the Roman Church in our own times. 
 I omit the original, because so much has 
 been already introduced. But it is open 
 to your inspection, if you have it not in your 
 possession, vol. 4th, tit. 8th, page MI—UP. 
 under the head " Inquisitors of Heretical pr a- 
 vily? he gives the following statements 
 < « The cause of instituting the Tribunal called 
 the Inquisition was iV.s. At first every 
 
 head of all Inquisitors, over the whole world; 
 to it they all refer their more difficult matters 
 and its authority and judgment ^eJnaL 
 It is rightly and wisely ordered that the 
 Pope's office and power should sustain tins 
 institution. For he is the centre of unity 
 and head of the church: and to him Christ 
 has committed plenary power to feed, teach, 
 rule, and govern all Christians." Now from 
 this it annears, 1. That according to the 
 g vernmenfadopted at Rome, the Inquisition 
 f. a constituent part of their systeuij-and 
 hat it is established wherever they have 
 such a foot-hold as to make ^ Possib e 
 Buchanan found one even at Goa, in the 
 East Indies. Whether there be one m M 
 country, is a mailer of opinion. But it is 
 2nd doctrine to have it f possible. 8. 
 The Pope is the head of the Inquisition over 
 the whole world-and the congregation o 
 he cardinals at Rome is the supreme court of 
 the Inquisition; of course it is to the Pope, 
 and his cardinals, we are to took as the au- 
 thors, originally, of the unparalleled enormi 
 
113 
 
 ties which have characterized this bloodiest 
 institution in the history of the world. 
 
 Let me here give another word of his- 
 tory. 
 
 A critical History of the Spanish Inquisi- 
 tion, by D. J. A. Llorente, formerly Secre- 
 tary of the Inquisition, &c &c, translated 
 from the Spanish manuscript in the presence 
 of the author, by Alexis Pellier. 2d edit. 
 (Paris 1818.) 
 
 It is the Inquisition which has ruled in 
 Spain from the year 1481 to the present day, 
 of which I undertake to write the history, 
 Tom. 1. p. 140. 
 
 Recapitulation of all the victims 
 
 condemned and burnt, 
 Burned in effigy, 
 Placed in a state of penance with 
 
 rigorous punishments, 
 
 31,912 
 17,695 
 
 291,450 
 
 Total, 
 Tom. 4. p. 271. 
 
 "When the French obtained possession of 
 Spain, under Joseph Bonaparte, Llorente ob- 
 tained permission to examine all the archives 
 of the Inquisition. His work, therefore, is 
 the most authentic that is extant. When 
 we come to speak of these subjects as prin- 
 cipal, and not illustrative topics, we design, 
 Providence permitting, to make such disclo- 
 sures of its history as truth demands. But 
 now let it suffice to say that this is the insti- 
 tution which Bellarmine praises, as a fine 
 method of settling disputes! On this plan 
 we grant you that it is easy to "determine dis- 
 
 putes" by putting an end to all the dispu- 
 tants on one side of the question. And now 
 Sir, having at some length stated the methods 
 used by the church of Rome, I ask if the in- 
 ference is not irresistible, that yours is a rule 
 of fraud, and of force; abhorrent to right 
 reason, mercy and truth,' and as such, that it 
 is an insult to our holy religion to say it was 
 instituted by Jesus Christ, or that yours is an 
 infallible rule? 
 
 \ In regard to "the reference," I shall be 
 prepared to meet you, Providence permit- 
 ting, on Friday the 10th of May. On Mon- 
 day the 6th, and until the evening of the 
 9th, I expect to be absent from the city. 
 
 Your call for the name of my informant is 
 not candid. I am authorized to give it (as 
 I have already informed you,) whenever the 
 Bishop shall ask it. I now inquire, does 
 he or does he not demand it? 
 
 Your attempt to pervert my statements on 
 this subject, is unworthy of the character you 
 profess to bear. From first to last, it was 
 stated by me in the form of a question; and 
 the confidence expressed in the truth of the 
 testimony was not mine, but that of my 
 worthy informant. 
 
 It is my purpose, in the next letter, to 
 meet your call for a definition of the Protes- 
 tant religion, and to proceed to the discus- 
 sion of other topics connected with the con- 
 troversy; holding myself in readiness at the 
 same time, to meet with promptness what- 
 ever you may say in addition, on the rule of 
 faith. Yours, &c. 
 
 John Breckinridge. 
 
 ! 
 
 

CONTROVERSY N°. 15. 
 
 Rule or Faith. 
 
 Philadelphia, May 10, 1833. 
 
 To the Rev. John Breckinridge. 
 
 Jlev. Sir, — If there was any thing wanting 
 to show the weakness of the Protestant prin- 
 ciple in reference to the rule of faith, it is 
 found in your attempt to supply the ab- 
 sence of argument, by the introduction of 
 reproach. I wished to spare the feelings of 
 our readers, in regard to the crimes which 
 history has ascribed to Catholics and to Pro- 
 testants on the subject of religious persecu- 
 tion. Men of education, on both sides, have 
 long since come to the conclusion, that al- 
 though persecution forms no part of the 
 religion of Jesus Christ, yet, unhappily, 
 there are few denominations that have not 
 persecuted when they had the power. But 
 all are agreed, that this charge comes with a 
 peculiarly bad grace from either John Calvin 
 or any of his disciples. There is blood upon 
 his memory; and it looks doubly dark and 
 deep when associated with' the recollections 
 that lie set up to be a man of god, and a re- 
 former of the church of Christ. Bellarmine, 
 indeed, sanctioned the right of Catholic prin- 
 ces to wield ihe sword of civil power against 
 persons condemned by the church of heresy; 
 — but so far as he is concerned, the fact ex- 
 hibits only the theory of persecution and the 
 sanction of his pen. Calvin's was the sanc- 
 tion of the pen and faggot, the theory and the 
 practice. The example ot the master has 
 been faithfully imitated by his followers. 
 And, appealing to the decision of impartial 
 history, I defy you to show a single state in 
 Europe or America, in which Calviuists or 
 Presbyterians conceded free toleration from 
 the moment they possessed civil power, 
 whether derived by grant from the crown, as 
 in New England, or acquired, as in Europe, 
 by rebellion and usurpation! 
 
 If then history does not contain one single 
 exception, on this head, I would leave it to 
 the good sense of our readers, whether it is 
 wise, whether it is modest in you to charge 
 Catholics with persecution, and that too, in 
 the name of a sect which has stained the 
 soil of every country in which it ruled, 
 with the blood of the Protestant, as well 
 
 as Catholic, victims of its bigotry and in- 
 tolerance! It would seem that it is a 
 crime For any other denomination to do 
 what Presbyterians have never failed of 
 doing when they had the power. I do not 
 perceive by what divine right Presbyterians 
 claim the monopoly of persecution. It it be 
 a privilege at all, which I deny, Catholics 
 possessed the priority of title. They did 
 not spring up in the 16th century of the 
 Christian church, to dispute the faith of Pro- 
 testants. But on the contrary, the Protestants 
 then came into existence to dispute with 
 them, for something more than "the king- 
 dom which is not of this world;" — viz. for 
 their churches, their castles, their towns, and 
 their kingdoms. It is a fact, that at the rise 
 of the Reformation so called, Catholics pos- 
 sessed every thing; and that Protestants as 
 such possessed nothing, save their private in- 
 dividual estates. How came they then to 
 possess themselves of public power and pro- 
 perty which did not belong to them? Did they 
 give any equivalent? They had none to give. 
 Did the Catholics resign them voluntarily? 
 No, certainly: — if they had, they would have 
 escaped the charge of persecution. They were 
 in possession — defence was their natural pv'w'i- 
 lege. Kingdoms were tranquil and united 
 in the profession of the same religion, when- 
 ever the heresy began, and the question was, 
 whether it was the right of nations to ex- 
 tinguish the spark, or n\\ow their institutions, 
 civil and religious, to be consumed in the po- 
 litical conflagration which it never failed to 
 excite. It was to illustrate this question, 
 that Bellarmine embarked on the sea of po- 
 litical casuistry. He contended that the civil 
 magistrates were, in the language of your 
 standard of 1821 "nursing fathers of the 
 church" — and it is a remarkable coincidence 
 that he attempts to prove his position by re- 
 ference to the same texts of Scripture by 
 which the Westminster divines, and the 
 " adopting act of 1729," made it a sin for 
 Presbyterians to " tolerate a false religion." 
 Bellarmine himself must be responsible for 
 his opinions on this subject, which do not at 
 all belong tojthe faith of the Catholic religion 
 
116 
 
 He is a "standard writer," in treating of 
 Catholic doctrines— of questions " de fide." 
 But on points of political economy, or civil 
 government, as they are not even " fere de 
 fide," his pen was at liberty to ramble as 
 well as that of any other individual. His 
 reasoning on the question, appears to me as 
 extravagant as it can to you — and I am just 
 as ready to reject it. For, you will observe 
 that Catholics, as such, are responsible only 
 for the doctrines of the church, and not for 
 the private opinions of her members. Show 
 me then the decree of any Council, or the 
 bull of any Pope, proposing persecution as a 
 part of our religion — and let that document 
 be the proof of your charge. 
 
 Neither does the inquisition of Spain con- 
 stitute any part our religion. Of course 
 you are at liberty to make it the theme of 
 declamation as long as you please. If, how- 
 ever, you were questioned as to what the in- 
 quisition really is, I doubt much whether 
 your information would not be found very 
 defective. It would probably correspond with 
 your knowledge of indulgences — " a bundle 
 of licenses to commit sin." 
 
 With regard to the " Massacre of St. Bar- 
 tholomew," I condemn it as much as you. 
 It was a deed of blood and horror. But let the 
 blame be attached to Us authors, Charles IX. 
 and Catherine of Medicis, who favoured the 
 Huguenots and Catholic's, alternately, as 
 their interests seemed to require. But to 
 form a correct judgment of this sanguinary 
 event, it is necessary to consider it in con- 
 nexion with the events by which it was pre- 
 ceded. The Huguenots of France had com- 
 mitted many similar acts of barbarity. Da- 
 vila relates that upon the death of Francis 
 II. when liberty of conscience was granted 
 them, besides burning churches and monas- 
 teries, they massacred people in the very 
 streets of Paris. Heylin, a Protestant, relates 
 that in time of a profound peace, they fell 
 upon and murdered the whole clergy who 
 composed the procession of Corpus Christi 
 in the city of Pamiers; and afterwards com- 
 mitted similar outrages atMontauban,Rodez, 
 Valence,&c. (Hist. Presb. 1. ii.) It is known 
 by the proclamation of Charles immediately 
 after the massacre, that it was not on account 
 of their religion, but to anticipate the conspi- 
 racy of Coligni and his associates — " non re- 
 ligionis odio,sed utne fariee Col inii et sociorum 
 conjurationi obviam iret." (Thuan. lib. lii. ) 
 The Huguenots constituted a kind of inde. 
 pendent party in the heart of the nation- 
 They had their own treasury to support 
 themselves in their wars against their sover- 
 
 eigns. And Admiral Coligni went so far, as 
 to propose furnishing ten thousand Hugue- 
 nots for the army — and declared that he and 
 they would be obliged to take up arms against 
 the king himself, if he declined this offer, 
 and refused to aid the Protestants of 
 Flanders!! (See Walsingham's Despatches 
 quoted by Digges. 226.) Was it from St. 
 Paul, that this chieftian of the Protestant 
 party in France, learned to hold this lan- 
 guage towards his sovereign? Here was a 
 subject dictating to his king. Still, all this 
 does not justify the horrible measure by 
 which that king rid himself of that subject 
 and his party. It furnishes, however, a dif- 
 ferent range of motives, beside those to which 
 Protestants usually ascribe the massacre. 
 
 It is also certain that the king took infinite 
 pains to make his subjects and foreign prin- 
 ces, especially the Pope, believe that in kill- 
 ing the Huguenots, he had only taken the 
 necessary measures of self-defence to pre- 
 serve his own life, together with the consti- 
 tution and religion of his kingdom. (Thuan. 
 I. ii. Maimb. 1. vi.) And the Biographer of 
 Gregory XIII. clearly shows that the deli- 
 verance of the French king from this pre- 
 tended conspiracy, was the event for which 
 public thanks were offered at Rome, and not 
 for the massacre itself, as you have stated. 
 (Pagi vol. vi. p. 729.) Again, in reference 
 to the number of the slain, it is evident that 
 your information has not kept pace with your 
 zeal. Among the Huguenot writers, Perrifix 
 reckons 100,000, Sully 70,000, Thuanus 
 30,000, La Popelirine 20,000, the Reformed 
 Martyrologist 15,000, and you 40,000, "ac- 
 cording to the report which prevailed.'' 
 But the Martyrologist, wishing to be more 
 correctly informed, procured from the min- 
 isters in the differnt towns where massa- 
 cres had taken place, the names of those. 
 who had perished or were supposed to! 
 have perished; — he published the result in 
 1582: and in all France he could discover 
 the names of no more than 786 persons. 
 (Caveirac Dissertation, xxxviii.) 
 
 It would be well, also, for you to under- 
 stand that the Catholic clergy were the most 
 active in protecting the Huguenots from the 
 vengeance of popular fury. And that among 
 other instances, the Bishop of Lisieux, a Do- 
 minican Friar, opposed the execution of the 
 orders given in the name of the king — de- 
 claring " it is the duty of the good shepherd 
 to lay down his life for the sheep, not to let 
 them be slaughtered before his face. These 
 (the Huguenots of his diocese) are my sheep, 
 though they have gone astray, and I am re- 
 
117 
 
 solved to run all hazards in protecting them." 
 (Mainib. ) But, Rev. Sir, are you not driven 
 to great straits, when you give a disserta- 
 tion on the horrors of the inquisition, the 
 massacre of St. Bortholomew, &c. instead of 
 arguments on the rule of faith? These are 
 stale topics. Your introduction of them was 
 utterly uncalled for by the question, under 
 discussion} and it can have no other effect; 
 except to mislead ignorance, confirm preju- 
 dice, and inspire hatred. To do this is not 
 a comely or benevolent office for a minister of 
 the Gospel, which breathes but peace and 
 charity. 
 
 If, however, Protestants were immaculate 
 on the subject of persecution, you might 
 have put forward this charge with some de- 
 gree of consistency. But all the reformers 
 persecuted when they had$the power, and 
 sanctioned it, when they had not. If there- 
 fore, I give a few quotations and facts to 
 prove this assertion, I hope that neither you 
 nor our readers will be offended at an ex- 
 posure to which your eyes are unaccustom- 
 ed, but which you have made necessary. 
 I do it not to increase the separation be- 
 tween Catholics and Protestants, which is al- 
 ready too great; — not in a spirit of bad feel- 
 ing or retaliation, but simply to show that 
 Protestants, if they are to be accountable for 
 the deeds of their ancestors (and if they are 
 not, I do not see why we should be) have no 
 reason to boast of superiority on the subject 
 of liberality and religious toleration. But, 
 Rev. Sir, if your forefathers and mine have 
 done those things in the name of religion, 
 which religion does not sanction, I would ra- 
 ther have joined you in walking backwards, 
 to cover their deeds with the mantle of obli- 
 vion, than be obliged to join you in exposing 
 them. Still, painful as the task is, you 
 have made it necessary, and it must be ac- 
 complished. 
 
 It is but right that I should begin with the 
 Reformer of Geneva, Calvin himself. Ser- 
 vetus, says he, "was cast into prison, whence 
 he escaped, I know not how, and was wan- 
 dering through Italy for about four months. 
 At length, having, under evil auspices, come 
 hither, he was arrested, at my instigation, 
 by one of our Syndicts," (Calvini, Epist. et 
 Respons. p. 294.) Again, (p. 290.) "The 
 author (Servetus) is held in prison by our 
 magistrates, and soon, I hope, to suffer his 
 punishment. 
 
 In his letter to M. Du. Poet, he says, of 
 those who differed from him in the interpre- 
 tation of the Bible, " Pared s monstres doiv- 
 ent etre etouffes, comme fis ici en I'execu- 
 
 tion de Michel Servet, Espagnol." That is, 
 "they ought to be strangled, as was done 
 here with the Spaniard, Michael Serve- 
 tus." 
 
 This gentle Reformer would have strangled 
 (etouffes) Gentilis.Okin, Blaudrat,and others, 
 if they had not eitheryfe/ or retracted; which 
 they were obliged to do — to save their lives. 
 Melancthon, Bullinger, and the Protestant 
 clergy of Switzerland generally, and in so- 
 lemn session, approved of the faggot, which 
 consumed Servetus. Bucer declared that 
 he should have been "torn limb from limb!" 
 
 John Knox, was ready to prove, "by the 
 Prophets and plain Scriptures of God, what 
 trees and generation they (the Catholics) be, 
 to wit, unfruitful and rotten; apt for no- 
 thing BUT TO BE CAST INTO HeLL FIRE." 
 
 (Appellation, p. 30.) 
 
 Even the meek John Wesley as late as the 
 year 1780, proclaimed that "they (Catholics) 
 ought not to be tolerated, by any.government, 
 Protestant, Mahometan, or Pagan." 
 
 Let us now look for the mild, tolerant, 
 evangelical language of Luther: If, " says 
 he, in his book against Sylvester Prieras, 
 "we dispatch thieves by the galloivs, high- 
 waymen by the sword, heretics by fire; 
 why do we not rather attack with all kinds 
 of arms, these monsters of perdition, these 
 Cardinals, these Popes, and all this sink of 
 the Romish Sodom, which corrupts without 
 ceasing, the church of God, and wash our 
 hands in their blood." 
 
 In England the history of Protestant tolera- 
 tion has been written in statutes of similar 
 tint. Protestants were burned alive for heresy, 
 and Catholics "hanged, embovvelled and quar- 
 tered," because they would not become Pro- 
 testants. To deny the supremacy of Henry 
 VIII, or his daughter, when she became 
 head of the church, was quite enough to 
 entitle any one to all the privileges of mar- 
 tyrdom. 
 
 Your old friend, Archbishop Usher, by 
 wav of showing his "authority among Ro- 
 manists," entered a Catholic chapel with 
 armed soldiers, seized the Priest in his vest- 
 ments and hewed down the crucifix. He 
 and eleven other Protestant bishops, solemn- 
 ly decided that " to give them (Catholics) a 
 toleration, or to consent that they may freely 
 exercise their religion, is a grevious sin." 
 (Plowden, vol I. c. 4.) In 1642, the same 
 Usher, extorted a promise from Charles I. 
 never to connive at Popery — and on this in- 
 tolerant pledge, administered to him the Sa- 
 crament. (Birch, p. 278-9.) Poor Charles 
 little imagined then that his Presbyterian 
 
118 
 
 subjects would entitle himself to a place in 
 the martyrology of Protestant persecution. 
 
 But Presbyterians have persecuted greater 
 men than mere kings. The learned Protestant, 
 Grotius,in his dungeon, is an instance of it — 
 in the low Countries: — where the Presbyte- 
 rian Gomarists persecuted the Presbyterian 
 Armenians with the most deliberate and un- 
 relenting fury. If we turn our eyes to the 
 Cromwellian ascendancy in Great Britain 
 and Ireland, we shall see what kind of tole- 
 ration Presbyterians practised. Dr. Taylor, 
 (a Protestant, A. B., of Trinity College,) 
 tells us, "that they (Puritans) employed 
 blood-hounds to track the haunts of these 
 devoted men" (Catholic priests.) And that 
 " during the latter part of the 17th and be- 
 ginning of the 13th century, ' Priest hunting'' 
 was a favourite field sport in Ireland." (See 
 Hist. Ireland, vol 2. p. 52., Harper's Family 
 Library.) 
 
 The Presbyterians, indeed, were themselves 
 persecuted. But nothing could teach them 
 mercy. The "Pilgrim fathers," fleeing from 
 intolerance across the ocean, had scarcely 
 landed on the rock of Plymouth, till they be- 
 gan to persecute each other. They put the 
 Quakers to death without pity, as " pestilent 
 heretics." (Hist, of Bapt. in New England, 
 vol. I. p. 329.) "Whipping," "branding," 
 and " cutting off the right ear," were miti- 
 gated forms of punishment for the crime of 
 heresy — that is, for interpreting the Bible 
 for themselves. In a word, show, in all his- 
 tory, a single instance, in which Presbyte- 
 rians possessed civil jurisdiction over ten 
 miles square of the surface of this earth, 
 without practising intolerance and persecu- 
 tion, within the limits of their territory! 
 
 If, on the other hand, Catholics had been 
 as persecuting as you pretend, could they 
 not have rid the world of the first Reform- 
 ers, as Calvin rid Geneva of the Spaniard? 
 I will take but one or two cases in point. 
 The same Dr. Taylor already quoted, says, 
 " It is but justice to this maligned body (the 
 Catholics — he might well say, "maligned'") 
 to add, that on the three occasions of their 
 obtaining the upper hand, (in Ireland) they 
 never injured a single person in life or limb, 
 for professing a different religion from their 
 own." And Thomas Campbell, the Poet, 
 (Morning Chron. London, Feb. 11, 1833.) 
 says, the toleration practised by the Catho- 
 lics of Poland, "ought to make Protestants 
 blush." 
 
 Again, the Catholic colony of Maryland 
 unfurled the first banner of religious free- 
 dom that ever floated on the breeze of Hea- 
 
 ven. The charitable Dr. Miller, however, 
 denies them even the merit of good motives 
 in this. He seems to have had access to their 
 intentions, an d tells us accurdingly, that they 
 did it " from policy." But their " policy" 
 in this regard availed them little, — and the 
 following testimony from Jefferson's notes 
 on Virginia, shows how unkind it was in a 
 descendant of " the Puritans," such as Dr. 
 Miller, to have made the remark: "The 
 persecuting laws which were passed by the 
 Virginians soon after this period against the 
 Puritans, made the latter emigrate in con- 
 siderable numbers, to Maryland, that they 
 might enjoy, under a Popish Proprietary, 
 that liberty of conscience, of which they were 
 deprived by their fellow Protestants." 
 (Jeff. Query XVII.) What was the conse- 
 quence? Puritanical gratitude, of course. 
 
 "When, upon the Revolution, power 
 changed hands, the new-men (Ah\ Doctor!) 
 made but an indifferent requital for the lib- 
 erties and indulgence they had enjoyed un- 
 der the old administration. They not only 
 deprived the harmless Catholics of all share 
 in the government, but they even adopted 
 the whole body of the penal laws of 
 England against them." (Wyne's Hist, of 
 British Empire in America, London, 1770. 
 vol I. p. 239.) 
 
 Need I inform you that to this day the 
 laws of Protestant intolerance are unrepealed 
 in New Jersey and North Carolina; so that 
 for exercising the freedom of conscience, a 
 Catholic in those States is disqualified from 
 holding the office even of Constable? 
 
 Now let Protestants see whether it is be- 
 coming in them to charge us with persecution. 
 At the time of the Reformation, the faith, the 
 ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the civil power, the 
 churches, the fortresses, the cities, the king- 
 doms, the crowns, in a word, every thing, 
 belonged to Catholics. They could plead 
 for their title the prescription of a thousand 
 years. Supposing, then, we grant that in de- 
 fending themselves in any, or all of these 
 possessions, they were guilty of excesses, by 
 how many considerations may these excesses 
 be extenuated? But where shall we find the 
 plea for Protestant intolerance? All their 
 possessions, whether belonging to this world, 
 or the world to come, were of recent origin, 
 and acquired by the title of usurpation. 
 Yesterday, they claimed freedom, of con- 
 science; and to day, having the power to 
 refuse it, they "hang,'' -'embowel," and 
 " quarter',' or burn to death, the wretch, who 
 acts upon their own principles! ! If God has 
 appointed, as the rule of faith, that every 
 
119 
 
 man shall understand the Scripture for him- 
 self, then Servetus was as justifiable as Cal- 
 vin in their interpretation. Why then did 
 Calvin burn Servetus? On that principle, 
 Servetus would have had quite as good a 
 right to burn Calvin. Why did Henry VIII. 
 the father of the Reformation in England, 
 burn every body that stood in opposition to 
 his religious opinions, — if the freedom of 
 opinion be the right of all? Why did his 
 Protestant daughter, Queen Elizabeth, the 
 third head of the English church, why did 
 she burn, and hang, and embowel, and quar- 
 ter, those who differed from her opinions? 
 
 Why did the Rev. Mr. Wesley proclaim 
 in his writings that not even "Turks or 
 Pagans" were justified "in tolerating Ro- 
 man Catholics?" Why did John Knox 
 preach that Roman Catholics were " apt 
 only for hell fire:" and proclaim that it 
 was the duty of the magistrates and peo- 
 ple to put them to death? Why did 
 Presbyterians put their fellovv-protestants to 
 death in Geneva, England and America? 
 And these are people who reproach Catholics 
 with what does not belong either to the spi- 
 rit or the letter of their religion, viz.: the 
 massacre of St. Bartholomew and the Inqui- 
 sition!! 
 
 Let honest and impartial Protestants, 
 therefore, place these accounts side by side, 
 and strike the balance between their ances- 
 tors and ours. Are you not, consequently, 
 as unfortunate in appealing to this test, in 
 favour of the Protestant rule of faith as you 
 have been in every other? But pray, Rev. 
 Sir, what have these matters to do with that 
 principle, which the Son of God established, 
 "to guide us" in our discrimination between 
 truth and error ? The other portions of your 
 letter shall now be attended to. 
 
 1st. I trust it will not be considered ex- 
 travagant in me, to insinuate that the plough- 
 share has actually passed through the radical 
 delusion of Protestantism, on the rule of 
 faith; when the reader will recollect, that 
 you have not dared to grapple with a single 
 argument of reason, fact, or history that I 
 have adduced to show its absurdity. You 
 have, indeed, presented yourself as the advo- 
 cate of the Bible, and the defencer of the 
 Holy Ghost, as if my arguments against the 
 Protestant, or in support of the Catholic rule 
 of faith, were directed against the sacred 
 volume, or the Divine Spirit!!! You have 
 made quotations, which are found to have 
 been falsified, in every instance that I have 
 had time to examine. You have, by adding, 
 and omitting words, changing punctuation, 
 
 &c, made the champions of the Catholic 
 church to speak the language of the " Pro- 
 testant delusion," which they never uttered. 
 You have brought forth Luther acquitting, 
 and Bellarmine accusing the church of per- 
 secution! You have made me a fellow 
 conspirator with the Jews in condemning the 
 Son of God; and with the Unitarians in 
 condemning the Bible. In a word, our can- 
 did readers will perceive with astonishment, 
 that you are obliged to distort my position 
 by misrepresentation, before you are able to 
 bring your feeble artillery to bear against it. 
 
 2. Doctor Miller has said, that the Bible 
 alone is the "only and sufficient rule of faith 
 and practice;" — he has said also, that in re- 
 ference to the points to be decided the Bible 
 " is no test at all." And you accused 
 me of wanting "candour and common sense" 
 for believing that these two propositions are 
 contradictory of each other!! Does the 
 reader imagine that he will save his charac- 
 ter for " candour and common sense," by 
 subscribing the paradox with you, that the 
 Bible which is " no test at all," is, at the 
 same time the exclusive and " stiflicient rule 
 of faith and practice ?" Doctor Miller has 
 subscribed both propositions, and you are 
 pleased to endorse them. Now I would 
 sooner forego your opinion of my "candour 
 and common sense" than believe, that they 
 mean exactly the same thing. In proposing 
 to convict the Doctor of ignorance or misre- 
 presentation, of the Catholic doctrine, under 
 the penalty of five hundred dollars, I did not 
 imagine that there was any gambling. The 
 Doctor ought not to impute false doctrine to 
 his Catholic fellow citizens — he ought not to 
 coin a religion, and say it is theirs; when in 
 fact they abhor and dfsclaim it. 
 
 3. With regard to the manner by which 
 Catholics arrive at the knowledge of the 
 church, I have twice proved that it is not by 
 private interpretation. Even in my last let- 
 ter, I showed that the authority of the church 
 is a fact that can be established with or with- 
 out the Scripture; and you do not pretend 
 to dispute thy reasoning, but return to the 
 charge as if it were original.'/ 
 
 4. You are strangely at a loss to distin- 
 guish between a doctrine ot the church, and 
 an opinion of schoolmen — although the dis- 
 tinction is obvious. 
 
 5. As to the boast you make of the advan- 
 tages which Protestant countries possess in 
 consequence of reading the Bible, I regret 
 as much as you can, that they are only the 
 offspring of a fruitful imagination. Germa- 
 ny, Geneva, England, the Reformed church- 
 
12© 
 
 es in France and Holland, exhibit the ne- 
 cessary consequences of the Protestant rule 
 of faith. In most of these countries, infi- 
 delity is preached from the pulpit, and from 
 the Bible itself. The principle of that rule 
 has a silent, but progressive, and certain 
 tendency towards infidelity. Nightingale, 
 a Protestant, admits this — and adds " that 
 there is no way to prevent it," as long as 
 you admit the principle of private interpre- 
 tation. In Germany, says the Scottish 
 Episcopal Magazine for 1822, " many of the 
 CU.ERGY.... consider Christianity as a vulgar 
 superstition, which may be taught while the 
 popular mind requires it, though it is no 
 
 LONGER BELIEVED BY HIM WHO TEACHES IT." 
 
 Here then is one of your "evangelical" na- 
 tions. The Rev. Mr. Rose, a Protestant, in 
 his sermon before the University of Cam- 
 bridge, ascribes this state of religion to the 
 right of private interpretation, and urges "the 
 wisdom and necessity of restraining it." 
 He says, that " among the German Divines 
 it is a favourite doctrine, that it is impossi- 
 ble there could have been a miracle!" Such 
 are the blessings resulting from the Protes- 
 tant rule of faith! When Jesus cured the 
 man with the withered hand, he merely, 
 says the Protestant Professor Paulus, "pulled 
 it into joint." This is the glorious conse- 
 quence of Protestant freethinking! And 
 Professor Shultness explains the cure of the 
 paralytic in the Gospel in the following man- 
 ner. "He was," says the Professor, "an 
 idle fellow, who for thirty years had moved 
 neither hand nor foot. Christ asked him 
 ironically " perhaps thou wouldst be made 
 whole?" This irony stirred him up; he 
 forgot his hypocrisy." This is the privilege 
 of Protestantism. He judges for himsetf. 
 
 Mr. Jacob, a Protestant, in his Tour, tells 
 us, that "even our avowed Socinians would 
 be considered by the Lutheran and Calvinis- 
 tic clergy of Germany, as equally credulous 
 with the orthodox!" 
 
 Mr. Robert Haldane (second Review of 
 the British and Foreign Bible Society) says — 
 " On the whole, the greatest number of Pas- 
 tors and professors in the north west and 
 middle parts of Germany, are Rational Na- 
 turalists; in other words, decided deists." 
 " They (Protestants Christians) are very lit- 
 tle better than the heathens, either in refined 
 scepticism or gross superstition." Still they 
 work by the Protestant rule of faith, and pro- 
 fess to follow "the Bible alone." "The 
 Protestant Ministers in France, says the same 
 author, are Brians, Socinians, Neolo gists, 
 and of no fixed opinion whatever, as respects 
 
 the Gospel." So much for the Protestant 
 rule of faith! They do not violate. The use 
 of the rule warrants them in the blasphemous 
 abuse of the Scriptures. If then, these be 
 the consequences of the Protestant rule of 
 faith, think you that the principle of private 
 interpretation is that which the Son of God 
 appointed "to guide us in maters of religion, 
 and to determine disputes in his church?" 
 Reason and experience prove it impossible. 
 It is the " delusion" of Protestantism; and its 
 votaries — become its victims. It breaks 
 down the barriers of faith, leaves the doc- 
 trines of Jesus Christ at the mercy of every 
 Christian infidel, or dreaming interpreter of 
 the Bible; and thus prepares the way, for 
 that infidelity, which has already inundated 
 Germany, and even in our country, has se- 
 duced many an orthodox congregation from 
 the Presbyterian church. It caused all the 
 heresies of ancient and modern times — and 
 yet you pretend that it is the infallible rule 
 of faith, appointed by the Son of God ! Now 
 I beg of you, do not, in your answer, pervert 
 all these testimonies and this reasoning into 
 an argument used by Mr. Hughes, " against 
 the Bible." It is against the " delusion" of 
 Protestantism, by which every individual is 
 authorised to make the Bible say just what- 
 ever he pleases that Mr. Hughes is arguing. 
 
 How different is the Catholic rule, by 
 which the Pastors of the church in every 
 country beneath the sun, teach the same iden- 
 tical doctrines! This alone, considered with 
 due reflection, is enough to show that it is not 
 a human, but a divine rule. It is the oppo- 
 site of the principle which has divided Pro- 
 testants into such a multitudo of sects and 
 schisms, from the high church Episcopalians, 
 down through all the moods and tenses of 
 sectarian guess-work, at the meaning of 
 the Bible, until they arrive at the condition 
 of Protestant Germany, where they teach 
 Deism from its pages, and this, (let it be par- 
 ticularly remembered) without violating one 
 iuta of the Protestant rule of faith. 
 
 You may say that infidelity has made ra- 
 vages also in catholic countries; but you 
 will observe that in doing so, its advocates 
 throw oft" the mask, rebel against their ride 
 of faith, do not preach Deism in the name of 
 Jesus Christ himself. In Catholic countries 
 infidels pride themselves on being the child- 
 ren of Philosophy; in Protestant nations, as 
 Germany, Geneva, Scotland, and elsewhere, 
 they are the legitimate descendants of the 
 Protestant rule of faith. You tell them 
 that the Bible, interpreted by each individu- 
 al for himself, is the only rule. They in- 
 
121 
 
 terpret the Bible, therefore, and discover, or 
 imagine they discover, that the Bible teaches 
 neither mystery nor miracle, and that the 
 divinity ot our Lord Jesus Christ is not a 
 doctrine of that book. Then you call them in- 
 fidels, for denying that divinity, whilst they 
 charge you with superstition and idolatry for 
 admitting it. Who shall decide between you? 
 Appeal to the public teaching and belief, — 
 the tradition of the church? But this neither 
 of you admit. You judge for yourselves. 
 How then will you be able to save this fun- 
 damental doctrine of Christianity? But you 
 have said in your letter that " if men will 
 pervert the true meaning of the Bible, there is 
 no remedy on earth." Now if private inter- 
 pretation be the right of all, who is to deter- 
 mine what is the " true meaning'' of the 
 Bible? Your Presbyterian forefathers in- 
 terpreted the Bible differently from you, 
 so that it was found necessary, some fifty 
 years ago* as you tell us, that certain 
 "offensive passages," should be " solemn- 
 ly rejected" from the standards. They had 
 mistaken the "true meaning," it seems. 
 All other denominations differ from yon in 
 their interpretation of the Bible. Then 
 according to you, they have "perverted 
 the true meaning." But pray are all de- 
 nominations except yourselves hishonest and 
 insincere? what an unhappy state of con- 
 tradictions and inconsistencies must Protes- 
 tants find themselves in? 
 
 If the Bible alone be the rule of faith — 
 and every sincere man is capable of under- 
 standing it — away with your human teach- 
 ings, your CREEDS, ARTICLES, COMMENTARIES 
 
 on the Scriptures, catechisms, sermons, — 
 extinguish "your tapers" since they cannot 
 " help the sun to shine." God speaks in- 
 fallibly and plainly, you say, in the Scrip- 
 tures. Why then do Protestant ministers 
 receive large salaries for telling the people 
 what God says? On what title can those 
 salaries be received? — where is the equiva- 
 lent? If the Bible is plain and obvious in its 
 meaning, as you pretend, then furnish them 
 with Bibles, and teach them to read. But 
 do not interpose with your fallible human 
 teachings between their minds and the in- 
 fallible teachings of the Holy Spirit in 
 the Scriptures. 
 
 But, Rev. Sir, Protestants themselves 
 furnish evidence on every side that their rule 
 of faith is a "delusion." I need not remind 
 you of Dr. Miller's unguarded testimony, in 
 the case of Mr. Duncan, quoted in my last 
 letter. The Rt. Rev. Dr. Marsh, a Protes- 
 tant, says, (Inquiry p. 4) "the poor who 
 
 constitute the bulk of mankind, cannot, 
 without assistance, understand the Scrip- 
 ture." Dr. Balguy, a Protestant, (Discour- 
 ses, page 257) tells us, that we might as well 
 expect them " to enter into the depths of cri- 
 ticism, of logic, of scholastic divinity to 
 
 compute an eclipse, or decide between the 
 Cartessian and Newtonian Philosophy." 
 Burk, a Protestant, says, (Vol. 10. p. 2. 
 Lond. Edit. 1818.) "The Scripture is no 
 one summary of doctrines regularly digested, 
 in which a man could not mistake his way; 
 it is a most venerable, but a most multifarious 
 collection of the records of the divine econo- 
 my; a collection of an infinite variety of 
 cosmogony, theology, history, prophecy, 
 psalmody, morality, apologue, allegory, le- 
 gislation, ethics, carried through different 
 books of different authors, at different times, 
 for different ends and purposes." Paley, a 
 Protestant, says, (Philos. p. 40. Lond. Edit. 
 1819) speaking of the Scriptures, "it is evi- 
 dent they cannot be understood without stu- 
 dy and preparation. The language must be 
 learned, the various writings which these 
 volumes contain, must be carefully compar- 
 ed with one another, and with themselves. 
 The qualifications necessary for such re- 
 searches, demand, it is confessed, a degree 
 of leisure, and a kind of education inconsis- 
 tent with the exercise of any other profes- 
 sion." And yet, according to Mr. Breckin- 
 ridge, and the Protestant rule of faith, the 
 fisherman of Cape May, and the inhabitants 
 of the Jersey Pines, are perfectly "qual- 
 ified" to understand them!! But still 
 they will do well to have a minister, 
 if they can pay him, who will treat them 
 every Sabbath to an essay of human teach- 
 ing, and fallible interpretation. And no 
 matter what sect he may belong to, the 
 poor people are astonished to find, that he 
 and the Bible speak exactly the same doc- 
 trine — even they will hug the Protestant 
 "delusion,'' and imagine that they follow 
 the pure word of God, the Bible alone. 
 
 What surprises me, however, is that you 
 attempt to make the fathers of the Catholic 
 Church speak as advocates of the Protestant 
 principle of belief. When they recommend 
 the perusal of the Scriptures, it is to be un- 
 derstood that they recommend it according 
 to the interpretation of the Church. But I 
 defy you, in a single instance, to show that 
 they held the Scriptures alone, as " a 
 rule of faith." Whenever, therefore, you 
 quote the word " alone," as the expression 
 of the fathers, look, I pray you, at the text, 
 and see whether they used it. In this way 
 
123 
 
 you will find your mistake, or the mistake of 
 those from whom you copy. The Protestant 
 rule ot faith was the principle of the here- 
 tics, in the time of the fathers;— but they 
 themselves followed the rule of the Catholic 
 church. St. Augustine says " the church," 
 (speaking of baptism) "the divine authority 
 commends, and, as it cannot deceive us, he, 
 who fears to be imposed on under the obscu- 
 rity, of the present question will consult 
 the church." (Contr. Cresc. L. 1. T. 
 vii. p. 168.) "Do thou run to the taber- 
 nacle of God; hold fast to/ the Catholic 
 Church; do not depart from the ride of truth, 
 and thou shalt be protected in the tabernacle 
 from the contradiction of tougues." (Enar. 
 iii. in Psal. 30. T. viii. p. 74. 
 
 St. Jerome. " The church, to which you 
 should adhere, is that, which, having been 
 founded by the Apostles, continues to the 
 present dav." (Adver. Lucif. T. 1. p. 627.) 
 St. Epipham. " Thereis a royal way which 
 is the church, and the road of truth. But 
 each of these heresies, deserting the royal 
 way, turning to the right and to the left, 
 trusting to error, is carried away, so as to 
 keep within no bounds. Therefore, ye ser- 
 vants of God, and children of the church, who 
 follow a sure rule of faith, and walk in 
 the way'of truth, take care that you be not 
 deceived' by inconsistent dicourses of lying 
 sects.'" (Hoer. xlix. t. 1. p. 504. 
 
 St. Athanasius. "Let us again consider, 
 from the earliest period, the tradition, the 
 doctrine, and faith of the Catholic Church, 
 which God first delivered, the Apostles pro- 
 claimed, and the succeeding Fathers fostered 
 and preserved. On these authorities the 
 Church is founded; and whoever falls from 
 her communion, neither is, nor can be, called 
 a Christian." (Epist. ad. serap. T. 1. parte 
 % p. 676.) And yet you quoted him in fa- 
 vour of the Protestant rule ! ! 
 
 Origen. " As there are many who think 
 they believe what Christ taught; and some 
 of these differ from others, it becomes neces- 
 sary that all should profess that doctrine 
 which came doien from the Apostles, and 
 now continues in the church. That alone 
 is truth, which in nothing differs from what 
 is thus delivered." (Prsef. lib. 1. Periach. T. 
 1. p. 47.) I could fill a volume, Rev. Sir, 
 with similar testimonies from the Fathers of 
 the first five centuries: — and yet you take 
 up an expression of theirs, commendatory of 
 the Scriptures, tack the word "alone" to it, 
 and thus pretend that they were advocates 
 of the Protestant rule of faith ! 
 
 Does not their language and practice, liv- 
 
 ing so soon after, the times of Christ and 
 his Apostles, form the best interpretation of 
 the meaning of the sacred text itself? Does 
 it not correspond with the words of St. 
 Paul, calling the church "the pillar and 
 ground of the truth." (1 Tim. iii. 14, 15.) 
 " Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark 
 them that cause dissenlions and offences 
 contrary to the doctrine which you have 
 learned, and to avoid them." (Rom. xvi. 17.) 
 And again, " other sheep I have, that are 
 not of this fold; them also I must bring, and 
 they shall hear my voice, and there shall be 
 one fold, and one shepherd." (John x. 16.) 
 "Now, I beseech you, brethren that you 
 speak the same thing, and that there be no 
 schisms among you." (1 Cor. i. 10.) Again, 
 " lie that heareth you, heareth me." (Luke 
 x. 16.) " Faith then (mark this) cometh by 
 hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" 
 — (i. e. preaching the Gospel.) (Rom. x. 17.) 
 " He that knoweth God, heareth us; he that 
 is not of God, heareth us not; — by this we 
 know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of 
 error. ," (1 John iv. 6.) Finally, "Go ye 
 therefore," said Jesus Christ himself, "teach 
 
 all nations and lo, I am with you all 
 
 days, even till the end of the world." (Matt, 
 xxviii. 19.) 
 
 It is thus, Rev. Sir, that the " ploughshare 
 of reason, evidence, and argument, drives 
 through the radical 'delusion' of Protestant- 
 ism;''' which because it is a ' delusion,' you 
 are unable to defend. " Reason!" She pro- 
 nouncing it a supreme absurdity to say that 
 every man is able to interpret a book such as 
 Burk rightly describes the Bible to be. 
 And the blasphemies which the Protestant 
 rule of faith has extracted from the sacred 
 volume, confirm the judgment of reason on 
 
 the matter. "Evidence!" Look at your un- 
 happy divisions on the most fundamental doc- 
 trines! "Argument!" Like the lever of 
 Archimedes, you cannot get a place to rest 
 it on ! If you look to antiquity for your "rule 
 of faith," you will, indeed, find it — among 
 the Manaclueans, Pelagians, Eutychians, 
 Arians, &c But not among the Fathers of 
 the Catholic church. As to Scripture, al- 
 though by the Protestant principle, you can 
 explain the miracle of the withered arm, 
 by calling it the mere "jerking into place," 
 of a dislocated limb, as they do in Germany ; 
 still you will hardly find in it a warrant for 
 the principle of its own destruction, viz: the 
 Protestant rule of faith. 
 
 As you appeal to Bishop Kenrick's mercy, 
 on the "warning against reading this con- 
 troversy"— I shall allow him to have mercy 
 
128 
 
 on you, and shall pursue the matter no far- 
 ther. The public are pretty well satisfied 
 as to the real state of the case. The charge 
 was from first to last, a silly fabrication, 
 although I do not suppose that you were its 
 
 author. It would have been honourable for 
 you, however, to have retracted, or explain- 
 ed it, as soon as you discovered the mistake. 
 Yours, Sic. 
 
 Jxo. Hughes. 
 
 THE REFERENCE. 
 
 Philadelphia, May 10///, 1833. 
 Rev. Messrs. Hughes and Breckinridge, 
 
 Gentlemen,—! had the pleasure, this morning, 
 of receiving a note from each of you, intimating 
 your intention to call on me this evening, touch- 
 ing your reference to me of certain points men- 
 tioned in your published letters. I beg leave to 
 make the following reply: 
 
 Gentlemen : While I duly appreciate the honour 
 conferred on me by your concurrent selection of 
 me as umpire in some points of interpretation at 
 issue between you, I very respectfully beg leave 
 to decline the acceptance of the office. 
 
 1. Because I feel entirely indisposed to inter- 
 fere, in any shape whatever, in the pending con- 
 troversy. 
 
 2. I am already, by profession, a party— a pro- 
 testant Presbyterian. Of course, it is not for a 
 moment to be expected, that the public could or 
 would recognise me as a disinterested and un- 
 biassed judge. Then, as to my decision, cui 
 bono ? 
 
 3. Any decision of mine would only itself be- 
 come a new subject of controversy, and thus be 
 calculated rather to divert attention from the 
 main point, than induce both the disputants them- 
 selves and the public to concentrate their force 
 and regard on the grand question in debate. 
 This w'ould have a tendency to dilate and pro- 
 tract, instead of invigorating the discussion, and 
 accelerating a profitable termination. 
 
 4. The literary public who feel an interest in 
 such learned and elaborate investigations, as the 
 present controversy so abundantly furnishes, will 
 no doubt decide correctly. The right to decide is 
 theirs. Their decision alone, can, and will be 
 ultimate. 
 
 For these reasons, Gentlemen, and others un- 
 necessary to mention, with great respect, I de- 
 cline the honour you have had the goodness to 
 confer upon me. 
 
 Gentlemen, with sentiments of high considera- 
 tion, I am your obedient servant 
 
 S. B. WYLIE. 
 
CONTROVERSY N°. 16. 
 
 Rule of Faith. 
 
 Philadelphia, May llth, 1833. 
 To the Rev. John Hughes. 
 
 Sir, — One of the ends of the infallible 
 rule of faith, which, (as we have agreed,) 
 was established by Christ, is " to determine 
 disputes in His church." In my last letter, 
 among other arguments, I dwelt at large 
 upon this, that the method of determining 
 disputes in the church of Borne is anti-scrip- 
 tural and anti-Christian, and therefore, not 
 the infallible rule of faith established by 
 Christ. In support of this proposition, the 
 bloody persecutions of your church became 
 a subject of legitimate inquiry and of direct 
 proof. The force of the proof against your 
 rule, consisted in the fact, that these nefari- 
 ous persecutions and massacres were legal- 
 ized by the church of Rome. It was shown 
 from your own standard-writers, who had 
 received the sanction of the Popes them- 
 selves, that the burning of heretics, that 
 public persecutions, and the indiscriminate 
 massacre of heretics was held to be. not 
 only the right, but the duty of the church: 
 that the Inquisition was established by the 
 Pope; that lie was its centre and head for 
 the whole world, and that the Inquisitors 
 were no more than his vicars. And now 
 Sir, how do you meet these overwhelming 
 facts? By the comprehensive and magical 
 reply, that these standard-authors (and of 
 course the Popes who approved what they 
 said) were entirely mistaken, — that it was a 
 mere matter of opinion with them, not at all 
 a doctrine, and that they, not Mr. Hughes 
 and his holy church, " must be responsible 
 for their opinions." Thus, with David 
 Hume, the stubborn existence of matter it- 
 self was a mere idea when it stood in the 
 way of his system, The world was only a 
 circular idea; man only a walking and gar- 
 ndous idea; and so the laws of your church, 
 by which " Infallible Councils" decreed the 
 destruction of innumerable heretics, was 
 only an ecclesiastical idea, and the blood, 
 which flowed in torrents under her maternal 
 tenderness and tutelary care, was only a ru- 
 bicund idea! It seems however, that his- 
 tory, faithful, tell-tale history, extorts from 
 
 you the confession, that Roman Catholics 
 have been guilty of some of the blood which 
 I have charged upon them. But then, you 
 reply, Protestants have persecuted too, and 
 in proof of it, you give us several columns 
 of farrago on the persecutions of High- 
 Churchmen and Presbyterians, Lutherans, 
 Huguenots, &c. &c., and present to us in 
 bold relief, a distorted history of Luther, 
 and Calvin, and Knox, and Wesley, &c. 
 The amount then, of your defence is sim- 
 ply this, if Roman Catholics have erred 
 and sinned in this way, Protestants have 
 done the same. I reply, we admit that 
 in a comparatively small measure Protes- 
 tants have done the same; and we condemn 
 it, we renounce it, we mourn over it, we 
 pronounce every such act criminal, every 
 doctrine defending it false, and"every coun- 
 cil, or ecclesiastical body of men, decree- 
 ing such doctrines or acts fallible, and so 
 far gailty too. And if you, sir, would be 
 candid and consistent, and would allow the 
 same of your Councils and your Popes, truth 
 would be the result. But never, no never! 
 for what then would become of your boasted 
 infallibility! But you have put it in my pow- 
 er to bring this question to a speedy and 
 final issue. You say in the first column of 
 your last letter. "For you will observe that 
 Catholics, as such, are responsible only for 
 the doctrines of the church, and n>t for the 
 private opinion of her members. Show me 
 then the decree of any Council, or the bull 
 of any Pope, proposing persecution as a part 
 of our religion, and let that document be the 
 proof of vour charge." And now for the " do? 
 cuments.'' , "Bull of Pope Innocent VIII. 
 for the extirpation of the Vaudois, given to 
 Albert de Capitaneis, his Legate and Com- 
 missary General for that expedition in 1477" 
 (The original of this bull, with several others 
 is kept in the library of the University of 
 Cambridge.) 
 
 "Innocent the Bishop, servant of the ser- 
 vants of God, to our well beloved son Al- 
 
 bertus de Capitaneis we have thought fit 
 
 to appoint you by these presents, our Nuncio 
 and commissary of the Apostolic See, for this 
 
123 
 
 cause of God and of the faith, in the Domi- 
 nions of our dear son, Charles, Duke of .Savoy, 
 &c, to the intent that you may cause the 
 said Inquisitor (Blasius de Mont-Royal) to 
 be received and admitted to the free exer- 
 cise of his office. ...and we by these presents, 
 grant you a full and entire license and au- 
 thority, to call and instantly to require by 
 yourself, or by any other person or persons, 
 all the Jlrchbishops and Bishops in the Duchy 
 in Dauphiny, and the parts adjacent, and to 
 command them, in virtue of holy obedience, 
 together with the. venerable brethren our or- 
 dinaries, or their vicars, or the officials- 
 general, in the cities and diocesses, wherein 
 you may see meet, to proceed to the premi- 
 ses, and execute the office which we have 
 enjoined you, and with the aforesaid In- 
 quisitor, that they be assisting to you in 
 the things mentioned and with one consent 
 proceed along with you to the execution of 
 them: that they take arms against the said 
 H'aldenses and other Heretics, and with com- 
 mon councils and measures crush and tread 
 them as venemous serpents. 
 
 " And if you think it expedient that all the 
 Faithful in those places should carry the 
 salutary cross on their hearts and their gar- 
 ments, to animate them to fight resolute.li/ 
 against these heretics, — to cause to preach and 
 publish the crusade by the proper preachers of 
 the word of God, and to grant unto those who 
 take the cross and fight against these here- 
 tics, or who contribute thereunto, the privi- 
 lege: OF GAINING A PLENARY INDULGENCE, 
 AND THE REMISSION OE ALL THEIR SINS 
 ONCE IN THEIR LIFE, AND LIKEWISE AT 
 THE FOINT OF DEATH, BY VIRTUE OF THE 
 
 commission given you above anil like- 
 wise to dispense with them, as to any irregu- 
 larity they may be chargeable with in divine 
 things, or by any apostacy, and to agree and 
 compound with them as to goods which they 
 may have clandestinely or by stealth acquired, 
 or which they dishonestly or doubtfully pos- 
 sess, applying them only for the support of 
 the expedition for exterminating heretics; 
 
 in the mean time to choose, appoint and 
 
 confirm in our name, and in the name of the 
 Romish church, one or more captains or lead- 
 ers of the war, over the crossed soldiers.... 
 to grant further to every one of them a per- 
 mission to seize and freely possess the goods 
 of the heretics whether moveable or immove- 
 able moreover, to deprive all those who do 
 
 not obey your admonitions and mandates, of 
 whatever dignity, state, degree, order, or 
 pre-eminence they be, ecclesiastics of their 
 dignities, offices, and benefices, and secular 
 
 persons of their honours, titles, fiefs, and pri- 
 vileges, if they persist in their disobedience 
 
 and rebellion and to fulminate all sorts of 
 
 censures according as justice, rebellion, or 
 disobedience shall appear to you to require;" 
 
 Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, in the 
 year of the incarnation of our Lord 1477, 
 the 5th of the Ral. of May in the third year 
 of our pontificate. 
 
 Here then is " the Bull of a Pope" in the 
 name of the Church of Rome as well as in his 
 "own name'''' legalizing a ferocious war of 
 extermination; calling " Jlrch-Bishops and 
 Bishops," cy-c. fyc. " in virtue of holy obedi- 
 ence," and " all the faithful to exterminate 
 heretics by arms," '"and the proper preach- 
 ers of the word of God," to preach this cru- 
 sade, and excite the people to destroy here- 
 tics; and here with the keys of heaven in his 
 hand is the Pope "giving a plenary indul- 
 gence and the remission of all their sins for 
 one year, and at death" as the reward of their 
 crimes in shedding the blood of innumerable 
 men, women, and children, because they did 
 not think with them! Is this too "a feudal" 
 bull ? Is this too " an opinion" only, of the 
 Pope? And now have you not some subtle 
 evasion by which the school of Loyola has 
 taught you to slip the toils of truth ? 
 
 But we will pass from the Bulls of Popes, 
 to the " Decrees of Councils." Bellarmine, 
 (as quoted in my last letter, under the head 
 that *' it was the duty of the. Church to bum 
 heretics, book 3. c. 21. of The Laity) proves 
 it " 3dly, by the laws of the Church." He 
 refers us to divers chapters, as that "on ex- 
 communication," "on heretics," &e. &c, 
 where " the Church decrees that incorrigible 
 heretics should be delivered to the civil pow- 
 er that merited punishment, may be inflicted 
 on them.' 1 He proceeds — '■'the Council of 
 Constance also condemned the sentiments of 
 John Huss, and, handed over the said John, 
 with Jerome of Prague, to the civil poiver, 
 and they were both burned to death." This 
 author then expressly tells us that "fhe laws 
 of the Church" direct the destruction of 
 heretics. Is it not then a doctrine that the 
 church has a right to make and inflict such laws? 
 He appeals also to the infallible Council of 
 Constance and instances their decrees, in the 
 case of John Huss, and Jerome of Prague. 
 Here then is one Council. Again, the de- 
 cree of the 4th Lateran Council, which was 
 extracted at large, into my letter (No. 8.) 
 is a living monument to this doctrine of your 
 church. In your letter (No. 9,) you tried 
 to explain that fearful decree into a "feu- 
 dal" act, not relating to doctrines at all. 
 
1 
 
 
 But in letter (No. 10,) I showed that it did 
 relate to doctrine by the very words of 
 the decree. You made no reply, — you 
 gave up the defence, and there it lies staring 
 you in the face, and the voice of blood cries 
 to you from the ground! Once more. — The 
 Council of the 3d Lateran, a general Coun- 
 cil held at Rome, under Pope Alexander 
 the 3d in the year 1179 — 27th Canon, de- 
 creed as follows: "As the blessed Leo says, 
 although ecclesiastical discipline, content 
 with sacerdotal judgment, does not exact 
 bloody vengeance; yet is it assisted by the 
 constitution of Catholic princes, in order 
 that men while they fear that corporal pun- 
 istement may be inflicted upon them, may 
 often seek a salutary remedy. On this ac- 
 count because in Gascony, Albi, in the parts of 
 Toulouse, and in other regions, the accursed 
 perverseness of Heretics, variously denomi- 
 nated Cathari or Patarenses or Publicans, or 
 distinguished by sundry other names, has so 
 prevailed, that they now no longer exercise 
 their wickedness in private, but publicly 
 manifest their error, and seduce into their 
 communion the simple and infirm. We there- 
 fore subject to a curse both themselv.es and their 
 defenders and their harbourers; and, under a 
 curse, we prohibit all persons from admitting 
 them into their houses, or receiving them upon 
 their lands, or cherishing them, or exercising 
 any trade with them. Moreover we enjoin 
 all the faithful, for the remission of their 
 sins, that they manfully oppose themselves 
 to such calamities, and that they defend the 
 Christian people against them by arms. 
 And let their goods be confiscated, and lbt 
 
 IT HE FREELY PERMITTED TO PRINCES, TO 
 REDUCE MEN OF SUCH A STAMP TO SLAVERY. 
 
 We likewise, from the mercy of God, and 
 relying upon the authority of the blessed 
 Apostles, Peter and Paul, relax two years 
 of enjoined penance to those faithful Chris- 
 tians, who, by the council of the Bishops or 
 other prelates, shall lake up arms to subdue 
 them by fighting against them; or, if such 
 Christians shall spend a longer time in the 
 business, we leave it to the discretion of the 
 Bishops to grant them a longer indulgence. 
 As for those, who shall fail to obey the ad- 
 monition of the Bishop to this effect, we in- 
 hibit them from a participation of the body 
 and blood of the Lord. Meanwhile, those, 
 who in the ardour of faith shall undertake 
 the just labour of subduing them, we receive 
 into the protection of the church; granting 
 to them the same privileges of security in 
 property and in person, as are granted to 
 those who visit the holy sepulchre." Labb. 
 
 Concil. Sacrosan, Vol. 10. p. 1522, 1523. 
 Here, then, is a third instance of an In- 
 fallible Council decreeing the persecution 
 and destruction of heretics. And more than 
 this, we see, 1st, that "the remission of 
 sins" is promised to the act, and 2d, on the 
 other hand those who fail to obey the ad- 
 monition (to take up arms against them,) 
 
 ARE INHIBITED FROM A PARTICIPATION OF 
 THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LoRD ! Did not 
 
 this decree relate to morals, to duty, to doc- 
 trine? Was it not by an li infallilble coun- 
 cil?^ How then can you shun the irresis- 
 table conclusion, that your church, on prin- 
 ciple, by standing law, decrees the destruc- 
 tion of heretics? Either then, give up in- 
 fallibility, or candidly own that your rule of 
 faith carries force, persecution, and death 
 itself as one of its engines to settle disputes 
 in the churtii of Christ ? 
 
 But this question is decided and sealed 
 up by the creed of Pius the IV. which binds 
 the whole communion of the church of 
 Rome. In it, it is expressly declared, " I 
 promise and swear true obedience to the\ 
 Roman Bishop, the successor of St. Peter, 
 the prince of the Apostles, and vicar of Jesus 
 Christ." 
 
 " I also profess, and undoubtedly receive, 
 all other things delivered, defined, and de- 
 clared by the sacred canons, and general 
 councils, and particularly by the Holy Coun- 
 cil of Trent; and likewise, I also condemn, 
 reject, and anathematize all things contrary 
 thereto, and all heresies whatsoever, con- 
 demned, rejected, and anathematized by the 
 church." 
 
 "This true Catholic faith, out of which 
 none can be saved, which I now freely pro- 
 fess, and truly hold, 1 promise, vow, and 
 swear most constantly, to hold and profess 
 the same whole and entire, with God's as- 
 sistance to the end of my life." 
 
 Then every Roman Catholic receives all 
 the things, delivered, defined, and declared by 
 the sacred canons and General Councils, 
 and condemns, rejects, and anathematizes 
 all tJiings contrary thereto. The decrees I 
 have recited are part of your faith! And all 
 these canons, and decrees of councils, taken 
 collectively, make the '•'•true Catholic faith, 
 out of which none can be saved." How then 
 can a true Catholic reject these decrees? 
 Will you Sir, say they were not infallible? 
 Can you deny that they are part of the re- 
 ceived faith and doctrine of the ehurch of 
 Rome? Will you say you are not bound by 
 them? 
 
 In fine Bishop Walmesley, (Gen. Hist, of 
 
127 
 
 / 
 
 the Ch. chap. 9. pp. 224) thus speaks: "When 
 a dogmatical point is to be determined, the 
 Catholic church speaks but once; and her de- 
 cree is irrevocable, the solemn determinations 
 of general councils have remained unalter- 
 able and will ever be so." Thus also the 
 Bishop of Aire (Dicuss. Amic. vol. 2. pp. 
 324) declares that " the principles of the Ca- 
 tholic church, once defined, are irrevocable. 
 She herself is immutably chained by bonds 
 which at no future period can she ever rend 
 asunder." 
 
 I do not wonder then, though I much re- 
 gret it, that you loose your temper and sense 
 of propriety with your cause. You had been 
 taught to believe by the submissive adulation 
 of a few partial and ignorant devotees, that 
 the Protestant religion was a system of 
 frailty and error through which your mighty 
 " plough-share" could drive perdition at will; 
 and like the unthinking Photon, you sprang 
 with unhappy ardour into a seat which you 
 could neither fill nor guide. While you 
 share the fate, you shall inherit the fame of 
 Phaeton. 
 
 Hie situs est Phaeton, currus auriga paterni 
 Quern si non lenuit, magnis lamen excidit ausis. 
 
 Shall I be esteemed speaking too strongly, 
 when I confirm these remarks by a return to 
 your sad dilemma, in the case of the Jewish 
 Sanhedrim,. You had appealed, in letter No. 
 11, to the method of deciding controversies 
 under the Jewish dispensation, as an illus- 
 tration and defence of your own rule. From 
 Josephus, as well as from the Old Testament 
 you adduced " the High Priest as guarding 
 the laws and determining controversies;'' and 
 holding to view, the high Priest and his San- 
 hedrim as a model of the Pope and Council, 
 you asked with much confidence, " Did the 
 Saviour of men appoint a different principle 
 whereby to determine disputes in his church?''' 
 " This is the principle appointed by God in 
 the old law; why shouldit be different in 
 the new?" In letter No. 12 to which I 
 refer the reader, it was most palpably prov- 
 ed, by your own admission, that "the Judge 
 of controversy," to whom you alluded was 
 fallible, or else, that Jesus Christ ivas justly 
 crucified. Seeing the precipice to which you 
 had brought your infallible rule, you are 
 driven to the absurdity of admitting, that 
 one infallible tribunal was superseded before 
 another was established; and thus to save your 
 cause you make a fatal chasm in the Church 
 of God, between the two dispensations. You 
 were also driven to admit that infallible tri- 
 bunals " may be superseded when it is proved 
 to them that they shut their eyes against the 
 
 evidence of the truth .-" consequently your 
 Church may be superseded. And farther, 
 it was shown that what your admissions es- 
 tablished, the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to 
 the Roman church, 11th chap, distinctly de- 
 clares, viz. that if the Roman church continue 
 not faithful " she shall be cut off." In your 
 last letter, you abandon the defence of this 
 whole ground with the following sentence, 
 '" you have made me a fellow conspirator with 
 the Jews in condemning the Son of God." 
 And it is, most truly, just as you have said. 
 But then sir, it was your argument your prin- 
 ciple which led you to so disastrous a result! 
 and yet strange as it may seem you make not 
 a single attempt at the support of your cause, 
 from this destructive consequence, in a let- 
 ter covering one page of a newspaper. And 
 can it be that such a defender of his faith still 
 talks of " the plough-share of destruction" 
 and has time and heart to fill up column after 
 column with scandal, and misrepresention? 
 Can you be believed or vindicated by any 
 honest mind, when, instead of grappling with 
 an argument you dare to say that I have 
 "added" and "omitted words," " changed 
 punctuation, &c. and by so doing "made the 
 champions of the Catholic church speak the 
 language of Protestant delusion, which they 
 never uttered? Jlnd that in every instance 
 in which yen have had time to examine," 
 "the quotations" I have made, "have 
 been found to be falsified? Where are the 
 quotations on burning heretics? where the 
 Pope's attack on the freedom of the press? 
 Where the crowd of unnoticed evidences I 
 have adduced? And why have you not had 
 time to examine one of all these? You have 
 descended in the use of such language to a 
 level, from which I hope Christian principle, 
 self-respect, and a decent regard to the 
 opinion of others will always preserve me. 
 But I feel called in duty, publicly to charge 
 vou with injurious misrepresentations, and 
 to challenge from you, proof of your state- 
 ments, or an apology for your insolence. 
 
 Let us now summarily review your argu- 
 ments for the Infallibility of your church. 
 The ground taken by Mr. Hughes is that 
 " the Bible alone," cannot be the true rule of 
 faith ; but that it must have "an infallible 
 interpreter;" "that the church of Rome, is 
 that Infallible Interpreter of Scripture," and 
 " that private interpretation is the radical de- 
 lusion of Protestantism, from which all 
 heresies have sprung." Of course before 
 you can interpret or understand the Bible, 
 you must go with it to the infallible church. 
 But the question arises, which is the infallible 
 
128 
 
 church? For there are many churches? And 
 is there any infallible church? for it is de- 
 nied that there is any such thing. How then 
 shall we know? Mr. Hughes says, " 1 prove 
 itivith the Scripture." (See letter 15, 3d head 
 and other letters!) But it is replied, we can- 
 not prove any thing from the Scripture, with- 
 out the help of this very church we are 
 hunting for. Here then at the threshold 
 we are undone on Mr. Hughes' plan: for we 
 dare not interpret the Bible without the true 
 church; and we know not which is the true 
 church until we interpret the Bible and find 
 it out. Here Mr. M'Guire fell. Here Bel- 
 larmine and Dr. Milner find, and leave an 
 irreparable breach. In this ' ; slough of des- 
 pond'' Mr. Hughes began to sink and he 
 fled back, and never, for three months have 
 we been able to recall him to the discussion 
 of this radical, and with him ruinous ques- 
 tion. 
 
 The obvious result is, that infallibility is a 
 figment, except as found in the Bible itself, 
 as its own interpreter; and we must resort 
 to private interpretation, or shut the Bible, 
 and never find the church! 
 
 2d. But Mr. Hughes rallies on new 
 ground and says, " The authority of the 
 church is a fact that can be established ivith- 
 out the Scripture." "Even in my last let- 
 ter I showed that the authority of the church 
 is a fact that can be established with, or with- 
 out the Scripture." — Again, ii 2(\. I quote 
 it, not as an inspired book, if you prefer to 
 take the ground of a Deist, but I quote it, in 
 that case, as historical evidence of the fact, 
 in which sense you will be obliged, even as 
 a Deist, to admit its testimony. 3. The 
 history of Christianity proves the authority 
 of the church. From the days of the Apos- 
 tles, the church proscribed heresies, — preach- 
 ed the doctrines of Christ to all nations, — 
 determined, by a final decision, all contro- 
 versies, — and in all matters of religion ex- 
 ercised supreme authority. So that the 
 authority of the church is proved with, or 
 without, the Scripture.'' (See Letter XV. 
 3d Head; and Letter XIII. Ans. 2d and 3d.) 
 
 The amount of the argument is, that the 
 Church of Rome has always exercised this 
 authority, of an infallible teacher, therefore 
 she is an infallible teacher! If this be not 
 what you mean, I know not what it is; for 
 without this it is nonsense. If this be your 
 meaning, it is the same as saying, if you will 
 admit her infallibility, then I will prove it ! 
 But I deny it. Again, if you prove to a 
 Deist from the Bible as from any other docu- 
 ment that the church has always exercised 
 
 authority — what then? The argument is this 
 and no more: The church has exercised 
 authority, therefore she has exercised it. 
 Does her exercise of authority, prove her in- 
 fallible? By no means. You will say it 
 would be vain and nugatory to exercise 
 such authority without infallibility, therefore 
 she was infallible. But Sir, you beg the 
 question again, for the very matter in dis- 
 pute is, whether she was infallible! In a 
 word you presuppose her infallible, in order 
 to prove her so! For it is only on the sup- 
 position that this infallibility exists that 
 the practice of the church (in the exercise of 
 her authority) can be alleged to prove it. 
 Behold then your irresistible logic, your 
 endless circle, — the church has exercised 
 authority to decide matters of faith, there- 
 fore she is infallible, — the church is infalli- 
 ble, therefore she has a right to decide mat- 
 ters of faith! 
 
 3d. There is still another circle, endless, 
 and hopeless as the last. It is this: that we 
 must look to the church to tell us what is 
 Bible and what is not Bible; that is the au- 
 thority of the church must determine what 
 is the word of God. This you declare with 
 sufficient explicitness in the following pas- 
 sage (and elsewhere) in the 3d letter, 4th 
 head, " When you say, therefore, that my 
 latent meaning; in all this argument is, that 
 we need the church to tell us what is Bible 
 and what is not, you express my meaning 
 exactly, and it is 'latent' no longer. " Of 
 course we must know which is the true church, 
 before we can know from her what is and 
 what is not Bible. But we are dependent 
 upon the Bible for the knowledge of the true 
 church. From it alone, can we learn whe- 
 ther the Jewish, the Roman, Greek, or Pro- 
 testant Church, be the true church. 
 
 When we call on you for the proof that 
 yours is the true church, you point us to 
 the Bible for authority. When we appeal to 
 the Bible, you say, I defy you to prove the 
 Bible to be the word of God without the au- 
 thority of the true church. So you prove 
 the church by the Bible, and the Bible by 
 the church. Both cannot be first, and both 
 last; and yet they must be so, or your sys- 
 tem is destroyed. Here then is the circu- 
 lating syllogism in which the argument for 
 infallibility runs its endless round. 
 
 " Labitur et labetur in omne volubilis sevum." 
 
 We see, then, how you precipitate the 
 revelation of God into the vortex of hopeless 
 Deism, by resting its evidence on ground so 
 absurd and untenable. And these are the 
 
139 
 
 empty sounds which you have for months 
 been ringing and repeating upon your inter- 
 minable circle, and from which, (if you have 
 nothing more and better to say,) mercy to 
 our readers as well as to your cause, cries 
 out for us to pass to other topics. 
 
 One very striking fact in your discussions, 
 from first to last, is the studious care with 
 which you have withheld from view the true 
 and real Roman Catholic rule of faith. 
 You have made many objections to the Bible 
 as the only ride, which have been promptly 
 met as they appeared; and when the pres- 
 sure of accumulating difficulties forced you 
 to defend your rule of faith you avowed it 
 in this timid, cautious, and partial form — 
 " / believe (in) the Holy Catholic Church." 
 On it you founded a single argument from 
 the apostolical succession, which even your 
 friends and admirers must consider you 
 as having entirely abandoned, after a very 
 oblique effort at its defence. Let me 
 not here repeat but refer the reader to 
 the examination of this subject contained in 
 letters No. 6 and 8. But the excerpt from 
 the creed " / believe (in) the holy Catho- 
 lic Church," was surely a very side-wise 
 announcement of your rule of faith. In 
 my first letter, fourteen weeks ago, I sta- 
 ted your rule, and our's side by side, your's 
 being extracted from the decrees, &c. of the 
 Council of Trent; and I then called on you for 
 a defence of its various and radical defects 
 which were, there summarily stated. What- 
 ever may have been your promises and the 
 demands of your cause to the contrary, 
 you have to this hour almost left them out of 
 view. 
 
 For example. In the Decree of the Coun- 
 cil of Trent, 4th Session, « on the Canon of 
 Scripture" among " the Sacred Books" are 
 placed " 1st and 2d Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 
 Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 
 1st and 2d Maccabees," making with the 
 supplement to Esther more than one hundred 
 and sixty-five chapters, and it is added 
 " whosoever shall not receive as sacred and 
 canonical all these books, and every part of 
 them, as they are commonly read in the Catholic 
 Church, and are contained in the old Latin 
 vulgate edition, let him be accursed!"" Against 
 these books I have made the most serious 
 charges, and am prepared to substantiate 
 them; and I have distinctly called you to 
 defend their claims and character, and 
 your church for bringing them into the 
 canon. But you are pleased to pass by these 
 charges and calls, and with some remarks 
 and authorities on their canom'city (not 
 
 reaching within several hundred years of the 
 apostles,) you pass the whole subject by, and 
 talk about " prejudices" against these books. 
 This large, this neglected, and important 
 part of your rule of faith, has called aloud 
 for a defender, but you have not regarded 
 the call. 
 
 2d. Again in the same decree it is said 
 " that truth and discipline are contained both 
 in written books and unwritten traditions 
 which have come down to us." It is added 
 that the Council "doth receive and rever- 
 ence with equal piety and veneration (as the 
 written books) "the aforesaid traditions;" 
 and finally " whosoever shall knowingly and 
 deliberately despise the aforesaid traditions 
 let him be accursed.^ 
 
 Here then, is another multifarious indefi- 
 nable, and undefined, yet obligatory part of 
 your rule of faith. In my first letter I also 
 assailed these. Will you abandon them as 
 the forlorn baggage of the camp? Shall 
 your silence be considered conscious safety, 
 conscious victory, or conscious indefensi- 
 bility? 
 
 3d. In the creed of Pius the IV., which 
 condenses into a symbol, the decrees of the 
 Council of Trent, and is binding on every Ro- 
 man Catholic, this restrictive oath, is taken 
 " Nor will I ever take or interpret it' 
 (the sacred Scripture) otherwise than ac- 
 cording TO THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE 
 FATHERS. 
 
 Nec earn unquam, nisi jaxta un animern 
 consensum patrum accipiam, et interpreta- 
 bor. Thus, with all your imaginary infalli- 
 bility, a body of fallible men, who" did not 
 unite as Councils, or Popes, but as private 
 men., — who have no unanimous consent; 
 who contradict each other, and you abun- 
 dantly; and who, the higher you rise in an- 
 tiquity, the more they condemn you — these 
 men are assumed as your guides. Ml never 
 agree /|if they did they are fallible interpre- 
 ters of the word of God. If you follow 
 some, you are sure to contradict others; 
 and many of them are now excepted to, and 
 condemned by your standard-writers; and 
 yet without their " unanimous consent" your 
 rule is null and void. Such a rule you can 
 never apply,— you constantly violate, yea, 
 and you do not attempt to defend. 
 
 You have very often, had the hardihood to 
 say, that the Bible alone as the rule of 
 faith has caused all the heresies — and that 
 it was not the abuse, but the legitimate use 
 of the Protestant rule which did this evil. 
 For so sweeping and adventurous a charge, 
 it is reasonable to expect some proof. And 
 
130 
 
 as you state these propositions with so much 
 self-confidence, will not your readers after 
 so long a time look for some evidence? I 
 put you therefore on your proof, or on your 
 character— and call on you to sustain these 
 profane declarations — or else own yourself 
 a detainer of God's holy word, and a com- 
 peer of those who denounce the Bible. For 
 however you attempt to palliate such re- 
 marks, it must be apparent that they put you 
 in the ranks of the Deist and the scoffer. 
 
 Your statements on the religious degeneracy 
 of Protestants in Germany, if we take them 
 without qualification, (as I regret to say, 
 can seldom he done with your statements,) 
 certainly show that Germany needs another 
 Reformation. But you give us not one 
 word of proof that the free and self-inter- 
 preting use of the Bible has done this evil. 
 
 If there be force in such references, how 
 will you account for the present state of 
 Spain, of Portugal, and of Rome herself, 
 where yours has not only been the supreme 
 but the exclusive religion? There for ages 
 no rival has existed, and no rule but yours 
 has worked! How do these countries come 
 out from the hands of the Papacy? Let us 
 see: "The Inquisition was restored with 
 its ancient plenitude of authority" (from 
 1814 to 1820) "and among its first acts 
 were a publication of a long list of prohibit- 
 ed books, and a decree that all prints and 
 pictures as well as books should be subject- 
 ed to its previous censorship." — Brewster's 
 Encyclopedia, Art. Spain. Again. " The 
 sale of the bulls of Papal pardon and indul- 
 gence produces an immense revenue in Spain. 
 That the Spaniards as a people are ignorant, 
 supremely ignorant, it is impossible to dis- 
 semble; but this comes from the control of 
 .education being altogether in the hands of 
 the clergy, who exert themselves to main- 
 tain that ignorance to which they are indebt- 
 ed for their power."'— A Year in Spain. Vol. 
 11. pp. 3-27, 360. 
 
 "The Ecclesiastical establishment of Por- 
 tuo-al is the moral blight and overwhelming 
 curse ol the country, from north to south, 
 and from east to west. A crafty priesthood 
 intentionally keep the lowest orders of the 
 people under a degraded sitperstitio?i. v Por- 
 tugal in 1828, by William Young, Esq. 
 p. 38. "The re-institution of the Inquisi- 
 tion, of the Jesuits, and of Monastic orders 
 in the 19th century is a retrograde step in 
 the progress of society." — Rome in the 19th 
 century, vol. III. pp. 174. 
 
 "In a long succession of ages they (the 
 people of Rome) have been the successive 
 
 sport of Roman, Barbarian, Goth, Vandal, 
 pope and Gaul. But freedom has revisited 
 the seven hills no more, and glory and honor, 
 and virtue, and propriety, one by one have 
 followed in her train. Long annals of tyr- 
 rany, of unexampled vice, of misery, and ol 
 increasing crime, polluted.with still increasing 
 luxury and moral turpitude, record the rapid 
 progress of Home's debasement." — Rome in 
 the 19th century, vol 1. p. 268. 
 
 " Superstition prevails not only in Rome 
 but in all the states of the church. A go- 
 vernment wholly pacific like that of Rome, 
 might console itself for political nullity by 
 encouraging and protecting letters; but an 
 intellectual deadness seems to pervade the 
 Roman States."— Malte Brun's Geography, 
 vol. 7. p. 678, 679. 
 
 " There has actually been in Rome a 
 
 grave and formal trial for witchcraft in the 
 19th century ! I begin to think I must be 
 mistaken, and that the world has been push- 
 back about 300 years! But it is even so. 
 I understand that not one miracle happened 
 during the whole reign of the French, and 
 that it was not until the streets were purified 
 with lustrations of holy water, on the return 
 of the Pontiff, that they began to operate 
 again. But with the Pontiff, darkness return- 
 ed, and the age of Popish miracles revived, 
 within this little month, (31st Ap. 1817,) 
 three great miracles have happened in Rome. 
 The last took place yesterday, when all Rome 
 crowded to the capitol to see an image of the 
 virgin opening her eyes. When I behold 
 crowds flocking to Imeel before these talking 
 and winking Madonnas, I cannot help ask- 
 ing myself if this is really the 19th centu- 
 i y?"—Rome in the 19th century. 
 
 The practical effects of Romanism in produ- 
 cing and extending infidelity, as a matter of 
 history is worthy of an extended notice — and 
 we shall not forget it. But now let me ask 
 whose rule of faith it was that wrought all 
 this mischief? In Spain, in Portugal, in Rome, 
 there' is no religion but your own. Especially 
 in Rome "our Lord the Pope" has all to him- 
 self, coffers, letters (if any,) religion, both 
 swords, and all the people. As " ignorance 
 is the mother of devotion," they surely are 
 too "devout" to "think?" and it would 
 seem, that amongst all their miracles, a holy 
 and enlightened man is the greatest! 
 
 If assertion without proof, can produce 
 conviction, and a confident air in the worst 
 circumstances can recommend a cause, you, 
 are surely the most happy and triumphant of 
 all polemics. How must it have grieved 
 your Christian readers, and made your office 
 
131 
 
 frown to see you sporting as you have done 
 with the Redeemer's divinity. You had 
 said that the authority of the church could 
 clearly be proved from the Bible alone, 
 and yet that the cardinal doctrine of Christ's 
 Deity, was wholly incapable of proof from the 
 same source ! Now 1 would here give you 
 the occasion of a fair trial of these positions. 
 I will turn aside with you for a season from 
 the subject we are now discussing, to ex- 
 amine before the public, the testimony of the 
 Bible on this subject. Then we shall put 
 your assertions to the test. But if you 
 think it prudent to decline, I hope that 
 henceforth literary consistency, if not re- 
 verence for your Master will restrain the ex- 
 pression of such unhallowed and unfounded 
 opinions. 
 
 I regret that room is wanting to recapitu- 
 late the various arguments which you have 
 left unnoticed "in the rear" against your 
 rule of faith. I still more regret that my let- 
 ter has already overrun its assigned limits, 
 without enabling me to pass as I had design- 
 ed, into the interior of the Vatican. But I 
 am not unwilling, for a season, to await your 
 pleasure in these matters, if you have any 
 thing more to say, which may justly claim a 
 review. 
 
 As Bishop Kenrick in our late interview 
 called for the name which has so long dis- 
 turbed you, I now redeem my pledge and 
 give it up to you. It will be found attached 
 to a communication which follows this letter. 
 You mistake me wholly when you profiler to 
 me the "'mercy of the Bishop;"' and it seems 
 you have mistaken him too! I did not ask 
 "mercy" for myself or for my esteemed 
 friend: faithful history has taught us what 
 are the "-tender mercies" of the Mother 
 Church. The Bishop had a right to call for 
 this name — you had not, unless future dis- 
 closures show that you have a more immedi- 
 ate connexion with this whole matter, than 
 now appears. And now that you have been 
 gratified with the name of my author, I have 
 these questions to ask you — 
 
 1. Is it not esteemed and treated as a sin, 
 (and made matter for confession) by your 
 clergy, to hear a Protestant minister preach? 
 
 2. Is not the reading of such Protestant 
 works as Luther, Calvin, Lord Bacon, Claude, 
 Sir Matthew Hale, Grotius, Locke, Milton, 
 Robinson, Saurin, Jeremy Tavlor, Young, 
 &c. &c. prohibited to Roman Catholics? 
 
 3. Is not a license requisite in order to 
 read them? Does not a man in reading them 
 without a license, break standing regulations 
 and laws of the Church of Rome? Are not 
 
 T 
 
 , "books of controversy beticeen Roman Catho- 
 lics and Heretics" "subject to certain regula- 
 tions," and ''•forbidden to be indiscriminately 
 read ?" 
 
 Is not the indiscriminate circulation of 
 the Holy Bible in the vulgar tongue (i. e. 
 not in the Latin) declared by the authority 
 of your church productive of more evil than 
 good? Is it not required, (when you enforce 
 these laws,) that written permission be got- 
 ten before a layman can read it? I ask an 
 explicit answer to these questions. 
 
 If upon examination these things be found 
 to be so, then it will appear that even a little 
 credulity, on our part was not a "mortal 
 sin;" and that to encourage free inquiry on 
 religious subjects, is a virtual renunciation 
 of some of the principles of your " un- 
 changeable church." Yours, &c. 
 
 John Breckinridge. 
 
 TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESBYTERIAN. 
 
 Philadelphia, 28th March, 1833. 
 Dear Sir, — As I am upon the eve of leaving the city, 
 and as I perceive the Rev. J. Breckinridge.'m a post- 
 script to his last letter, refers to me in such a manner as 
 may perhaps render it necessary for him to give my 
 name to his opponent; I deem it proper to leave this in 
 your hands, for the purpose of meeting the probable 
 exigency, should it occur, in such a way as to relieve 
 Mr. B. from all responsibility, and at the same time, 
 secure justice to myself. 
 
 Some weeks ago, I casually mentioned in conversa- 
 tion, a report which I had heard, that the Roman 
 Catholic Bishop had, on a certain day, forbidden his 
 audience to read the controversy now in progress be- 
 tween the Rev. Messrs. Breckinridge and Hughes. I 
 was requested to communicate this to Mr. B., who was 
 then in New York. I was willing that he should hear 
 it, and it was communicated by a mutual friend. Mr. 
 B. wrote back for confirmation. I stated, not to him 
 but to a friend, the evidence upon which I believed it 
 to be true : and indeed, taking the testimony which I 
 had, in connexion with a pretty general rumour that the 
 Bishop did not cordially approve of the controversy, I 
 could not well doubt it. Two friends of the most un- 
 questionable honour and veracity, informed me that 
 they had been told by one who was present when the 
 prohibition was published from the pulpit, whose ears 
 heard it, and who was thus for the first time, made ac- 
 quainted with the existence of the controversy, and 
 had applied to them for more definite information' res- 
 pecting it. In these circumstances, how could I doubt 
 the truth of the report ? I stated my impression, and 
 the reasons of it, which, I suppose — for I have never 
 inquired— were communicated to Mr. B., who felt him- 
 self authorised— not to assert it as a fact, that the 
 Bishop had done so and so — but to put the question, 
 whether the report which he had heard, was true, or 
 not ? To believe a report on apparently good evidence 
 and to ask a question of one who could with certainty 
 answer it, are surely no great crimes. And these form 
 the whole of the charge which can justly rest upon Mr. 
 B. or myself. 
 
 When, however, the Bishop and Mr. H. replied to Mr. 
 B.'s question in the negatire, I was convinced that there 
 
139 
 
 must be Borne mistake in the business, and I took pains 
 to discover how it had been made. The result of my 
 inquiries follows. 
 
 The person with whom the report originated, whom 
 for convenience sake, I shall call M— — , has not been 
 a great while in this city, has been educated among 
 Roman Catholics, and although not a member, favours 
 
 them. M , as a stranger, was therefore liable to 
 
 be deceived as to names of persons and places ; but had 
 no temptation from prejudice, or from any other cause, 
 to fabricate a syllable that would operate to the disad- 
 vantage of the Catholics. M had never heard of 
 
 the existing controversy before that day, when, as she 
 understood the preacher, the audience were advised 
 
 against reading it. It appears that M , on the said 
 
 day, (as far as she recollects the precise day,) attended 
 service in St. John's chapel. The Rev. Mr. Hughes 
 
 did not occupy the desk, but one whom M did not 
 
 know, and was said to be a bishop by those of the audi- 
 ence of whom she made inquiry. I have since learned 
 that it was a young priest from some part of the Con- 
 necticut-valley, who might be of opinion that the ques- 
 tion between the conflicting parties could be brought to 
 a satisfactory issue, without the laity concerning them- 
 selves about it. That he, in some way or other, refer- 
 red to the controversy now in progress, I think there 
 
 can be little doubt ; for M , as I have observed, had 
 
 Hot before heard of it, and could not be supposed to have 
 imagined it. After the conclusion of the service, she 
 herself made inquiry, and heard others inquiring, what 
 controversy was meant. Not satisfied with the account 
 which she then received of it, M — — inquired more 
 particularly into the nature of it, at those persons from 
 Whom I first received my information ; and it was only 
 with the view of obtaining a definite knowledge of 
 the nature of the controversy, and in that connexion, 
 
 that she mentioned the admonition of the preacher, 
 whom, from her faulty information, she took to be 
 a bishop. If the Rev. Mr. Hughes deny that any 
 such admonition was given to the people by the Con- 
 necticut-valley Priest, then I shall feel bound by the 
 respect which is due to him as a gentleman, to believe 
 
 that M has been guilty of a misapprehension. 
 
 Of more than this, she cannot possibly be accused ; 
 for it is evident from the statements which I have 
 made, that she had no temptation, and could have no 
 motive to make a wilful misrepresentation. I will 
 not take it upon me to say, that she could not, or did 
 not mistake. Yet in so plain a matter, I should 
 think a misapprehension rather improbable. If, how- 
 ever, after all it should turn out to be a misapprehen- 
 sion, I would quote it as an instance of the uncertain- 
 ty of all oral tradition. 
 
 In making my statement, I have purposely kept 
 back the names of the parties from whom my informa- 
 tion, or mis-information, as the case may be, was ob. 
 tained. I have always acted upon the principle, that it 
 is dishonourable to make aught that occurs,.in private, 
 friendly intercourse, an occasion of dragging the 
 names of my friends before the public. There is an 
 implied confidence mutually exercised in our fireside 
 colloquies, which I would no more think of betraying, 
 by exposing, without permission, to the public eye, 
 what was said by this or that particular person, than 
 I would think of pocketing the table-plate of my hos- 
 tess, or appropriating the hats and great-coats of my 
 guests. 1 have freely shown what part I have had in 
 the affair; and if I am blame-worthy for that part, 
 then let me be blamed. I bow to the judgment of 
 the impartial. 
 
 Yours, respectfully 
 
 JOHN BURTT. 
 
CONTROVERSY N°. 17. 
 
 Rule of Faith. 
 
 Philadelphia, May 22, 1833. 
 
 To the Rev. John Breckinridge. 
 
 Rev. Sir, — Apart from its own divine evi- 
 dences, there is nothing that so much tends 
 to confirm the Catholic in the belief of 
 his religion, as the fact that its opponents 
 are obliged either to misrepresent the doc- 
 trines they assail; — or else to pervert the 
 testimonies, by which they attempt to com- 
 bat them. This fact is attested by the his- 
 tory of almost every controversy that has 
 taken place since the commencement of Pro- 
 testantism, in the 1 6th century, not except- 
 ing the ofrie in which we are now engaged. 
 It was well, and candidly observed, by the 
 Rev. Mr. Nightingale a Protestant clergy- 
 man, that " from diligent inquiry it has been 
 ascertained, that party spirit and prejudice, 
 have thrown the most undeserved oblojuy 
 upon the religion and practices of the Roman 
 Catholics; — in scarcely a single instance has 
 a case concerning them been fairly stated, 
 on the channels of history not grossly, not 
 to say wickedly, corrupted." (All Reli- 
 gions, page 65.) 
 
 If then, as this Protestant writer testifies, 
 the channels of Protestant history have been 
 "grossly, not to say wickedly, corrupted," it 
 is easy to account for the blundering ignor- 
 ance with which Protestant controversialists, 
 generally, approach the discussion of Catho- 
 lic doctrine. They will not read our own 
 books — but they derive their impressions of 
 our belief, from the distorted portraits which 
 its enemies have drawn. The conversion of 
 many Protestants to the church, has been 
 the frequent consequence when they detect- 
 ed this original dishonesty and subsequent 
 deception. The discovery of the misrepre- 
 sentations and falsehoods contained in the 
 writings of Bishop Jewel, produced this 
 effect in several distinguished instances. 
 One was Sir Thomas Copley — another was 
 the Bishop's own Secretary or Chaplain, 
 who "espied certain false allegations in his 
 master's book whilst it was under the print 
 in London, whereof advertising him by let- 
 ter, the other (Jewel) commanded, notwith- 
 standing, the print to go forward. " That is, 
 
 commanded these "false allegations," to 
 be published, even after thev had been 
 pointed out to him! The third was W. 
 Rainold "a professor and preacher of the 
 Protestant religion;" — who "fell to read 
 over Mr. Jewel's book, and did translate 
 some part of it into Latin, but before he had 
 passed half over, he found such stuff, as 
 made him grately mislike of the whole reli- 
 gion; and so he/ leaving his hopes, and com- 
 modities in England, went over the sea," &c 
 (Athens Oxon. Vol. I. No. 174. 273.) 
 
 It is true that on his death bed, Jewel di- 
 rected his chaplain, John Garbrand, "to pub- 
 lish to the world, that what he had written 
 he had done against his own knowledge and 
 conscience, only to comply with the State, 
 and that religion, which it had set up. Al- 
 beit, Garbrand did not, for fear, publish 
 this so openly as he was charged, yet did he 
 avouch it to many in Oxford." (Dr. Richard 
 Smith's Prudential Balance of Religion, pub- 
 lished in 1609, page 54.) 
 
 But why restrict myself to a single testi- 
 mony — even the illiberal Mr. Wix says, that 
 the Catholic religion is "calumniated cru- 
 elty." — "It is, says Dr. Parr, insulted bar- 
 barously." "No religion, says Nigthingale, 
 is treated so unjustly." And Hume de- 
 clares, that " The Protestants seem to have 
 thought that no truth should be told of the 
 Papists." The learned Grotius reproaching 
 the Protestant ministers on this head, re- 
 ceived for reply "that they found it neces- 
 sary for the public good of the Reformed re- 
 ligion. " (Letters to Vossius) And Vossius 
 himself in the. same correspondence writes, 
 that when he reproached the ministers of 
 Amsterdam, they admitted the iniquity of 
 the proceeding, " but, added they, if we 
 leave off such language, our people will soon 
 leave us." 
 
 Now, however inexplicable these proceed- 
 ings may appear to the honest but unreflecting 
 minds of many Protestants, to me they pre- 
 sent an obvious solution. The Reformers, 
 as they are called, could coin new religions, 
 according to the caprice of the times, and 
 the circumstances in which they found them- 
 
134 
 
 selves. But as they could not coin or create 
 truth with the same facility; consoquently, 
 they were obliged to counterfeit evidence* to 
 sustain the "delusion*' which tlieyhad publish- 
 ed, and whicli the strength of their neck, and 
 the weakness of their heads, would not allow 
 them to disown or abandon. The mass of 
 Protestants are led to suppose that the Bible 
 gave rise to the Reformation. But alas! 
 how abundantly is this supposition refuted, 
 by the testimony of their own writers. 
 Grey, himself a Protestant, hits off the his- 
 tory of the English Reformation, in a single 
 line — "The Gospel light first beamed from 
 Bullen's eyes." It is a wicked line I must 
 confess; — and if its author had been a Catho- 
 lic, I should not have quoted it. Frederick 
 the Great of Prussia says, in one of his let- 
 ters, " If you reduce the causes of the Re- 
 formation to their simple principles, you will 
 find that in Germany, it was the work of in- 
 terest; in England, , and in France, the 
 
 effect of novelty." And Baron Starke says, 
 " These are facts completely conformable to 
 history. The Reformation owed its success 
 to a variety of passions, &c." 
 
 From what source, I would ask you, could 
 genuine arguments be derived, to support 
 such a religion as this — being indebted to a 
 "variety of passions," for its origin, exist- 
 ance, and success? From the Bible? But 
 the religion of the Bible and of Christ had 
 been preached, promulgated, believed, and 
 transmitted together with the Bible itself, 
 during 1500 years before the Reformation; 
 —and consequently this Bible could not be- 
 lie in its old age, the testimony it had 
 borne to the Christian world up to that hour. 
 It could not forsake the Catholic church, to 
 take sides with Martin Luther, and bear him 
 through a quarrel originating in the passion 
 of interest, and ending in the scandal of 
 
 contradictions which were proclaimed from 
 the tripod, give ample proof that it was the 
 priest that spoke, and not the oracle. How 
 then do Protestant controversialists confute 
 the doctrines of the Catholic church, by Scrip- 
 ture? They have two ways. One is to 
 blacken our doctrines with misrepresenta- 
 tion; as when you said that indulgences are 
 "a bundle of licenses to commit sin" — and 
 then, of course, the Scriptures will condemn 
 them. The other, to quote Scripture against 
 our real tenets; and whenever they do this 
 it will be found that they give an interpreta- 
 tion to the text which it never had, except 
 among heretics, untilLuther raised the stand- 
 ard of revolt against the Christian church, 
 about three hundred years ago. Butif Protest- 
 antism were not a " delusion" would it re- 
 quire either of these expedients to sustain it? 
 The religion of Christ would blush to acknow- 
 ledge support from such artifices. And yet, 
 I could crowd the page with additional names 
 of Protestant writers who testify that such 
 have been the artifices of Protestantism; and 
 your letters, Rev. Sir, furnish painful evi- 
 dence that Protestantism still preserves this 
 peculiar feature of its identity. 
 
 The next testimony by which Protestant- 
 ism could sustain itself would be ecclesiasti- 
 cal History. But how could ecclesiastical 
 history furnish evidence in favour of a reli- 
 gion which did not exist? History has, in- 
 deed, transmitted to us the account of all 
 the sects, that have sprung up, flourished and 
 decayed, since the foundation of the church: 
 — but Protestantism does not profess to de- 
 rive its origin, from any of them. It began 
 with Martin Luther and this fact is sufficient 
 to show that history, previous to the 16th 
 century, is necessarily silent, on the subject 
 of Protestantism. Prophecy speaks of the fu- 
 ture— history, of the past — and, as Protestant- 
 
 schism. Luther, indeed, said that he had ism was not, it was impossible for history to 
 
 discovered a new religion in the old Bible — 
 But Calvin said that Luther's discovery was 
 a cheat; that he himself had discovered the 
 true religion of the Bible; — Whilst Socinus 
 contended that the Bible condemned them 
 both, in as much as they still retained the 
 divinity of Christ among the "unreformed" 
 doctrines! Thus by the Protestant rule of 
 faith, they were authorised, to treat the Bi- 
 ble, as an accommodating oracle; and as each 
 individual by that rule, has the same right 
 to ascend the tripod of interpretation; so, ne- 
 cessarily had each one the right to deceive 
 the people in his own way, by giving out the 
 
 bear any testimony in its favour. And yet 
 you talked of the fathers, who were all Catho- 
 lics, and the champions of the Catholic rule of 
 faith, with as much confidence as if they had 
 been staunch Calvinists ! What have Protest- 
 ants to do with the Fathers? The Bible alone, 
 as every one interprets it for himself, is their 
 principle. How then, the reader will ask, 
 can Protestant writers quote Catholic au- 
 thorities to support their system. I answer, 
 that like Mr. Breckinridge they " add" and 
 "omit" words, change the punctuation," &e. 
 — You seem, Rev. Sir, to be greatly offended 
 at my having made this charge against you. 
 
 ■word of Christ, and proclaimiug as loudly as But whatever impunity you may expect from 
 he might "thus saith the oracle." But the | unsuspecting Protestants, it is too much to 
 
135 
 
 suppose that I should connive at the falsifi- 
 cation of authorities with which your letters 
 abound. You wish me to apologise for my 
 "insolence." Here then is my apology. I 
 
 WILL MEET YOU BEFORE THE GENERAL AS- 
 SEMBLY, OR IN ANY PUBLIC HALL IN THE CITY, 
 ON ANY DAY YOU THINK PROPER TO NAME, 
 AND CONVICT YOUR LETTERS OF HAVING " AD- 
 DEd" AND " OMITTED" WORDS, " CHANGED 
 THE PUNCTUATION," AND SO FALSIFIED THE 
 
 AUTHORITIES IN PRESENCE OF ANY NUMBER 
 
 OF GENTLEMEN AND LADIES WHO MAY THINK 
 
 proper to attend. I hope this alternative 
 will be a sufficient atonement for what you 
 are pleased to call my " insolence." 
 
 In our late interview I compelled you to ac- 
 knowledge that you had garbled the extract 
 from the 4th Council of Lateran by leaving 
 out whole sentences; although, in your printed 
 letter at the time, you proclaimed in a tone 
 of indignant triumph, in answer to my ques- 
 tion, that you quoted from Caranza, and that 
 it was continuous as well as literal. Now if 
 you quote as you say, "from our own Ca- 
 ranza," you must have known that it was 
 not continuous; and with this knowledge, how 
 could you answer " unhesitatingly" that it 
 was! It looks strange; but I make no com- 
 ment. 
 
 In your last letter, you give an extract from 
 a Bull of Innocent VIII, pnblished in 1477. 
 The original of this Bull, you tell us is pre- 
 served in the University of Cambridge. But 
 it is unnecessary for me to go to Cambridge 
 in order to convict you of mistatement in re- 
 ference to it. Pope Innocent VIII. was 
 elected in the year 1484 — and it is not usual 
 with our Popes, to issue Bulls seven years be- 
 fore their election; such Bulls come from 
 another quarter. But Rev. Sir, I cannot pass 
 from one quotation to another of your letters, 
 without being pained at the necessity vou 
 impose on me, of exposing either your igno- 
 rance of the authors you cite, or your dis- 
 honesty in quoting them. Even in your 
 last letter, whilst you affect to be greatly in- 
 censed at my charges on this head, and re- 
 quire me to apologise for my '.' insolence," 
 you are detected in new falsifications. But 
 unfortunately for you the original document 
 is not so remote as " the University of Cam- 
 bridge." 
 
 I shall cite the canon of the 3d Council of 
 Lateran, just as you have done, except that 
 I shall supply in italics, the passages which 
 you have found it convenient to suppress. 
 These passages I shall place in the context, 
 that the reader may perceive how much the 
 
 whole is falsified by you — and judge accord' 
 ingly. 
 
 "As the blessed Leo says, although ec- 
 clesiastical discipline, content with sacerdo- 
 tal judgment, does not exact bloody ven- 
 geance; yet, it is assisted by the constitu- 
 tion of Catholic princes, in order that men, 
 while they fear that corporal punishment 
 may be inflicted on them, may often seek a 
 salutary remedy. On this account because in 
 Gascony, Albi, in the parts of Toulouse, and 
 and in other regions, the accursed perverse- 
 ness, of the heretics variously denominated 
 Cathari,or Patarenas, or Publicans, or distin- 
 guished by sundry names, has so prevailed, that 
 they now no longer exercise their wickedness 
 in private, but publicly manifest their errors, 
 and seduce into their communion the simple 
 and infirm. We therefore subject to a curse, 
 (badly translated of course, but no matter) 
 both themselves and their defenders and har- 
 bourers; and, under a curse we prohibit all 
 persons from admitting them into their houses, 
 or receiving them upon their lands, or cherish- 
 ing them, or exercising any trade with them." 
 But if they die in this sin, let them not receive 
 Christian burial, under pretence of any privilege 
 granted by us, or any other pretext whatever,- and 
 let no offering be made for them. 
 
 As to the Brabantians, Navarii, Basculi, Coterelli 
 and Triaverdinii who exercise such cruelty towards 
 the Christians, that they pay no respect to churches or 
 monasteries, spare neither widows, nor virgins, neither 
 old nor young, neither sex nor age, but after the man- 
 ner of the Pagans destroy and desolate every thing, we 
 in like manner, decree that such persons as shall pro- 
 tect, or retain or encourage them in districts in which 
 they commit these excesses, be publicly denounced in the 
 churches on Sundays and festival days, and that they 
 be considered as bound by the same censure and penalty 
 as the aforesaid heretics, and be excluded from the com- 
 munion of the church, until they shall have abjured 
 that pestiferous consociation and heresy. But let all 
 persons who are implicated with them in any crime 
 (alluding to their vassals) know that they are released 
 from the obligation of fealty, homage, and subjection 
 to them, so long as they continue in so great iniquity. ," 
 "Moreover we enjoin (on these, and) all the 
 faithful, for the remission of their sins, that 
 they manfully oppose themselves to such 
 " calamities''^ (no, Mr. Breckinridge, — look 
 in your Dictionary: — " Cladibus" means 
 more — the crimes alluded to in the pas- 
 sage which you " omitted, '.' falsifying there- 
 by the whole) and that they defend (bless 
 me what persecution!!!) the Christian peo- 
 ple by arms. And let their goods be confis- 
 cated, and let it be freely permitted to 
 princes to reduce men of such a stamp to 
 slavery," &c. 
 
 The rest of the quotation the reader may 
 
136 
 
 refer to in your own letter. I wonder 
 whether " men of such a stamp," would not 
 be reduced to the penitentiary, if they com- 
 mitted such crimes in our day and in our 
 country ? Let Protestants read this as it is in 
 the original, and then excluding the passa- 
 ges marked in italics, and suppressed bv 
 their champion! See the means by which 
 their cause is defended! Would a good 
 cause require such support? Will not hon- 
 ourable Protestants reject it with indigna- 
 tion ? And yet you Rev. Sir, have politely 
 charged me with "insolence," for "dating'' 
 to question the character of your quotations. 
 It was to save myself the painful necessity of 
 these exposures that I, long since, cautioned 
 you to beware of your authorities — knowing 
 that it is by such means that the delusion of 
 Protestantism has for the most part, sustained 
 itself until this hour. It is a hard case in- 
 deed, that your falsifications of Catholic testi- 
 monies (with which the people are unacquaint- 
 ed in general) are now more numerous than 
 your letters, which I pledge myself to prove, 
 publicly, as soon as you please. It seems 
 you cannot give even the title of a chapter in 
 a book, without falsifying it. Bellarmine's 
 Chapter is headed " Posse Hsereticos ab ec- 
 clesia damnatos, temporalibus pcenis, et 
 etiam morte mulctari." Now every school- 
 boy knows that this merely states, that 
 " Heretics, condemned by the church, may 
 be punished with temporal penalties, and even 
 death." And yet your version of it in your 
 last letter placed in italics, and between 
 inverted commas, is, that "it was the duty 
 of the church to burn heretics." Book 
 3. c 21. of the Laity — directing us to the 
 very line, and page, which if you ever saw 
 it, you must have known would convict you 
 of falsifying ! These transgressions have 
 been, Rev. Sir, so frequent, and so flagrant, 
 that were I so disposed, I might hold you as 
 unworthy of literary intercourse, until you 
 shall have cleared them up. When I ac- 
 cepted your challenge addressed to " Priests 
 and Bishops,'' I did not anticipate that I 
 should have to suspect your references at 
 every step of your progress. You have, in- 
 deed, accused me of misrepresentation; but 
 you have not pointed out the passage in my 
 letters that contains it. It is true that I have 
 shown that all the Reformers, so called, 
 were persecutors; but I quoted their conduct 
 and language in support of the charge, and 
 if you show me that I have made even a 
 mistake, I will cheerfully correct it. In fact 
 it was impossible for me to " misrepresent'' 
 when I only repeated their own words. 
 
 Now for the subject of persecution. I 
 proved in my last letter that the founders of 
 Presbyterianism were men of blood, both 
 in principle and practice. I challenged 
 you to show in the history of the world, an 
 instance in which Presbyterians had the po- 
 litical ascendancy, without using it for the 
 purposes of persecution. And although, in 
 reply you "admit that in a comparatively 
 small measure Protestants have done the 
 same;" and although "you condemn it, you 
 renounce it, you mourn over i/," &c, yet it 
 is extremely questionable whether Presby- 
 terians are completely emancipated from 
 the intolerant genius of their doctrines, and 
 the perverse propensities of their forefathers. 
 If there is no single instance in all history in 
 which Presbyterians did not persecute, when 
 they had the power, both Catholics and 
 Protestants — then, I know not on what 
 ground you can expect us to believe that 
 they would not do the same again. Even 
 now according to your standard of 1821, the 
 magistrates are "nursing fathers to the 
 church of our common Lord." 
 
 Catholics on the contrary can point with 
 pride to many countries, in which the Pro- 
 testants are not one to twenty of the popula- 
 tion, and yet are secured in the enjoyment of 
 equal rights. The cases to which you refer, 
 were such as involved many considerations, 
 besides the mere rights of conscience. They 
 involved the rights of property, power, and 
 public order. It was not so much the preach- 
 ing of doctrine, as the preaching of anarchy 
 in the name of doctrine, that was guarded 
 against. Civil war, bloodshed, and desola- 
 tion followed in the footsteps of those fana- 
 tics who rose in Catholic countries to dis- 
 turb the established order of society. This 
 presents a case very different from any thing 
 recorded in the crimson annals of Protestant 
 persecution — where the only offence was the 
 exercise of the rights of conscience. But, 
 after the proofs contained in my last letter 
 on the general subject, and considering that 
 you are compelled to admit every testimony 
 therein recorded, your returning to the topic 
 of persecution is rather unaccountable. You 
 insinuate that it is a part of Catholic doc- 
 trine; whilst the very documents adduced 
 by yourself, all garbled as they are, prove the 
 contrary. The canon of Lateran begins "as 
 the blessed Leo saith although ecclesiastical 
 discipline, content with sacerdotal judgment, 
 does not exact the punishment of blood" — 
 or of death, &c. " Discipline" is not doc- 
 trine — and " sacerdotal judgment," con- 
 demns only the doctrine of heresy, leaving 
 
13* 
 
 the heretic himself to the laws of the state 
 which he disturbs. The quakers of New- 
 England who were hanged by the Presbyte- 
 rians, were guilty of no such offences. The 
 Priests of Ireland who were hunted down 
 with Presbyterian bloodhounds, as Dr. Tay- 
 lor relates, were not even charged with any 
 other crime, except that of being priests. 
 The fugitive of Geneva whom Calvin had 
 burned to death, was guilty of no crime, ex- 
 cept that of following the Protestant rule of 
 faith by interpreting the Scripture for him- 
 self. Luther wished the blood of all bish- 
 ops, cardinals, popes, &tc, that he might 
 "wash his hands in it." Knox was for ex- 
 terminating all Catholics. Henry the 8th, 
 Elizabeth, and Edward VI. persecuted to 
 death for the crime of exercising liberty of 
 conscience. The Episcopalians of Virginia 
 persecuted the Presbyterians; — the Catholics 
 of Maryland protected them, in the enjoy- 
 ment of all their religious rights, and admit- 
 ted them to equal privileges with themselves 
 in the civil administration of the colony. The 
 gratitude of the Presbyterians was the grati- 
 tude of the serpent that stings the bosom 
 which has fostered it. They put down and 
 persecuted these very Catholics as soon as it 
 was in their power. They did the same in 
 England, towards the Episcopalians them- 
 selves. John Wesley taught that not only 
 Protestants, but even Mahomedans and Pa- 
 gans are bound to persecute Roman Catholics. 
 And yet these are the men who proclaimed 
 that every one had the right to read the Bible 
 and judge for himself! These are the saints, 
 the fathers, the apostles of Protestantism ! 
 It was by these means that they propagated 
 the radical delusion of their system, for 
 which it would have been hard, if they could 
 not invent, at least a good name; which 
 they did, by calling it the religion of the 
 " Bible alone." You did well, then, to say 
 that you "condemn" all this, that "you re- 
 nounce it," that "you mourn over it:" — but 
 until your tears shall have washed it all 
 away, you do wrong to charge any denomi- 
 nation with the crime of persecution. The 
 imputation, therefore, of having recourse to 
 physical force, in order to "determine dis- 
 putes in the church," is one in which Pro- 
 testants are more implicated than Catholics. 
 "With us, it was adopted as an antidote to 
 prevent the rise of heresy, and its concomi- 
 tant civil disorders, in Catholic states. With 
 you, it was the torture applied as a remedy, 
 to compel heretics to embrace the opinions 
 of the predominant party, in the state for the 
 time being. With you, it was the nominal 
 
 right of every man to read the Scripture, 
 and judge for himself— but woe to that man 
 who dared to exercise this right, when Presby- 
 terians had the political ascendancy in any 
 country. In Ireland, he was given up to 
 bloodhounds, in England to the scaffold, in 
 Holland to the dungeon, in Geneva to the 
 stake and faggot, and in Boston to the gal- 
 lows. All this was done by Presbyterians 
 and their founder — and yet, you, a Presby- 
 terian, talk of persecution ! ! * But it seems 
 that Presbyterians have become quite meek 
 and tolerant, since the rod of political pow- 
 er has been wrested from their hands, and 
 we have Mr. Breckinridge making acts of 
 contrition for the use made of it — "he con- 
 demns it, he renounces it, he mourns over it." 
 It is wisdom, says the proverb, to make a 
 virtue of necessity. 
 
 Now let us try to return to the rule of 
 faith, which, if I may judge by your efforts to 
 evade it, you seem to dread as cordially as 
 you do persecution itself. You would wish 
 me even to deny the divinity of Christ, in 
 order that you might have an opportunity of 
 proving it from the Scripture alone. But I 
 cannot gratify you, by acceding to this 
 strange proposal. Ywu may break a lance 
 with any of your Unitarian or Universalist 
 brethren, on this awful question; and the 
 more so, as they and you have the. same rule 
 of faith; viz. your right of private judgment 
 as to the meaning of the Bible. But beware 
 of the consequences — for I can assure you 
 that the Unitarian will bear you down by the 
 logical consequences of your own rule of faith 
 — and this alone ought to make Protestants 
 see the " radical delusion" of their system. 
 
 The question between us, is touching that 
 "infallible rule of faith which Christ estab- 
 lished, to guide us in matters of religion, and 
 to determine disputes in his church." Is it 
 the Bible alone, interpreted by each indi- 
 vidual for himself? If it is not, then it 
 follows that the Protestant principle is fal- 
 lacious. And that it is not, I think has been 
 abundantly established in the progress of 
 these letters. 1st. Because the Bible was 
 not completely written, until after many 
 years from the ascension of Christ into hea- 
 ven — and consequently was not established 
 by him, as the only rule of faith. 2d. Seve- 
 ral books of the Bible were not universally 
 received, as authentic and inspired, for some 
 centuries after, and therefore the Bible was 
 not, and could not be, the only rule of faith 
 by which the first Christians were guided. 
 3d. The sects, who, in those ages adopted 
 the Bible alone for their rule of faith, were 
 
13s 
 
 heretics, acknowledged and condemned as such 
 by Protestants themselves. 4th. Because the 
 testimony by which we know the Bible to be 
 what it is, must be something different from 
 the book itself. Hence, the first act of a 
 Protestant's faith, (which includes every 
 thing else,) is founded on that testimony; 
 and consequently is not founded on the 
 Bible alone. 5th. Because even after we 
 are convinced by this testimony, the Bible, 
 all inspired as it is, cannot be a rule of faith, 
 except in as much as our minds are success- 
 ful in evolving Us true sense. 6th. And as 
 the Protestant is obliged to adopt the opi- 
 nion, which grows up in his mind, as to the 
 sense, when he reads the Bible or hears it 
 read, — it consequently follows that this opi- 
 nion in point of fact, is the Protestant rule 
 of faith — and not the Bible alone, 7th. Be- 
 cause the Bible contains mysteries for the 
 exercise of faith, to be believed as facts di- 
 vinely revealed — but when reduced to the 
 judgment of private opinion, they cease to be 
 objects of faith, and become matters of spe- 
 culation. 
 
 These are the conclusions which reason 
 must draw from the facts and circumstances 
 of the case. To these rational evidences 
 may be added, that neither Christ nor his 
 Apostles say, in any part of the sacred writ- 
 ings, that the Bible alone is the rule of 
 faith. On the contrary, they command us 
 to be guided by the church — "if any one will 
 not hear the church let him be to thee as a 
 heathen and a publican." The fathers all 
 agree in this testimony, as I have showed in 
 a variety of quotations from their writings. 
 And it is an historical fact, beyond the 
 reach of refutation, that no Christians ever 
 professed to be guided by the Scripture 
 alone, as their only rule of faith, except 
 the Protestants who began in the \6th cen- 
 tury, and the heretics of antiquity. 
 
 What has been the character of your an- 
 swers to all these arguments of reason, reve- 
 lation, and history? Why, that the written 
 word of God was completed before the death 
 of the last Jlpostle — as if St. John banished 
 to the Isle of Patmos, or dwelling in Ephe- 
 stis, could be a rule of faith for all the pro- 
 vinces of the empire! And then, why did 
 not the " infallible" church determine the 
 canon of Scripture sooner than the year 397? 
 As if the Scripture alone had been the rule 
 of faith even in the church! And then, gar- 
 bled or irrelevant extracts from the fathers — 
 and then the " vicious circle" which I have 
 solved at least twice, although once should 
 have been enough. And then the Pope call- 
 
 ing himself God — which he never did. And 
 then the blessing of asses in Rome. And 
 then the Inquisition; the massacre of St. 
 Bartholomew; Taylor's dissuasive from Po- 
 pery; Rome in the 19th century, &c. &c. 
 D<> you imagine, Rev'd Sir, that the sincere 
 Protestant will be satisfied with these crimi- 
 nations, which, whether true or false, have 
 nothing to do ivith the main question ? Do 
 you suppose, that even admitting the whole 
 premises, he will conclude that therefore, 
 the Bible alone, or to speak more correctly, 
 the opinion which he may happen to form as 
 to the meaning of the Bible, is that "in- 
 fallible rule of faith established by Christ 
 to guide us in matters of religion, and to de- 
 termine disputes in his church?" If you do, 
 you pay but a poor compliment to his un- 
 derstanding. Do you suppose that a prin- 
 ciple which gave rise to all the disputes that 
 exist among Protestants is that/" infallible 
 principle" appointed by Chnat for the pur- 
 pose of "determining disputes?" Will ha 
 be convinced that the principle by which Cal- 
 vin and Luther rejected several books of the 
 New Testament — as well as transubstantia- 
 tion — by which Socinus, rejected the Trinity, 
 by which the Protestants of France, Germany, 
 and Geneva, are Christian infidels, denying 
 the divinity of the Saviour who redeemed 
 them — by which you are a Presbyterian, ano- 
 ther a Universalist, a third a Quaker, a fourth 
 a Swedenborgian, a fifth an Episcopalian, a 
 sixth a Lutheran, &c, will he be convinced, 
 I say, by all you have charged upon Catho- 
 lics, that such a principle, is the infallible 
 rule of faith appointed by the Son of 
 God? But no matter, the delusion goes on. 
 The Bible is made the repository of all the 
 contradictory doctrines of Protestantism — 
 It is reported to be as plain as the Holy 
 Spirit could make it — and the ministers re- 
 ceive large salaries and comfortable livings 
 for making it plainer still. 
 
 You seem to be frightened at the condi- 
 tion of Protestant Germany — and call upon 
 me to show that the "free and self-inter- 
 preting use of the. Bible has done all this 
 evil." It is not the use of the Bible, but the 
 use of the Protestant rule of faith, that has 
 done all this evil. It is the abuse of the 
 Bible. 
 
 I have repeatedly protested against the 
 disingenuousness of your statements in which 
 I am constantly represented as arguing 
 against the Bible — or the " use of the Bible." 
 The use of the Bible is in the Catholic church 
 as I contend, and the abuse of it in the Pro- 
 
139 
 
 testant denominations. But I am surprised 
 that you should require proof of a matter that 
 is so plain and obvious. The Germans were 
 told by Luther to read the Scriptures and 
 judge for themselves. They have done so, 
 and ceased to be Christians! Was it simply 
 by reading the Scriptures that this occurred? 
 No certainly. But because reading the 
 Scriptures according to the Protestant rule of 
 faith, they were obliged to make their private 
 reason the standard and measure of their 
 belief in the doctrines contained in the Bible 
 As you require proof however I will give it you. 
 Robison in his "• Proofs of a Conspiracy" tells 
 us, speakingof theLutheransand Calvinists of 
 Germany, — " The Scriptures, the foundation 
 of our faith, were examined by clergymen of 
 very different capacities, dispositions, and 
 views, till by explaining, correcting, allegori- 
 sing, and otherwise twisting the bible, 
 men's minds had hardly any thing to rest on 
 as a doctrine of revealed religion. This en- 
 couraged others to go farther, and' to say 
 that revelation was a solecism, as plainly per- 
 ceived by the irreconcilable differences among 
 those enlighteners of the public, and that man 
 had nothing to trust to but the dictates of 
 natural religion." (p. 64.) These " enlight- 
 eners" are following the Protestant rule of 
 faith every where; and every where, the 
 same causes necessarily existing, will be suc- 
 ceeded by the same effects as in Germa- 
 ny. Look at the congregations that have 
 gone over to Unitarianism in New Eng- 
 land at the beck of the "enlighteners." And 
 all this by the use — not of the Bible — but of 
 your rule of faith. 
 
 In the Catholic church notwithstanding all 
 that Protestants say to the contrary, we read 
 the Scripture as the inspired written word of 
 God — we exercise our judgment, — and ar- 
 rive by a rational process of investigation, at 
 the proofs of our doctrine. But we do not 
 like the Protestant readers, take upon us to 
 become "enlighteners of the public, by ex- 
 plaining, correcting, allegorising, and other- 
 wise twisting the Bible," according to the 
 measure of individual capacity and private 
 opinion. We hold that the Bible means 
 now, what it meant 1500 years ago — and on 
 points of doctrine, we interpret it according 
 to the perpetual, unbroken, Catholic public 
 teaching of the church. The consequence 
 is that we do not change our creed, to suit the 
 genius of any country, or to keep pace with 
 the improvements of any age. It is for those 
 who acknowledge their religion to be of hu- 
 man origin, to improve their doctrines — and 
 deny their tenets, as often as they shall have 
 
 become 'offensive' but we hold our doctrines 
 to be divine, and consequently, beyond the 
 reach of man's improvement. 
 
 Hence our doctrines are identically the 
 same all over the world — and what they were 
 when first preached to the world — that they 
 are now and that they will be until the con- 
 summation of time. The question, therefore 
 is not to be decided according to the arrange- 
 ment of terms laid down in a recent charge 
 " The rule of faith," — which, without profes- 
 sing to be, is generally regarded as a prop to 
 the weakness of your arguments, in opposition 
 to my reasoning, on the same subject. This 
 being the case, I shall take the liberty of re- 
 viewing it, apart from this controversy in a 
 separate publication, in the course of a few 
 days. 
 
 In the mean time before I close, I must 
 allude to the train of little questions which 
 are found in the conclusion of your last let- 
 ter. But I have not space to answer them — 
 for with all the indulgence of the Editors, I 
 should trespass were I to attempt to furnish 
 you with instruction as well as argument. 
 The " question" you asked in reference to 
 Bishop Kendrick's warning "against reading 
 the controversy," ought to have convinced 
 you that even interrogatories are sometimes 
 dangerous. But as the restrictions of 
 Catholic states, on the liberty of the 
 press, and prohibited books seems to be 
 a great hobby in all your letters; — it may 
 be proper for me to say, that Catholic 
 states, like Protestant states, manage their 
 national affairs pretty much as they please. 
 When Presbyterians, however, sat at the helm, 
 of civil government, they did not do much 
 better. In those days it was a sin to print 
 or even read the Episcopal Book of Common 
 Prayer. By an ordinance of the Presby- 
 terian parliament dated August 23d, 1645, 
 "Any person using the book of Common 
 Prayer, forfeited, for the first offence five 
 pounds, for the second ten, and for the third 
 suffered imprisonment. All Common 
 prayer books in churches or chapels were 
 ordered to be brought to the Committee 
 within a month, under the forfeit of forty 
 shillings for each book." (Rushworth p. 207.) 
 By another ordinance passed August 29. 
 1654, for the ejection of scandalous, ignorant 
 and inefficient ministers and schoolmasters, 
 it is enacted "that such ministers and 
 schoolmasters shall be, accounted scandalous, 
 as have publicly and frequently read the com- 
 mon prayer book," the reading of which was 
 judged by this ordinance as great an offence 
 
140 
 
 as DRUNKENNESS, FORNICATION, ADULTERY, 
 PERJURY, Or BLASPHEMY. 
 
 Yours, very respectfully, 
 
 Jno. Hughes. 
 
 P. S. In your letter dated April 1833, 
 you say in reference to the warning against, 
 reading this controversy — "I did not proceed 
 in this matter without a responsible name; 
 and even then, knowing the defects of tradi- 
 tion, I asked it as a question, whether my 
 informant was mistaken, and left it open for 
 correction. I have now the name before me, 
 and the permission to make it public, if re- 
 quired by the Bishop. If he demand it, 
 therefore, it shall be given." Now, 
 Rev. Sir, I call on you to redeem your pro- 
 mise, thus publicly made. The Bishop has 
 "demanded it," and it has not been " given;" 
 — John Burtt, whose name is appended to 
 nearly half a column of special pleading on 
 the subject, positively asserts, that he is not 
 your "informant," and consequently I call 
 upon you to redeem your public pledge — 
 provided always, it is not a lady, "whom, 
 
 for convenience sake, you might call M ." 
 
 Poor M ! She could not distinguish be- 
 tween St. Mary's and St. John's, the one in 
 4th street, the other in 13th ! She could not 
 distinguish between the dress of a Bishop 
 
 and that of a Priest, although Mr. Burtt tells 
 us she " had been educated among Roman 
 Catholics." She could not distinguish be- 
 tween some other day. and the 17th of Feb- 
 ruary, the day on which your informant " in- 
 sisted" that the " warning was given" — and 
 on which it so happens that Mr. Hughes did 
 occupy the desk of St. John's, and not the 
 
 " Connecticut Valley Priest;'' whom M 
 
 supposed to be a bishop! It seems the Catho- 
 lics in educating M did not furnish her 
 
 with the attributes of a good memory. 
 
 And poor Mr. Burtt! He heard it from 
 "two friends," who had been told by " one, 
 who was present, whose ears heard it" (ne- 
 ver!) and he told it to — a "mutual friend," 
 and he supposes, for " he never inquired" 
 that it was "communicated to Mr. B.'' Mr. 
 Burtt, therefore, Rev. Sir, is not your "infor- 
 mant" — and consequently your pledge to 
 give the name, if the Bishop demanded it — 
 as he has — is still unredeemed. Let this 
 point of (Protestant) " oral tradition," as 
 Mr. Burtt terms it, be cleared up. Is this 
 Mr. Burtt the same who was formerly editor 
 of the Presbyterian? Heu ! Quantum muta- 
 tus ab illo! Were it not for his signature I 
 never should suspect him of being the author 
 of such a letter. But it is the name of your 
 "informant," or the retractation of the 
 charge, that is required. J. H. 
 
CONTROVERSY N°. 18 
 
 ISaaBc of Faith. 
 
 Philadelphia, May 30th, 1833. 
 To the Rev. John Hughes. 
 
 Rev. Sir, — It was remarked by the great 
 Robert Hall (whose works I hope you will 
 get a license from the Committee at Rome 
 to read) " That one of the severest trials of 
 human virtue is the trial of controversy." 
 At the commencement of our correspond- 
 ence, refinement, Christian propriety, and 
 official dignity, were pledged as the graces 
 which should guide your pen and adorn 
 your pages; and even in a recent communi- 
 cation, you have told me that you could not 
 render "railing for railing." In your last let- 
 ter, if never before, you throw aside all reserve, 
 and give specimens, to the life, of a spirit 
 and temper which fairly identify you with 
 the renowned Ecclesiastical bullies of New 
 York, who are now expending their coarse 
 and vulgar railleries, against the Bible, and 
 the friends of Christ; "who are edifying us 
 much without intending it; and have the ef- 
 fect which the great critic of antiquity as- 
 signs to the stage, that of purifying the 
 heart by pity and terror." In this service 
 I must yield the palm to the models and 
 representatives of the " Infallible church;" 
 and concede to you, without reserve, every 
 advantage which such superiority can con- 
 fer. The application of these remarks will 
 be promptly made even by the most cursory 
 reader of your last letter. 
 
 Your "mock heroic" proposal to "meet 
 me before the General Assembly" is unfor- 
 tunately too late, since that body adjourned 
 on the 27th inst. What effect the expecta- 
 tion of meeting the distinguished Secretary, 
 who lately announced to us "the plenary 
 indulgence of the Pope," might have had in 
 delaying their adjournment, I cannot say. 
 Your courage was not equal to a public meet- 
 ing six months ago, or the whole ground of 
 controversy might Ion* since have been tra- 
 versed; and if the meaning of the latter 
 member of the sentence be that you will so 
 meet me now, I am still prepared to pursue 
 the discussion in that way. If not, then I 
 add your pledge "to convict my letters of 
 having added, and omitted words, changed 
 
 punctuation, falsified authorities, &c," to 
 the list of things which we have referred, 
 and liefy you to verify your slander, or to 
 vindicate yourself by one single proof, for 
 the "insolence" which has uttered them. 
 
 This may be as proper as any other place 
 to expose by way of contrast, some specimens 
 of your many misrepresentations. 
 
 1st. That which relates to our Confession, 
 being on file, may repose until we can give 
 the decision of the referees whom you have 
 proposed. 
 
 2d. You say in your last letter, " the Ca- 
 tholics of Maryland protected them (Pres- 
 byterians) in the enjoyment of all their reli- 
 gious rights; and admitted them to equalprivi- 
 leges with themselves in the civil administra- 
 tion of the colony. The gratitude of the 
 Presbyterians was the gratitude of the ser- 
 pent that stings the bosom which has foster- 
 ed it. They put down and persecuted these 
 very Catholics, as soon as it was in their 
 power." Now will you do us the favour to 
 show when and where "the Presbyterians 
 put down and persecuted these very Catho- 
 lics as soon as it was in their power?" I 
 pronounce it an utter fabrication. There is 
 not even the semblance otfact or truth in the 
 statement. And let me asK, was it in the 
 power of the Catholics of Maryland, accord- 
 ing to the terms of the original charter, to 
 exterminate or persecute Protestants, if they 
 had desired it? The fact of their having 
 tolerated Protestants stands forth indeed like 
 a solitary green spot in that great wilderness 
 over which the Papacy has spread its deso- 
 lations, and I would not willingly pluck 
 the only jewel from the bloody brow of your 
 church. But it has yet to be shown that 
 they had the power to persecute. What if 
 Mr. Hughes should boast that he allows Mr. 
 Breckinridge freely to publish his views, 
 and though a "heretic," to " live and move, 
 and have his being" in this country? Shall 
 we thank him for that? 
 
 Poor Bellarmine, whom you have dismiss- 
 ed with your magic wand to the Limbo of 
 " opinions," because he was too honest for 
 our latitude, gives us a very candid account 
 
142 
 
 of this matter. He says (Book 3. chap. 23 
 of Laics.) " But when in reference to He- 
 retics, thieves and other wicked men, there 
 arises this question in particular, " shall 
 they be exterminated?" it is to be consid- 
 ered according to the meaning of our Lord, 
 whether that can be done without injury to 
 thegood;andif that be possible, they are with- 
 out doubt to be extirpated', (sunt procul dubio 
 extirpandi) but if that be not possible, either 
 because they are not sufficiently known, and 
 then there would be danger of punishing the 
 innocent instead of the guilty: or because 
 they are stronger than ourselves, and there 
 be danger lest if we make a war upon them, 
 more of our people than of theirs should be 
 slain, then we must keep quiet (tunc quies- 
 cendum est). 
 
 3d. You say "the Quakers of New Eng- 
 land were hanged by the Presbyterians.'' 
 This also, is, without qualification, a mis- 
 statement. There was a time when Con- 
 gregatiotialists in some parts of New Eng- 
 land did persecute that now amiable people. 
 But I would ask, upon what authority you 
 have ventured to utter so unfounded a charge 
 against us; and since you will not permit 
 me to excuse your misrepresentations on 
 the ground of ignorance, to what account 
 shall the public set down this misstatement? 
 
 4th. In two successive letters yon have 
 attacked the character of the celebrated 
 John Wesley. In the first you say (Letter 
 No. 15) "Even the meek John Wesley 
 as late as the year 1780, proclaimed that 
 they (Catholics) ought not to be tolerated 
 by any government, Protestant, Moham- 
 medan, or Pagan.'' You repeat this charge 
 in your last letter. While I leave to others, 
 better acquainted with his history and opi- 
 nions than myself, such a defence as may 
 bethought necessary, I feel it to be my duty 
 here briefly to expose a flagrant example of 
 that unworthy garbling with which, in anoth- 
 er case, you have ventured to charge me. In 
 the very letter, and partly in the very para- 
 graph from which you take the above sen- 
 tence, there is a distinct disclaimer of the spirit 
 of persecution. Let us quote it: " With per- 
 secution I have nothing to do; I persecute 
 no man for his religious principles. Let there 
 be as boundless a freedom in religion as any 
 man, can conceive. But this does not touch 
 the point; I will set religion true or false 
 out of the question. Yet I insist upon it 
 that no government not Roman Catholic 
 ought to tolerate men of the Roman Ca- 
 tholic persuasion. I prove this by a plain 
 argument, let him answer it that can: that 
 
 no Roman Catholic does, or can give se- 
 curity for his allegiance or peaceable beha- 
 viour I prove thus: It is a Roman Catholic 
 maxim established not by private men, but 
 by a public council, that ' no faith is to be 
 kept with heretics.'' This has been openly 
 avoived by the Council of Constance; but it 
 never was openly disclaimed. Whether pri- 
 vate persons avow or disavow it, it is a fixed 
 maxim of the church of Rome. But as Ung 
 as it is so, nothing can be mare plain than 
 that the members of that church, can give no 
 reasonable security to any government, fo 
 their allegiance or peaceable behaviour. 
 (Here follow the words quoted by Mr. 
 Hughes) Therefore they ought not to be tole- 
 rated by any government, Protestant, Ma- 
 hometan, or Pagan. (The author proceeds.) 
 You may say, ' nay but they will take an 
 oath of allegiance.' True, five hundred 
 oaths; but the maxim, * no faith, is to be kept 
 with heretics' sweeps them all away as a 
 spider's web. So that still, no governors, that 
 are not Roman Catholics, can have any 
 security of their allegiance. The power of 
 granting pardons for all sins, past, present 
 and to come is, and has been for many 
 centuries one branch of his (the Pope's) 
 spiritual power. But those who acknowledge 
 him to have this spiritual power can give no 
 security for their allegiance, since they be- 
 lieve the Pope can pardon rebellions, high 
 treasons, and all other sins whatever. The 
 power of dispensing with any promise, oath, 
 or vow is another branch of the spiritual pow- 
 er of the Pope. All who acknowledge his 
 spiritual power must acknowledge this. But 
 whoever acknowledges the dispensing power 
 of the Pope, can give no security for his al- 
 legiance to any government. Nay, not only 
 the Pope, but even a Priest has the power to 
 pardon sins. This is an essential doctrine 
 of the church of Rome, but they that acknow- 
 ledge this cannot possibly give any security 
 for their allegiance to any government. 
 Oaths are no security at all, for the Priest can 
 pardon both perjury and high treason. Set- 
 ting, then, religion aside, it is plain that upon 
 principles of reason, no government ought 
 to tolerate men who cannot give any security 
 to that government for their allegiance and 
 
 peaceable behaviour Would I wish, then 
 
 the Roman Catholics to be persecuted? I 
 never said or hinted any such thing. I ab- 
 hor the thought; it is foreign from all 1 have 
 preached and wrote these fifty years. But 
 I would wish the Romanists in England, (I 
 had no others in view) to be treated with the 
 same lenitj that they have been these sixty 
 
143 
 
 years; to be allowed both civil and religious 
 liberty; but not permitted to undermine 
 ours." (See Wesley's works Vol. 5. p. 817, 
 818. 826.) 
 
 From these extracts it is palpable to every 
 honest mind that gross injustice has been 
 done to Mr. Wesley. While he disclaims 
 persecution on the one hand, he proves on 
 the other, that no Roman Catholic, if con- 
 sistent, can give reasonable security to any 
 governor or government, not Roman Catholic, 
 of his allegiance and peaceable behaviour ! 
 And now it instead ot scandalizing his memo- 
 ry, you will answer his argument, you will 
 do a good service to " your lord the Pope." 
 5th. You say " In our late interview I com- 
 pelled you to acknowledge that you had 
 garbled the extract from the 4th Council of 
 Lateran, by leaving out whole sentences.'' 
 I am constrained to say that it is absolutely 
 and wholly a gratuitous misrepresentation — 
 and I appeal in proof to the gentlemen who 
 were present. I told you, as is the fact, that 
 I gave an abstract or continued sense of the 
 whole passage; that it was simply for want of 
 room I gave no more; that what was omit- 
 ted made nothing/or you, nor against me. 
 And now I challenge you to take up that 
 passage, and show that I have left out one 
 line or one word which will at all affect the 
 sense of the decree. And I farther chal- 
 lenge you to defend that passage — which by 
 the authority of a general Council dooms 
 heretics to destruction — rewards those who 
 aid in their extermination — excommunicates 
 those who received, defended, or favoured 
 them — orders the princes and rulers of the 
 nations to purge their land of heretical filth 
 — absolves their subjects (here see the force 
 of Wesley's argument) from their allegiance 
 if the princes refuse; and gives the lands of 
 the heretics to the pious papists who slaugh- 
 tered or expelled them! And yet, gentle 
 reader, this is the Priest, who says this was 
 only a "/eu<2a/" council : — and this the man 
 who from several letters and many pages of 
 W T esley's writings, took out of its connexion 
 one sentence omitting the disclaimers and 
 explanations which looked him directly in 
 the face! 
 
 6th. You charge me as follows: "It seems 
 you cannot give even the title of a chapter 
 in a book, without falsifying it. Bellar- 
 mine's chapter is headed — Posse haereticos 
 ab ecclesia damnatos, temporalibus poenis, 
 et.etiam morte mulctari. Now every school- 
 boy knows that this merely states, that 
 Heretics condemned by the church, may be 
 punished with temporal penalties, and even 
 
 death. And yet your version of it in your 
 last letter placing it in italics, and between 
 inverted commas, is, that ' it was the duty of 
 the church to burn heretics.' '' And is it 
 possible that you can so presume upon the 
 ignorance of your readers when the very 
 first sentence in the chapter (already cited 
 at large by me in letter No. 14) thus begins: 
 Nos igitur breviter ostendemus haeretieos 
 incorrigibiles ac prresertim relapsos, posse ac 
 debere ab ecclesia rejici et a secularibus po- 
 testatibus, temporalibus poenis atque ipsa 
 etiam morte mulctari." "We will briefly 
 show that the church has the power, and it is 
 her duty, to cast off incorrigible heretics, 
 especially those who have relapsed, and that 
 the secular power ought to inflict on such 
 temporal punishments, and even death it- 
 self." Here is both " posse" and " debere:" 
 will you say that "debere'' means only "may 
 be?" Does it not convey the full force of 
 the word duty or " ought to be?'' Really 
 such disingenuous cavils would be beneath 
 the simple dignity of a manly "schoolboy!" 
 7. In your letter No. 15 you had evaded 
 the force of many extracts from your stand- 
 ard writers by the sweeping specific that 
 they expressed only their "opinions," and you 
 called for Ecclesiastical authority. I proceed- 
 ed accordingly to produce several specimens. 
 For example, I adduced Bellarmine's refer- 
 ence to the Council of Constance: (Mark it,) 
 not his opinion, but a fact; viz. he says that 
 the Council of Constance condemned the senti- 
 ments of John Huss and Jerome of Prague, 
 and handed them over to the civil power; and 
 they were burned. " As you say not one 
 word in reply, are we to hold you as acknow- 
 ledging this fact? If not, what is your re- 
 ply? Again, the same author says ''that the 
 laws of the Church decree that incorrigible 
 heretics should thus be dealt with, and that 
 an almost infinite number of heretics were 
 burned by the Church, as the Donatists, the 
 Manicheans, and Albigenses." Do you 
 deny it? And if you did, shall we believe 
 Jiim or you ? I spread out to your view 
 also the famous Bull of Innocent the 8th 
 against the poor peeled and butchered Wal- 
 denses. And how do you meet it? Do you 
 deny it? No, you dare not! Do you at- 
 tempt to explain it? No, you cannot/ 
 What then is your answer? "Pope Inno- 
 cent VIII. was elected in the year 1484 — 
 and it is not usual with our Popes to issue 
 hu^te -seven yeals before their election; such 
 bull* come from a"tiother quarter." That .-is, 
 there is a mistake of ten years in stating 
 the date of the bull! But will you deny 
 
144 
 
 that there was such a bull ? That it 
 was issued in 1487 instead of 1477: that it 
 enjoined in the name of the Pope, and the 
 name, of the Church, on all the Arch-Bishops 
 and Bishops — and all the faithful in virtue, 
 of holy obedience — to exterminate heretics by 
 arms — and that it gave to the crusaders a ple- 
 nary indulgence, and the remission of all their 
 sins once in their lives and at death? Will you 
 deny this? Can you explain it? Is it not ac- 
 cording to your call, just such "a document in 
 proof of my charge" as you have defied me to 
 "show" you? — If you have any doubts on 
 this subject, I refer you to Baronii An- 
 nates, Vol. XIX. page 386. section £5th. 
 
 To these authorities I subjoined an ex- 
 tract from the decree of the 3d. Lateran 
 Council, which in the most ample and awful 
 form confirms the proofs that heretics with- 
 out number have been exterminated by the 
 authority of General Councils. You at- 
 tempt no reply to the stubborn facts ad- 
 duced, for you well know that none could be 
 given; but as usual you descend to the 
 Jesuit's last resort, personal abuse. You 
 charge me with suppressing a part of this 
 decree which materially affects the sense of 
 the whole. This I am constrained, in self- 
 defence, to say is wholly false. It would 
 fill a folio volume to publish at large, the 
 multifarious and abominable documents from 
 which the Protestant is called to draw the 
 evidences of your church's corruption and 
 guilt. Covered up as they are in an un- 
 known tongue, and carefully withheld in 
 musty tomes and hidden recesses from the 
 public eye, they must be dragged, like male- 
 factors, to the light; and they come forth 
 muttering anathemas, and giving out strange 
 sounds of wrath. When 1 adduce them in 
 evidence, it is always in reference to some 
 leading topic; and it is my constant study 
 in every case to give the true sense, and con- 
 nected meaning of the passage in hand. Of 
 this every reader must be sensible, who has 
 impartially, and intelligently examined my 
 letters. (My object in this case, was to 
 prove that General Councils decreed the 
 destruction of heretics; and the extracts 
 which I furnished, proved this without 
 changing the meaning, or weakening the 
 force of a single word of the passage. Fa- 
 ber quotes just as I have done ; Baronius 
 your great annalist himself does not give 
 the decrees in continuity; - Caranza w ith 
 filial care om its the whole ,7 a'nd eveji Tf^ f 
 HtTg+res-HuaVes out several sentences- to- 
 ward the close, which go to strengthen my 
 statement. For example this: it is enjoined 
 
 that if any should presume to molest the 
 crusaders they should be excommunicated ; 
 and if Bishops or priests refuse to oppose 
 themselves decidedly to the heretics theyj 
 should be deprived of their offices. 
 
 But in the next place I ask what do the 
 omitted passages prove? The first is this, 
 " But if they die in this sin let them not receive 
 Christian burial, and let no offering be made 
 for them under pretence of any privilege 
 granted by us, or any other pretext what- 
 ever." How, I ask, does this passage help 
 your cause? Is it not a still farther illustra- 
 tion of the fact I am proving? Does it not 
 show that the Holy Council would not let 
 the poor heretics rest even in the grave, 
 where the most relentless laws of human 
 warfare cease to persecute? Does it not 
 further show that the Holy Council super- 
 added the pains of Hell, to murder, and to 
 the refusal of "Christian burial?" " I*et 
 no offering be made for them." That is, let 
 the pains of Hell press them; let no sacri- 
 fice be made for them; no oblation! 
 
 The other passage with whose exclusion 
 you find fault, is as follows: "As to the 
 Brabantians, Navarrii, Rasculi, Coterelli, 
 and Iriaverdimii, who exercise such cruelty 
 towards the Christians, that they pay no 
 respect to churches or monasteries, spare 
 neither widows, nor virgins, neither old nor 
 young, neither sex nor age, but after the 
 manner of the Pagans destroy and desolate 
 every thing, we, in like manner, decree that such 
 persons as shall protect, or retain, or encour- 
 age them, in, districts in winch they commit 
 these 'excesses, be publicly denounced in the 
 churches on Sundays and festival days, and 
 that they be considered as bound by the 
 same censure and penalty as the aforesaid 
 heretics, and be excluded from the commu- 
 nion of the church, until they shall have ab- 
 jured that pestiferous consociation and here- 
 sy. But let all persons who are implicated 
 with them in any crime, (alluding to their 
 vassals) know that they are released from 
 the obligation of fealty, homage, and subjec- 
 tion to them, so long as they continue in so 
 great iniquity." Now this passage intro- 
 duces another people besides those mention- 
 ed above, and charges them with other 
 crimes; and yet all are comprehended in 
 the same sweeping dispensation of death? 
 Does this make for your cause? 
 
 The grave Council were not very special- 
 ly scrupulous about verity, though "infallible." 
 But suppose it all true, to what does it 
 amount? Why to this, these heretics weee a 
 
 VERY WICKED MURDEROUS PEOPLE; THEREFORE 
 
yv 
 
 145 
 
 THE COUNCIL HAD A RIGHT TO EXTERMINATE 
 
 them! That this is what you mean is evi- 
 dent because you immediately add "I won- 
 ^oeT whether men of such a stamp would not 
 ^ be reduced to the penitentiary, if they com- 
 mitted such crimes in our day and in our 
 \ country?" But who shall reduce them to 
 Vthe penitentiary? Mr. Hughes owns that the 
 L Council decreed their destruction and pleads 
 ^that they deserved to die! Then Mr. Hughes, 
 while trying to "correct we," acknowledges 
 that where men deserve "to be reduced to 
 the penitentiary," the church may do it! 
 From his own showing therefore, and by the 
 " omitted^ passages it is avowed that the 
 church of Rome has the right in certain cases 
 to destroy Heretics! Again, Mr. Hughes 
 shows by the "omitted'' passage that in cer- 
 tain cases vassals may be released, by the 
 church from their obligation of fealty, 
 homage, and subjection, to their rulers. (See 
 again Wesley's argument in this connexion.) 
 Besides in the passages not disputed, this said 
 Council, (not the civil power but the church 
 of Rome in Council) decreed these Heretics 
 to "slavery.'' Tell me then Mr. Hughes, 
 
 " ARE LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF 
 HAPPINESS UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?" So SayS 
 
 our memorable Declaration of Independence. 
 Again: thisdecree inhibits allivho ivillnot take 
 up arms against said Heretics from the body 
 and blood of Christ. Now what has the 
 church of Christ to do with making war 
 and causing men to take up arms? Will you 
 tell me? Again; this decree of the church of 
 Rome "promises remission of sins" for tak- 
 ing up arms. Strange wages for the soldier, 
 even the price of blood! Will you then give 
 up the whole matter, or else explain these de- 
 crees, and bulls? How long shall an aston- 
 ished community wait, and for argument re- 
 ceive scandal; for reasoning, passion; for 
 facts, charges of falsehood? Is it any answer 
 to arguments from the bull of Innocent 8th, 
 to say, it was issued in 1487 and not in 1477? 
 Is it any explanation of the decree ordering 
 the murder of millions of Heretics, to say 
 they deserved to be destroyed, and that Mr. 
 Breckinridge omittedthe passages \\h\c\\prov- 
 ed that they deserved it? Tell me then has 
 the church the right to command or cause any 
 man however wicked to be put to death? 
 This is the question. I have proved from 
 bulls and decrees that she has commanded 
 and caused millions to be put to death (and 
 most of them innocent.) Now why did she 
 do it? Can you defend it? Can you ex- 
 plain it? Can you shun it? Can you meet it? 
 
 Yet this is your infallible rule of faith; and 
 this your way to save the world! 
 
 The result of all our inquiries is this, that 
 the church of Rome is upon a principle, 
 avowedly in her standards, a persecuting 
 church. If Mr. Hughes denies it, he con- 
 tradicts public documents; if he disclaims, 
 and denounces it, he gives up the infallibility 
 of his church. Protestants have persecuted 
 also; but with this difference: 1. It has been 
 in the ratio of a thousand to one. 2. They 
 did it in spite of their system, not according 
 to it, and as a part of it; and they neither 
 deny it or defend it. Having disposed of 
 these indefensible Bulls, Decrees, &c, let 
 us see for a moment what you have done, or 
 rather omitted in your last letter on the rule 
 of faith, which of late days you scarce y 
 touch. 1. What have you said to explain 
 your dilemma, which makes you justify 
 Christ's crucifixion, or give up infallibility? 
 Not a word. 2. What have you said in an- 
 swer t» my threefold exposure of the doc- 
 trine of infallibility, in my last letter? Not a 
 word. You seem afraid to touch again even 
 the rim of one of your circulating syllogisms. 
 3. What have have you said of "the Apo- 
 cryphal Books?" Not a word. 4. What 
 have you said of "Unwritten Traditions?'' 
 Not a word, except to allude to the powerful 
 essay of Bishop Onderdonk. On this topic 
 your reserve, though often called on by me, 
 has left for his able pen an ample field. Your 
 " answer" to his " charge on the rule of 
 faith," (like those gigantic arguments pledg- 
 ed in your letter No. 2 against me) is no 
 doubt destined to live and die, in the land of 
 promise. 5. " The unanimous consent of 
 the Fathers.''' Where is it? It is a part of 
 your rule of faith! But where is it? In vain 
 have I proved it an impossibility, an absurdi- 
 ty, &c. Not a word from you on this subject, 
 except that when I quote the " Fathers" 
 against you, you say I have left the Scrip* 
 tures as a rule of faith, and appeal to the 
 Fathers! 6. I offered to discuss with you, 
 the evidence of the Divinity of our Lord, 
 from the word of God. Though you had said 
 this doctrine could not be proved from the 
 Bible alone; yet you entirely decline to 
 meet me on this subject. 7. I put four 
 questions to you drawn from the "docu- 
 ments'' of your church! You call them 
 ' ; little questions:" yet small as they are 
 you do not attempt an answer. Why silent? 
 Is it so then, that your people are prohibit- 
 ed from hearing Protestants preach? Why 
 then such outcry about the warning against 
 the reading of the controversy? Is it so, that 
 
146 
 
 X 
 
 gour people are prohibited the perusal of 
 rotius, Locke, Milton, Saurin, Young, &c. ! 
 Where then, are the rights of conscience? 
 Is not this despotism? Does it not show 
 Rome an enemy to knowledge? Is not a 
 license necessary to read them, and to read 
 all " controversies" with heretics ? And 
 is this the reason that you help out in the 
 pulpit the imbecilities of your appeals from 
 the press, and give the substance of the 
 Protestant's arguments on the Sabbath to 
 those who may not without license dare to 
 read them in the week? And is it true that 
 the Bible is chained to the altar, and none 
 can wilhput permission, read it ? And does 
 your rule of faith teach that God's word will 
 injure and mislead his creatures? 
 
 8. Long, long ago, I brought to view the fact 
 that the Pope had ordered Catholic books to 
 be altered, and amended,- and that even the 
 Fathers had been by authority "expurg- 
 ated" to make them speak the language of 
 the church. Have you denied it? Have you 
 explained it? 
 
 9. I proved from the Pope's Encyclical let- 
 ter, lately issued, that he had pronounced 
 the liberty of the press "that fatal license 
 
 OF WHICH WE CANNOT ENTERTAIN TOO MUCH 
 
 horror:" and that he called "liberty of 
 
 CONSCIENCE, AN ABSURD AMD DANGEROUS 
 MAXIM, OR RATHER THE RAVING OF DELI- 
 RIUM." You say in your last letter, as to 
 restrictions on the press, and on books, 
 " Catholic States, like Protestant States, 
 manage their own affairs pretty much as they 
 please." But the Pope's letter, as the name 
 imports, is not for Italy or Spain, but for the 
 whole church every where,— for the secretary 
 who announced the Pope's jubilee; and from 
 the head of the church! Does the secretary 
 adopt the Pope's principles ? or are these 
 only " opinions'''' of the Pope? Do you think 
 with a western Prelate of the church of 
 Rome, that "as long as the Republican Gov- 
 ernment (in this country) shall subsist," the 
 labours of the missionaries among the west- 
 ern tribes of Indians are almost fruitless? 
 Or do you think with Bishop England, who 
 said " The Americans are loud in their*re- 
 ...robation of your servile aristocracy (in Ire- 
 land) who would degrade religion by placing 
 its concerns under the controul of a king's 
 minister; and couldyour aristocratsand place- 
 hunters view the state of Catholicity here, 
 they would inveigh against the Democrats 
 who would degrade religion by placing its con- 
 cerns under the controul of a mob; and I am 
 perfectly convinced both are right. In both 
 cases the principle is exactly the same — the 
 
 mode of carrying it into operation is different." 
 10. The 3d edition, (in rather an emaciated 
 condition) of your ten heads, though twice v 
 replied to, appears in your last letter. All 1 
 I have to say now is this, — that, throughout 
 your attempts at discussion, you have called 
 " private interpretation" our rule of faith. 
 The Bible is our infallible rule of faith. The 
 Bible is the rule ; interpretation is the wse> 
 of the rule. If men pervert it, that is not 
 the rule of faith. If men abuse the light of 
 the sun to evil deeds, still it is the sun. If 
 one takes a truerule and gives a. false measure, 
 is it the fault of the rule? While the Bible 
 is our rule, I have shown that your rule is (1 .) 
 the Bible, (2.) the Apocrypha, (3.) " Unwrit- 
 ten Traditions,'' (4.) the unanimous consent 
 of the fathers, (5.) interpreted by an infalli- 
 ble judge, who has not spoken for near 
 three hundred years; and whose writings and 
 interpretations make a library in a dead lan- 
 guage. And now when Mr. Hughes as- 
 cends the desk with these ponderous tomes, 
 he has our Bible, to interpret privately, that 
 is, to do it himself — and all the difficulties 
 of the Protestants attend him too — for 
 he is fallible: and he has also the Apocry- 
 pha, "unwritten traditions" (if he can 
 find them) ''the unanimous consent of the 
 Fathers," and the immense volumes of de- 
 crees, canons, bulls, the missal and breviary, 
 to interpret and preach. This Mr. Hughes 
 owns in the last letter, where he says " we 
 exercise our judgment, and arrive by a ra- 
 tional process of investigation at the proof of 
 our doctrines." And now when Dr. White, 
 or Dr. Brantly, or Dr. Miller ascends the 
 pulpit with the pure unincumbered Bible, 
 are they not as likely to get at the truth as 
 Mr. Hughes? Either Mr. Hughes is infalli- 
 ble, which I think, now, no body will ima- 
 gine, or else these Protestant preachers, are, 
 to say the least, as likely as he, to be safe 
 instructors of the people. In a word there 
 is unanswerable proof that if your Church has 
 infallibility it is perfectly useless; and cannot 
 be applied unless every priest and every 
 Prelate be personally infallible. But your 
 infallibility is a figment; and your rule of 
 faith was never established by the Lord Je- 
 sus Christ. 
 
 But before I close this letter I wish in 
 preparation for the discussion of other topics, 
 briefly to show the necessity of a Reformation 
 in ; the Church of Rome at the time when 
 hiither appeared, as well as for ages before. 
 As my remaining space is small, and the 
 r 'ources of information are almost without 
 limit, I will here confine myself to one or 
 
147 
 
 two authorities. Take for example, the let- 
 ter written by four Cardinals antl four other 
 Prelates, to the Pope, by his order on the 
 subject of reform in the church. (As this 
 letter extends to many pages, you will not 
 charge me with garbling if I give only ex- 
 tracts. The Catholic Herald, however, may 
 liave the whole of it for publication.) They 
 tell his Holiness " of abuses and most griev- 
 ous distempers, wherewith the church of 
 God, and especially the court of Rome, has 
 for a long time been affected; whereby it 
 had come to pass, that these pestilent dis- 
 eases growing to their height by little and 
 little, the church as we see is upon the very 
 brink of ruin." "Your holiness very well 
 understands the original of these mischiefs; 
 that some Popes your predecessors, having 
 itching ears, as says the Apostle Paul, heap- 
 ed up teachers alter their own lusts, not to 
 learn from them what they ought to do, but 
 that they should take pains and employ 
 their wit to .find out ways how it might be 
 lawful for them to do what they pleased. 
 Hence it is come to pass that there have 
 been Doctors ever ready to maintain that all 
 benefices being the Pope's, and the Lord 
 having a right to sell what is his own, it 
 must necessarily follow that the Pope is not 
 capable of the guilt of Simony ; in so much 
 that the Pope's will and pleasure, whatever 
 it be, must needs be the rule of all that he 
 does; which doubtless would end in believ- 
 ing every thing lawful that he had a mind to 
 do. From this source, as from the Trojan 
 horse, so many abuses, and such mortal dis- 
 eases have broken forth into the church of 
 God, which have reduced her as we see al- 
 most to a state of desperation; the fame of 
 these things having come to the ears even 
 of Infidels, (let your holiness believe us 
 speaking what we know) who deride Chris- 
 tianity more for this than for any thing else; 
 so that through ourselves, we must needs 
 say, through ourselves, the name of Christ 
 is blasphemed among the nations." They 
 proceed to say, " we will touch upon the mat- 
 ters only that belong to the office of univer- 
 sal pastor, some also that are proper to the 
 Roman Bishop." They dwell with peculiar 
 emphasis upon the point "that it is not law- 
 ful for the Pope who is Christ's Vicar, to make 
 any gain to himself of the use of the keys." 
 Another abuse is, " that in the ordination of 
 Priests no manner of care and diligence is 
 used; the most uneducated youths of evil 
 manners, are admitted to holy orders; from 
 hence grow innumerable scandals; and the 
 reverence of God's worship is well nigh ex- 
 
 tinguished." " Another abuse is the chang- 
 ing of benefices upon contracts that are all 
 of them simonical, and in which no regard 
 is had to any thing but gain." "Almost 
 all the Pastors are withdrawn from their 
 flocks which are almost every where en- 
 trusted with hirelings" •* In the orders of 
 the religious, many of them are so degene- 
 rate that they are grown scandalous.'' 
 " Another abuse, is that with Nuns un- 
 der the care of conventual Friars, in most 
 Monasteries, public sacrileges are commit- 
 ted, to the intolerable scandal of the citi- 
 zens!" "The collectors for the Holy 
 Ghost, St. Anthony, and others of this 
 kind, put cheats upon rustics, and simple 
 people; and entangle them in a world of su- 
 perstition." " Another abuse is the absolu- 
 tion of a simonical person — this plague reigns 
 in the church — they buy their absolution, 
 and so they keep the benefice they bought 
 before." "This city of Rome is both the 
 mother of the church and mistress of other 
 churches, wherefore the worship of God and 
 purity of manners should flourish there most 
 of all. But yet holy father all strangers are 
 scandalized when they go into St. Peter's 
 church and see what slovenly, ignorant 
 priests say mass there." " Nay in this city 
 ****** walk about as if they were goodly 
 matrons, and are at noon-day followed up 
 and down by men of the best account in the 
 families of Cardinals, and by clergymen." 
 " We hope that you are chosen to restore the. 
 name of Christ forgotten by the nations and 
 even by us the clergy, that hereafter it may 
 live in our hearts, and appear in our actions; 
 to heal our diseases, to reduce the flock of 
 Christ into one sheepfold, to remove from us 
 that indignation and vengeance of God, 
 which we deserve, which is now ready to fall 
 upon us, which now hangs over our heads!" 
 This portentous letter was addressed to 
 Paul the 3d. One of its authors was after- 
 wards a pope himself. The picture it gives 
 of the state of the church, leaves room for no 
 comment. I only add, that long before 
 this, Council after Council had de- 
 creed A REFORMATION TO BE INDISPENSA- 
 BLE ; — Pope after Pope had owned that 
 
 IT WAS NEEDED — AND EUROPE RESOUNDED 
 WITH THE CALL FOR REFORMATION. 
 
 I am youps, &c. John Breckinridge. 
 
 P. S. I cannot stoop to notice any far- 
 ther your impertinent calls for a name. Mr. 
 Burtt was the original, responsible informant. 
 In him my information terminates. He in- 
 formed the person who wrote to me. His 
 name you have; and can claim no more. J.B. 
 
i 
 
CONTROVERSY N°. 19. 
 
 Rule of Faith. 
 
 Philadelphia, June 6th, 1833. 
 To the Rev. John Breckinridge. 
 
 Rev. Sir,— I pay no attention to the 
 charges of "insolence," "impertinence" 
 "temper," &c which you are politely pleas- 
 ed to make against me. If these traits 
 were so manifest in my letters, it would 
 have been quite unnecessary for you to 
 apprise the public of the fact. On these 
 matters, as well as all the rest, the public 
 will form its own judgment without the aid 
 of direction from either of us. 
 
 You say that my proposal to meet you be- 
 fore the General Assembly, for the purpose 
 of exposing the falsified quotations in your 
 letters " is unfortunately too, late." I regret 
 this very much. But you are aware that the 
 Bishops continued in session, long enough, 
 after you had received my last letter, for you 
 to have the matter decided before them. If 
 you have not done so, and will not expose 
 vourself to the consequences of having the 
 
 "add" or "omit" such words and senten- 
 ces as may be necesaary to make him express 
 the meaning which you intend to convey. 
 It is a pity that this Presbyterian license is 
 not conceded to the members of the Bar, 
 Then we should see the authorities of Black- 
 stone, and Littleton, quoted to defend the 
 o-uilty culprit, and screen him from the ope- 
 rations of justice. But the advocate who 
 should be detected, suppressing a sentence 
 in the middle of a citation, and thus per- 
 verting the meaning, of such authority, 
 would, I believe, get permission to quit the 
 court-house. But ministers of the Gospel, 
 it seems, may do such things with impu- 
 nity. 
 
 In fact, so far from being abashed by the 
 exposure, you seem to derive new courage 
 from it. One of the suppressed passages 
 was as follows. — The Council decreed that 
 those who died in the crime and guilt of he- 
 should not receive the rites of " Chris- 
 
 Ss^cCTw- quotations, tian J burial ' Throws, says Mr Br k 
 
 decided by an impartial umpire, then I can inndge, "that the Holy councd would not let 
 
 oSVsurmfse that you have your reasons for the poor Heretics rest even in the : grave." No 
 
 your p^sent course. Prudence, we are Rev. S,r,-for the 'poor here ics were not 
 
 told, is the better part of valour. Experi- 
 ence has taught us both, that no Presbyteri- 
 an, who has the reputation of a scholar to 
 lose, is willing to risk it on the decision of 
 your case. If you would only reciprocate 
 my courtesy, and choose a Catholic umpire, 
 he would soon decide. None of those mo- 
 tives of delicacy, which influenced Doctor 
 Wylie would occur to him. But the pub- 
 lic may expect to see the extent of your 
 falsifications of authorities, in the shape of 
 an appendix to this Controversy. The ori- 
 ginal text and context, placed in juxtapo- 
 sition with the garblings contained in your 
 letters, will make the matter plain to all. 
 
 I was quite at a loss to know how you 
 would exculpate yourself, for having suppres- 
 sed the passages which I quoted in my last 
 letter. But the moment I saw your reply, 
 the whole difficulty vanished. It seems that 
 in your quotations, you are scrupulous only 
 about the sense. And as the author did not 
 understand what he was writing, you merely 
 
 dead yet. It merely shows that lohen they 
 shoidd die, they were not to receive the rites 
 of burial, after the manner of the Christians 
 from whom they had separated themselves, 
 by heresy. " No offering is to be made for 
 them" says the council. This shows, says 
 Mr. Breckinridge, " that the holy council 
 
 SUPERADDED THE PAINS OF HELL, TO MURDER, 
 AND TO THE REFUSAL OF CHRISTIAN BURIAL." 
 
 Why, sir, with the aid of your pen, "this" 
 may "show" any thing — and to those who 
 are willing to see, it shows a great deal. 
 Comment is unnecessary. 
 
 But why should you not in your turn ac- 
 cuse me also of misrepresentation ? And es- 
 pecially as you never attempt to prove what 
 you assert, in making such charges. I find 
 myself consequently arraigned on seven di** 
 ferent counts. To wit, 1st. The Confession 
 of Faith. 2. The persecution of the Catho- 
 lics of Maryland by the Puritans. 3. The 
 hanging of the Quakers in New England 
 by the same sect. 4. The principle laid 
 
150 
 
 down by John Wesley on the subject of tole- 
 rating; Catholics. 5. The reference to your 
 acknowledgment at our late interview of hav- 
 ing garbled the extract from the 4th council 
 of Lateran. 6. My charge against you, of 
 having falsified the words of Bellarmine. — 
 To all of which I plead not guilty, for the 
 following reasons, in order. 
 
 1. As to the Confession of Faith, I quo- 
 ted the words, referred to the page, — 
 specified the Publisher and the date of pub- 
 lication. I could not be more scrupulously 
 exact in my reference. Did I say any thing 
 that / did not prove? You have not been 
 able to point it out. It is true there is a 
 " reformed" edition of the confession, exact- 
 ly twelve years old, from which it seems the 
 " offensive passages have been solemnly re- 
 jected." But I quoted from the Confession, 
 which according to Dr. Miller both Minis- 
 ters and candidates, had been "obliged" to 
 adopt, as the summary of the Bible, in the 
 year 1729. How then am I guilty of mis- 
 representation? Was I deceived by Dr. 
 Miller's authority ? 
 
 2. In my letter No. 15, I quoted from Jef- 
 ferson's Notes on Virginia. He testifies that 
 the Puritans, persecuted by the Episcopalians 
 of Virginia, emigrated in considerable num- 
 bers to Maryland, to enjoy under a Popish 
 Proprietary that liberty of conscience which 
 had been denied them, by their fellow Pro- 
 testants. 1 quoted also Wynne's Hist. of Brit. 
 Empire in America, for proof that they dis- 
 possessed the Catholics, who had thus re- 
 ceived them, of civil power as soon as they 
 were able. And that, on the Revolution in 
 England, they adopted the whole penal code 
 of persecution against them. Consequently, 
 there is neither mistake nor misrepresen- 
 tation in this. I merely gave the testimony, 
 not of Catholic, but of Protestant historians. 
 If then all this is, as the word of Mr. Breck- 
 inridge assures us "an utter fabrication" 
 then the issue is between him and the Pro- 
 testant writers whom I quoted at the time. 
 
 3. As to the persecution and hanging of 
 the Quakers in New England I gave also 
 Protestant authority, Hist, of Baptists in 
 New England, vol. I. p. 390. — where, be- 
 sides, others, whose names are given, there is 
 an account of a female, named Mary Dyer, 
 having been hanged for the crime of Quaker- 
 ism on the 1st of June 1 660. Consequently, 
 there is no mistake, in this statement. You call 
 the authors of these persecutions "unto the 
 death," " Congregationalists.'* But the dis- 
 tinction between them, and Presbyterians, is 
 too fine for modern powers of discrimination. 
 
 As I gave my authority for the fact, at the 
 time, I am the more surprised at your asking, 
 " upon what authority / have ventured 
 to utter so unfounded a charge ?" Unfound- 
 ed ! 
 
 4. The next case has reference to my re- 
 marks on the general proposition laid down 
 by John Wesley, and if that be incorrect, 
 again, let Wesley's own^words be responsi- 
 ble. Two respectable gentlemen, of the 
 Methodist persuasion, called on me the other 
 day, to say, that, in their opinion, I had been 
 unjust towards him, by the isolated manner, 
 in which his sentiment was introduced. I 
 felt obliged to them for their politeness, in 
 advising me of what they conceived to be my 
 mistake, and what they regarded at the same 
 time as an injury to one, for whose memory, 
 it is but natural that they should entertain 
 respect. Accordingly I shall, as agreed 
 upon, submit that portion of the context, 
 which they think necessary to elucidate the 
 
 meaning of the passage already quoted 
 
 " That no Roman Catholic does or can give 
 security for his allegiance or peaceable be- 
 haviour, I prove thus: It is a Roman Catho- 
 lic maxim, established, not by private men, 
 but, by a public Council (so said Mr. Wes- 
 ley) that, ' no faith can be kept with heretics.' 
 This has been openly avowed by the Council 
 ot Constance, but it never was openly dis- 
 claimed. Whether private persons avow or 
 disavow it, it is & fixed maxim of the Church 
 of Rome: but as long as it is so, nothing can 
 be more plain, than that the members of that 
 Church can give no reasonable security to 
 any government of their allegiance or peace- 
 able behaviour j therefore, they ought not to 
 be tolerated by any government, Protestant, 
 Mahometan or Pagan. 1,1 
 
 The words marked in italics are those 
 which I quoted, to show Mr. Wesley's sen- 
 timents on the subject of tolerance and per- 
 secution. It is not an acccidental phrase, 
 snatched from the middle of a paragraph- 
 But it is a cool deliberate conclusion, evolved 
 with syllogistic precision from a train of artifi- 
 cial reasoning, and apparently sober reflection. 
 But could not, and did not, every persecutor, 
 justify his cruelty by reasons which were sa- 
 tisfactory to his own mind? — But reasons^ of 
 the justice of which, he never could con- 
 vince the victim of his intolerance. 
 
 The decision of the Council of Constance, 
 referred to by Mr. Wesley, had its meaning 
 qualified by the very circumstances in which 
 it originated— which I shall briefly state. 
 John Huss, a Priest of Bohemia, was cited 
 before the Council,' — he recognised the tribu- 
 
151 
 
 nai; — and obeyed the citation. His doc- 
 trines were condemned as heretical, and on 
 his refusing to retract them, he was given oyer 
 to the civil laws of that city, which was free 
 and independent. According to these laws, 
 death was the penalty of the crime, of which 
 Huss had heen convicted; — and accordingly, 
 like Michael Servelusin Geneva, he was burn- 
 ed to death. 
 
 But then, the ' faith' on which Wesley 
 built his syllogism, had been pledged to John 
 Huss, by the Emperor Sigismund in the 
 form of a safe conduct, or passport going, 
 to, and returning from the Council. Nova 
 this ' faith' had not been kept with the hcrm- 
 tic, since he was not allowed to return ;^Tut 
 was 1 executed — whilst the Council decided, 
 that the party who had pledged this ' faith,* 
 was not bound by its obligation, for the fol- 
 lowing reasons. 1st. Because the safe conduct 
 granted by the Emperor could not deprive 
 the Council of its spiritual right to deter- 
 mine whether the doctrines of Huss were 
 heresies, or not. 2. Because it could not 
 controul the administration ol the civil laws 
 of an independent state, (as Constance was) 
 in which, the Emperor had no authority. 
 
 3. Because Huss had attempted to escape, 
 and thereby forfeited the protection of Ids 
 passport, even if it could have protected him, 
 
 4. Because, it was understood between the 
 Emperor and Huss, in their interview at 
 Prague, that if the Council should condemn 
 his doctrines, he (Huss) would retract them; 
 — the Emperor telling him, notwithstanding 
 the passport, that if he did not retract, in 
 such a case, he, himself, would light the pile 
 to consume Huss. These are the facts of the 
 case, and the decree simply declares that, as 
 the Emperor had done " what was in his 
 power,'''' — having no power over the doctrinal 
 decision of the Council; nor yet over the ma- 
 gistrates of Constance ; there was no viola- 
 tion of the ' faith' he had pledged by his 
 passport. Here are the whole extent, origin 
 and circumstances of that famous decree. 
 for which the Catholics of the British em- 
 pire have been persecuted for the last three 
 hundred years. This decision, thus truly 
 explained, is what Mr. Wesley perverts into 
 a " Roman Catholic maxim,^ and from 
 which he concludes, " therefore, Catholics 
 ought not to be tolerated by any govern- 
 ment, Protestant, Mahometan, or Pagan," 
 It never was a Roman Catholic maxim, ex- 
 cept when Pro'estant calumny made it so. 
 
 But the occasion on which Mr. Wesley gave 
 publicity to this unchristian and intolerant 
 sentiment, shows to what an extent his judg- 
 
 ment, or his feelings had been perverted. It 
 was at a time when the friends of civil and 
 religious freedom in Great Britain, were 
 struggling for the repeal of some of the most 
 unnatural laws that ever were framed by 
 the ingenious cruelty of man. The worst of 
 them had been in operation against the Ca- 
 tholics for nearly one hundred years, having 
 been enacted in 1699. It was for the pur- 
 pose of preventing the repeal of these perse- 
 cuting laws that the sanguinary mob, of which 
 /Lord George Gordon was the prime spirit, 
 had formed itself into what was called the 
 '.' Protestant association." Under the gui- 
 dance of this fanatic, first a Protestant and 
 then a Jew, the Catholics of London were 
 sought for to be massacred; — their houses 
 and^chapels burned to the ground; and their 
 clergy and themselves hunted into holes and 
 coiners. The Hon. Edmund Burke a Protes- 
 tant, says, in reference to these Protestant 
 barbarities so well calculated to stir the blood 
 of men, that, on the part of the Catholics, 
 " not a hand was moved to retaliate, or even 
 to defend. Had the conflict once begun*' 
 says he, "the rage of their persecutors would 
 have redoubled. Thus fury increasing by 
 the reverberation of outrages, house being 
 fired for house, and church for chapel, I am 
 convinced that no power under Heaven could 
 have prevented a general conflagration; and 
 at this day London would have been a tale." 
 (Speech at Bristol vol. 2. Boat. ed. page 261.) 
 
 Mr. Wesley was no stranger to their prin- 
 ciples, and we may infertile character of his 
 own from the fact, that in his old age he 
 stood forth with all the influence of his re- 
 puted sanctity as the public defender of this 
 '• Protestant association;" and attempted to 
 prove by a syllogism, that " Catholics ought 
 not to be tolerated by any Government, Pro- 
 testant, Mohammedan or Pagan.'" A more 
 savage theorem never proceeded from a Chris- 
 tian pen. Still Mr. Wesley said he would 
 not persecute any man for his religion. But 
 the Apostle tells' us "to love, not in word 
 and in tongue, but in truth and in deed." 
 Now I submit to the gentlemen themselves 
 who called on me, to say, in candor, whether 
 I had been unjust towards the memory of 
 Mr. Wesley in my former remark. 
 
 5. You deny that, in our " late interview," 
 you had acknowledged having garbled the 
 extract from the 4th Council of Lateran, by 
 " leaving out whole sentences." And char- 
 acterise my assertion to that effect as a " gra- 
 tuitous MISREPRESENTATION." Let US See. 
 
 In reference to this extract, in responding at 
 the time, to my question — " Do you give it 
 
152 
 
 as continuous and literal ?'' Your reply was 
 " I answer unhesitatingly — I do." In our 
 interview you acknowledged that you had 
 omitted whole, sentences " in the extract.'' 
 How then, could you have said, that it was 
 "continuous"? In your last letter you ad- 
 mit, that the extract was not "continuous,'''' 
 by telling us that you "gave an abstract 
 or continued sense of the whole passage}' 
 How then, can you say, that it is "gratuitous 
 misrepresentation" to have given you credit 
 for this acknowledgment? Let the public^ 
 judge by the facts. 
 
 6. Your were detected in representing a 
 chapter of Bellarmine that, " it was the duty 
 of the Church to burn heretics." Bellarmine 
 never said so. But it was the 'sense' you 
 will contend. No, Rev. Sir, it was not the 
 sense; and even if it were, it was literary 
 forgery, to place it between inverted commas, 
 as it were the very words of the author. 
 Now, however, you give a new quotation, 
 and transfer it to the "very first sentence 
 in the chapter." It would be, the "first" 
 sentence, were it not that there are in the 
 chapter two paragraphs going before it. Bel- 
 larmine contended that the church "may 
 and ought," to cast off heretics, from her 
 communion. This is Presbyterian, as well as 
 Catholic, doctrine. Bellarmine contended 
 that heretics, so cast off, " may and ought" to 
 be punished "by the civil power, with tem- 
 poral penalties and even death itself," as the 
 case may require. This is not, never was, 
 never will be, any part or portion of Catholic 
 doctrine. And in the paragraph immediate- 
 ly preceding that which you call, " the very 
 first sentence of the chapter, Bellarmine 
 quotes Calvin, Beza, and other " Reformers," 
 to show that they all held the principle which 
 he was about to lay down. It is singular 
 enough that whenever he wished to establish 
 the principle of persecution, he invariably quo- 
 ted the authority and practice of John Cal- 
 vin. How much could he have strengthen- 
 ed the argument of intolerance, if, living at 
 this day, he might appeal to facts and show, 
 as I can, that persecution even unto blood, 
 has, in every country, attended the political 
 ascendency of Calvinism ! 
 
 7. The "fact" on which you lay such em- 
 phasis, touching the case of "John Huss and 
 Jerome of Prague," has been sufficiently 
 disposed of under the head of Mr. Wesley's 
 case. Protestants look upon these heretics 
 as "Reformers" — but they were such " Re- 
 formers," as would have been consigned to 
 the gallows, if they had preached their doc- 
 Vines in Boston, in the year 1660. 
 
 The remainder oi your letter is miscella- 
 neous. With regard to the Bull of Inno- 
 cent VIII. , the original of which is "in the 
 University of Cambridge," (as you tell us) 
 it appears you made a "mistake" of ten 
 years as to its date. But such " mistakes" 
 seem to be the very source and secret 
 of your proioess. Accordingly gathering 
 strength from exposure, and having an eye to 
 the susceptibilities of human sympathy, you 
 >tell us quite pathetically: — " I spread out to 
 your view also the infamous Bull of Pope 
 Jnnocent VIII. against the poor peeled and 
 Vutchered Waldenses." If they were "peel- 
 eat and butchered," it was wasting parch- 
 inem to make any decree against them. 
 Parsons, it seems, can issue Bulls as well 
 as Popes. You ask me how "I meet it?" 
 I answer, so long as it is in the " University 
 of Cambridge," and no where else, I am not 
 disposed to meet it at all. You ask me, "Do 
 I deny it?" And without waiting for my 
 answer, you reply that " I dare not." Now 
 I reply, that I " dare," and do, deny it, flat- 
 ly. We have advanced too far in the dis- 
 cussion, for me or the public to receive your 
 assertion, as authority for its existence in 
 " Cambridge." — And there is no such docu- 
 ment found in the Bullarium of Innocent 
 VIII. which I have examined. Besides, the 
 very history of it given by you, carries with 
 it, to those who are acquainted with the sub- 
 ject, prima facie evidence of fabrication. 
 Lawyers, cunning rogues, have a way of 
 sifting and exposing false testimony, which 
 the witness himself never suspected. 
 
 But the 3d Council of Lateran, after having 
 directed with great cruelty, that when the 
 "poor heretics" died, "they should not re- 
 ceive the rites of Christian burial" in their 
 interment; — and that " no oblation should be 
 made for them ;" — decreed also that it was 
 lawful for princes to reduce those other "poor 
 heretics" (whose history you thought proper 
 to suppress) to slavery; for no crime in the 
 world ! except " destroying churches and 
 monasteries, sparing neither widows nor vir- 
 gins, neither old nor young, neither sex nor 
 age, but desolating every thing, after the mem- 
 ner of pagans!!! On this my Rev. oppo- 
 nent says, " Tell me then, Mr. Hughes, 
 " are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi- 
 ness, unalienable rights? So says our memo- 
 rable Declaration of Independence." I will 
 tell you then, as you do not seem to be aware 
 of the fact, that Pope Alexander III., under 
 whom this Council was held, did more for 
 the extinction of slavery than all the Con- 
 gresses and all the societies that ever exist- 
 
153 
 
 ed in America. He abolished it as far as he 
 could, and in allowing these "poor heretics," 
 who committed such crimes against society 
 to be reduced to slavery, he only madejin 
 exception to his own laws. But when^ 
 wished to pay a compliment to " our memo 
 rable Declaration of Independence, were 
 you not rather unfortunate in coupling it 
 with an allusion to the question of slavery ? 
 Was the allusion made ironically? It 
 reminds me of the negro slave, who, on 
 his way to Georgia through Washington, 
 shook his manacled hands at the Capitol, 
 and began to sing, " Hail Columbia, 
 land." 
 
 Then follows the usual train of " 1 
 questions.'' 1. "What have you said to 
 explain your dilemma, which makes you 
 justify the crucifixion of Christ or give up 
 your infallibility? Not a word." There was 
 no dilemma in the case. The infallibility 
 of the Synagogue ceased from the moment that 
 Christ made the revelation of his doctrines. 
 This I had "said." 2. "What have you 
 said in answer to my threefold exposure of 
 the doctrine of infallibility, in my last let- 
 ter? Not a word." The only " exposure" 
 I could discover in your last letter, was the 
 exposure of yourself. And on this I said 
 what I was compelled to say in truth; to the 
 which, you reply with the argument of epi- 
 thets " insolence," "slander," " bully,"" im- 
 pertinent," and other graceful expressions. 3. 
 " What have you said of the Apocryphal 
 books? Not a word." Why yes, I said and 
 proved that the Reformers turned those books 
 out of the canon; — that Calvin cut oft' the Apo- 
 calypse, Luther the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 St. James and St. Jude; and I showed that 
 Protestants have the same authority for the 
 books which they regard as apocryphal, 
 which they have for any of those which 
 are called deutero-canonical. Do you not 
 recollect the letter in which I convicted you 
 of having made a little mistake of about 
 eleven hundred years, in reference to the 
 formation of the canon? 4. " What have 
 you said of unwritten traditions? Not a 
 word." The same answer suits all ques- 
 tions. 5. "The unanimous consent of the 
 Fathers. Where is it?" It is in every doc- 
 trine of the Catholic Church — in all those 
 dogmas which are held by Catholic/atf/i — and 
 rejected by Protestant opinions. 6. "I of- 
 fered to discuss with you the evidence of 
 the Divinity of our Lord, from the word of 
 God." You did; and I referred you to the 
 Universalist with whom you agree, as to 
 the rule of faith. 7. "I put four questions to 
 
 you — and yet small as they are, you do not 
 attempt to answer them." The reader will 
 observe that it was in answer to these ques- 
 tions, that I gave an extract from Rush- 
 worth, showing that the Episcopal prayer 
 ' ok was put on the Presbyterian Index Ex- 
 
 rgalorious, as a prohibited book. The 
 reading of it, was, for the first " offence," five 
 polndsyme; the second, ten; and the third, 
 iprisonmenl.^ 
 
 'As to "Grotius, Locke, Milton, Saurin, and 
 ^oung" — ask the first educated Catholic you 
 
 eet, and perhaps, notwithstanding the pre- 
 ended prohibition, he will convince you 
 that he is better acquainted with those au- 
 thors, than some Protestant ministers. Even 
 your letters are read; and Catholics, in the 
 perusal, are comforted with the recollection 
 of the divine words, "Blessed are you when 
 men shall say all manner of evil against you 
 falsely, for my sake." 
 
 Your reference to Bellarmine ("Book 3. 
 chap. 23 of Laics") is attended with the usu- 
 al fatality. There is no 23d chapter in the 
 book. Bellarmine in the 22d and last chap- 
 ter, speaking of the circumstances in which 
 " heretics, thieves and other wicked men, are 
 to be rooted out," lays down the rule nearly 
 as quoted. But the scrap of latin which 
 you have citeil, in parenthesis, though con- 
 sisting of three words only, is falsified. 
 "Sunt procul extirpandi" are the words of 
 your letter, "Sunt procul dubio extirpandi," 
 are those of the author. But, as usual, you. 
 will say that you give the sense! and ask 
 with increasing energy, what difference is 
 caused, in the meaning, by the suppression I 
 You might also have told your readers, that 
 Bellarmine in the remarks referred to, gave 
 them as the sentiments of St. .Augustine, who 
 is rather a favourite with Presbyterians. 
 He gives the book and chapter of that Fa- 
 ther's works where the sentiments may be 
 found. 
 
 Having been pressed at an early stage of 
 the controversy by arguments on the rule of 
 faith, you seem to have thought that a topic 
 which would be more in accordance with the 
 prejudices of Protestants would suit better. 
 Persecution was a favourite theme. It was 
 most likely to catch the eye of popular feel- 
 ing. But the tables have been turned against 
 you. It has been shown on the testimony of 
 Protestant writers, that all the Reformers 
 were persecutors — whilst the Presbyterians, 
 when they had political power, sacrificed a 
 greater number of human victims to the de- 
 mon of intolerance than any other denomina- 
 tion. There is no country, no colony in 
 
1S4 
 
 which Presbyterians wielded the sword of 
 civil power, without dying it, in the blood 
 of persecution. What advantage then Rev. 
 Sir, have you derived from the discussion of 
 this unpleasant topic, which, considering the 
 sect whose name you bear, you should hav, 
 been the last to introduce. The religion of 
 Christ does not authorise persecution — and 
 yet Protestants have persecuted quite as 
 fiercely as Catholics. This is the amoufct 
 of it. 
 
 But then the rule of faith — to which yd 
 promised " strict adherence.'' What has 
 become of it? Your last letter, brief as the 
 allusion is to that question gives us a new 
 view of the subject. Here are your words, 
 " all I have to say now is this, that through- 
 outyourattemptsat discussionyou have called 
 private interpretation our rule of faith. The 
 Bible is the infallible rule of faith. The Bible 
 is the rule, interpretation is the use of the rule. 
 If men pervert it, that is not the rule of 
 faith." In this declaration, the "radical 
 delusion" of Protestantism stands confes- 
 sed. Is it not by "private interpretation" 
 that Protestants are directed to understand 
 the Bible ? It certainly is. And here is 
 the advocate of that principle declaring 
 that " private inteprretation is not the rule ol 
 faith!" 
 
 But the real question is, how can a Pro- 
 testant know what are the doctrines of Jesus 
 Christ ? From the Bible. The Bible on 
 the shelf 1 - No. Then it must be the Bible 
 as he. understands it. No; that would be 
 *' private interpretation." And Mr. Breck- 
 inridge has just told hiin that ' this is not his 
 rule of faith.' Here then is the acknowledg- 
 ment of all that my argument required. 
 Protestants have "perverted" that sacred 
 book to the support of their own heretical 
 opinions — and yet they charge upon the 
 teaching of the Bible the impieties of their 
 contradictory doctrines. The doctrines con- 
 tained in the Bible are the doctrines of Christ, 
 but " if men pervert them,'' by " private inter- 
 pretation," then " they are not the doctrines 
 of Christ." 
 
 Where then, is that "infallible Rule of 
 Faith established by Christ to guide us in 
 matters of Religion, and to determine dis- 
 putes in his Church ?" Let Protestants 
 look to it. " He that believeth not," says the 
 " Son of God, shall be condemned." Christ 
 would not have made this declaration, with- 
 out providing some means by which Christians 
 could find out, what they are to believe — 
 whilst Mr. Breckinridge is compelled finally 
 to admit, that no such means exist among 
 
 Protestants. "Private interpretation," he 
 says, is not the Rule of Faith." 
 
 The reader who will take the pains to look 
 back, to my arguments on the Catholic 
 RuTe^of belief, as laid down in letters No. 5. 
 7. 9. will perceive the solidity of the basis, 
 on which our principle is established. He 
 will perceive that it is founded on the words 
 of Christ and his apostles, sustained by the 
 testimony of occlesiastical history, and in 
 perfect accordance with the light of reason 
 itself. Let him compare letter with letter, 
 and decide whether there has been, amidst 
 I the assertion, crimination, garbled autho- 
 ties and abuse with which the Catholic 
 Clrorch has been assailed, one genuine proof 
 adduced against the Catholic Rule of Faith, 
 or in support of the Protestant principle. 
 On the other hand let him decide whether it 
 has not been proved by facts, undisputed and 
 indisputable, that the Protestant principle of 
 religious guidance, is that which was adopted 
 by all the heretics of ancient and modern 
 times, which has conducted the Protestants 
 on the continent of Europe into the substance 
 of infidelity, and which is bringing about the 
 same state of things in our own country. 
 Tracts, Bible classes, Sunday Schools, Camp- 
 meetings, Revivals, and the general ma- 
 chinery of Protestantism, of which the most 
 important part, are the ministers them- 
 selves, may arrest the progress of infideli- 
 ty for a while; but the physical excitation 
 produced by these irregular and artificial 
 means cannot last. The principle on which 
 the whole system rests, is intrinsically falla- 
 cious. 
 
 Perceiving, Rev. Sir, that you are anxious 
 to pass to the second topic of discussion, I 
 am now prepared to indulge you in your de- 
 sire. The next question is this: — " Whe- 
 ther the Protestant Religion is the Religion 
 of Christ ?" Six months ago I requested you 
 to furnish me with the definition' of the "Pro- 
 testant Religion." You promised, but you 
 have not performed. Be pleased then, in 
 your next letter to tell me what the " Pro- 
 testant Religion" is. I wish to take your 
 own definition, so that there may be no mis- 
 take on either side. It is unnecessary to 
 add any thing more to this communication, 
 since the subject is fairly exhausted by 
 your unexpected declaration that "private 
 interpretation is not the Protestant rule of 
 faith." The Bible, without this, it can- 
 not be. 
 
 Yours, 
 
 Jno. Hughes. 
 
1SS 
 
 P. S. In the postscript to your last let- 
 ter, you say as follows: "I cannot stoop to 
 notice any farther your impertinent (0 fie!) 
 calls for a name. Mr. Burtt was the origi- 
 nal, responsible informant." Then, Rev. 
 
 Sir, the Rev. Mr. Burtt shall be held to his 
 responsibility. The charge was a gratui- 
 tous falsehood and calumny. And as Mr. 
 Burtt is "responsible," let him see to it. 
 
CONTROVERSY N°. 20. 
 
 Kulc of Faith. 
 
 Philadelphia, Junt 13th, 1833. 
 To the Rev. John Hughes. 
 
 Sir, — The celebrated Pascal, himself a 
 Romanist, has said in his Provincial Letters, 
 against the jesuits, that they publicly 
 maintained this opinion viz. it is only a ve- 
 nial sin to calumniate and ruin the credit of 
 such as speak evil of you, by accusing them 
 of false crimes. To what other school of mo- 
 rals shall I trace the unblushing and false 
 charges with which your recent letter 
 abounds. Your current argument which 
 stands as ■ the solitary reply to decrees of 
 Councils, and Bulls of Popes, to authentic 
 public records, and undisputable facts, is 
 
 this " IT IS FALSE," " YOU HAVE GARBLED." 
 
 Your Bible, your public Prayers, your 
 Breviary, and Mass-book, your Catechism, 
 decrees of Councils and Bulls of Popes, 
 being in a dead language, the only way to ex- 
 amine your system is to bring them to pub- 
 lic view by translations. My letters (as 
 you know) have abounded with such matter; 
 drawn from the originals — and very often the 
 barbarous Latin has been given side by side 
 with the translations. Finding these autho- 
 rities too stubborn to be tortured from their 
 plain and terrible sense, you have set your- 
 self to defame the witness, and thus destroy 
 the testimony. With ignorant or prejudiced 
 persons, your strong assertions may have 
 some weight. But every scholar must see 
 that you assail my character in vain; that 
 these authorities have been honestly adduc- 
 ed; that they expose your church; and that 
 you do not even attempt an answer to the bo- 
 dy of them. Thus, for example, your answer 
 to the Bull of Innocent the 8th, was that no 
 such Bull was issued in 1477, and you intima- 
 ted that a mistake in the date was a proof of 
 forgery. " Such Bulls, you say, come from 
 another quarter."' When pressed by the 
 question, was not such a Bull published in 
 1487, you have actually the unthinking har- 
 dihood to deny that there ever was such a 
 
 Bull. " I DO DENY IT FLATLY." Now for 
 
 the proof. In Baronius's Annals, 19th vol. 
 page 386, section 25, we are told that the 
 sprouts of the Waldensian heresy re-appear- 
 z 
 
 Qua indignitate permo- 
 tus, Innocentus, Gallos, Sa- 
 baudus, ac Germanos, in 
 quorum lunitibus, impielas 
 defixa haerebat, ad hoereti- 
 cos delendos expedirfe arma 
 jussii; et gravibus poenis, 
 hseretieorum fautores per- 
 culit : turn Albertum de 
 Caphanies Archidiaconon 
 Cremonciisem, amplissimis 
 instrucium mandatis decre- 
 vit ut religiosam crueis 
 niilitiam ad \V~aldenses ex- 
 seindendos promulgaret, ac 
 priiicipes, et Episcopos in 
 eosdein concitaret — quibus 
 Uteris heec lemporis nota 
 adjecta est. Dat. Romae. 
 apud S. Petrum. anno in- 
 caniatiouis Dominieoe 1487. 
 V. Kal. Maii. Pontificatus 
 nostri anno iii. 
 
 ing, according to custom, an Inquisitor was 
 appointed; but these Heretics arose in arms, 
 and slew his servant. 
 
 By which indignity Inno- 
 cent, much excited, order- 
 ed the Gauls, Savoyese, and 
 Germans, within whose ter- 
 ritories the impiety stiM re- 
 mained firmly rooted, to 
 lake up arms for the des- 
 truction of the Heretics ; 
 and he smote ihe favourers 
 of the Heretics with heavy 
 punishments : at the same 
 time he commissioned Al- 
 bert de Capitanies, Arch- 
 deacon of Cremona, with 
 ample powers to publish a 
 crusade for the extermina- 
 tion of the Waldenses, and 
 to stir up Princes and Bish- 
 ops against them. — The dat? 
 of this document is as fol- 
 lows : Given at Rome at 
 St. Peter's, in the year 
 of our Lord's incarna- 
 tion 1487, 5ih of Kal- 
 ends of May, and of our 
 Pontificate the 3d. 
 
 Here, then, we have the testimony of your 
 own great annalist. How you will settle 
 the matter with him, I know not. Perhaps 
 this is only his opinion — surely it is not a 
 Protestant fabrication. But here is the Bull, 
 Brief, or whatever you please to call it, the 
 public decree of the Pope, ordering three 
 States to kike up arms for the extermination 
 of heretics ; and in the name of God, com- 
 missioning Princes and Bishops to destroy 
 them! Whether, then, we regard the detest- 
 able act of the Pope, or your "fiat denial" of 
 it, the reader must alike be assured of the 
 guilt of your church, and the shifts of her 
 defender! 
 
 1. In yonr letter (No. 17) you said "the 
 Episcopalians ol Maryland persecuted the 
 Presbyterians; the Catholics of Mary- 
 land protected them. The gratitude of the 
 Presbyterians was the gratitude of the ser- 
 pent, that stings the bosom which fostered 
 it. They put down, and persecuted these 
 very Catholics as soon as it was in their 
 power." In letter (No. 18) I told you it 
 was "an utter fabrication." In your 
 last letter you reply " He (Mr. Jefferson) 
 
158 
 
 testifies that the Puritans (mark reader, not 
 Presbyterians, Puritans,) persecuted by the. 
 Episcopalians of Virginia, emigrated in con- 
 siderable numbers to Maryland,'''' §-c. fyc. 
 Anil is this the only defence for- the un- 
 founded charge? Are the Puritans and Pres- 
 byterians the same people in history? Does 
 not your defence confess that it was a fabri- 
 cation? I would gladly attribute this to ig- 
 norance. 
 
 2. You are equally unfortunate in the 
 case of the Quakers. Having said "the 
 Quakers of New England ivere hanged by the 
 Presbyterians,'''' I denied it, and called on 
 you for proof. And what is your proof? 
 You call the authors of this persecution 
 unto death, ' Congregational ists.' "But the 
 distinction between them and Presbyterians, 
 is too fine for modern powers of discrimina- 
 tion." A man who writes with your free- 
 dom, should have a good memory. You can 
 see no distinction between Presbyterians 
 and Congregationalists, where it is conveni- 
 ent to make the terms convertible ! Re- 
 member this when you speak of the divi- 
 sions of Protestants ! 
 
 3. Your defence of the proceedings against 
 John Huss, is certainly candid and ominous. 
 It is however a misrepresentation of the case 
 in many of the most important particulars. 
 Lenfant tells us that Huss said, in presence 
 of the Council, J came to this city relying on 
 the public faith of the Emperor who £a now 
 present. He then looked him in the face; 
 and Sigismond blushed fur his own baseness, 
 feeling the truth of the reproach. When the 
 
 Diet of Worms plead this example of the 
 Council of Constance, and of Sigismond, in 
 order to induce Charles V. to betray Lu- 
 ther, he replied, U I am resolved not to 
 blush with my predecessor." And ought not 
 you, Sir, to blush for defending such a deed? 
 Dupin (your own historian) says, " The 
 Council of Constance being now appointed, 
 the Pope and Emperor invited John Huss to 
 come thither, and give an account of his 
 doctrine — and that he might do it with all 
 freedom, the Emperor gave him a safe con- 
 duct, whereby he gave him leave to come free- 
 ly to the Council and return again. v But 
 more of this hereafter; I only add now, that 
 
 mitre of paper on which devils were painted. 
 4. The endless iteration of trifles is be- 
 neath the dignity of inquiry after truth. 
 Yet they say, " straws show the way the 
 wind blows." You charge me with sup- 
 pressing a single word, as follows: " The 
 scrap of Latin which you have cited in pa- 
 renthesis, though consisting of three words 
 only, is falsified. Sunt procul extirpandi, 
 are the words of your letter — sunt procul 
 dubio extirpandi', are the words of the au- 
 thor." Even had there been accidentally 
 such an omission, the full translation of the 
 absent word, looked you in the face, in the 
 same sentence. But your readers must 
 smile, if a more serious feeling be not pro- 
 duced, to see the entire sentence in all the 
 papers, the Presbyterian, the Catholic He- 
 rald, &c. &c. How could you permit your- 
 self to make such a mistake? Does it not 
 prove beyond a doubt that you feel your 
 difficulties, and are at a loss for a refuge from 
 them? I do from my heart pity you. 
 
 5. As to the notorious decree which it seems 
 you will make me confess that I did garble, 
 I wish you would produce the whole passage. 
 The parts left out did not "garble" the pas- 
 sage; but were all to my purpose; and I re- 
 gretted to lose them. But I had cited a 
 page or two, and had not room for more. 
 Why do you not produce and contrast them 
 with what I published, if I have altered the 
 meaning of the decree? It was of the trans- 
 lation you spoke in your former letter. You 
 asked, " do you give it as a literal and con- 
 tinuous translation?" I replied, "unhesi- 
 tatingly I do. It is as literal as the sense 
 will bear." My abstract gave the unbroken 
 meaning of the decree ; repeated inverted 
 commas marked the transition in the sen- 
 tences; and what I omitted was' all, all in 
 my favour; and I cannot think one reader 
 will believe you, until you adduce the omit- 
 ted sentences, and show that they affect the 
 meaning of my quotations. Such charges 
 come with poor grace from you, after the 
 memorable cases of Tertullian and Wesley. 
 
 6. Your attempt at a reply to Bishop On- 
 derdonk's charge on the rule of faith, is not 
 only meager to the last degree, but manifests 
 a spirit unworthy of a Christian or a man. 
 
 nay see something of the spirit of this Not content with vilifying me in the pages 
 Council, which thus disposed of Huss's de- of your controversial letters, you have car- 
 nartino- soul, "we devote your soul to ried your, assaults into the preface ot the re- 
 infernal devtls." (Tuam animam de- view. The following is a sample; alter 
 vovemus diabolis infernis:) and, as Dupin speaking of me in terms ot coarse disrespect, 
 informs us, the Bishops who were appointed I you proceed to say: " But for some months 
 bv the Council to degrade him, and prepare i back there has been a .considerable undertone 
 him for the civil arm, put on his head a of dissatisfaction among the better informed 
 
159 
 
 Protestants generally, not excepting Presby- 
 terians themselves." " Even some of the 
 Protestant clergy did not hesitate to say 
 that Mr. Breckinridge was not 'the man' 
 that should have been selected." And 
 again, " His (the Bishop's) charge has been 
 received as a supplement, if not a substitute, 
 to the attempts of Mr. Breckinridge." In 
 your letter No. 17, you have also said: 
 
 *' a recent charge, 'the rule of faith,' 
 
 which without professing to be, is generally 
 regarded as a prop to the weakness of your 
 arguments, in opposition to my reasoning on 
 the same subject." 
 
 Now Sir, I have long since frankly owned 
 to you, that in the evangelical Protestant 
 churches there are many men who are far 
 better fitted than myself, by learning, talents, 
 age, piety, and pursuits, to meet you in this 
 discussion. But do you reflect that every 
 effort to disparage my qualifications, still 
 farther degrades yourself? If a youth, who 
 spends half his life in the stage coach, and 
 who holds so humble a rank amidst the con- 
 stellation of Protestant ministers, finds it no 
 hard task to expose and confound the fash- 
 ionable, learned, and powerful Mr. Hughes, 
 then either the cause of Catholicity is so des- 
 perate that the best powers of its priesthood 
 cannot sustain it against the feeblest essays 
 of Protestants, or else the hero of their cause 
 is only a garrulous Daw, and has been re- 
 nowned like Goliah, only for want of a trial. 
 _ May I here ask of you evidence of so " con- 
 siderable an undertone of dissatisfaction 
 among better informed Protestants, general- 
 ly, and even among Presbyterians, and 
 some of the Protestant clergy?" Will you 
 favour me with one respectable name, 
 from all these classes? For every such I 
 will return testimonies the most ample and 
 multifarious, and bring the highest authority 
 directly falsifying all these unworthy in- 
 sinuations. Besides, can you honestly say 
 that the Bishop's charge is generally re- 
 garded as a prop to" the weakness of my 
 arguments? Have you gathered the public 
 mind so largely? Does the public, generally 
 call my arguments weak? Have you learn- 
 ed in four weeks, (the age of the charge) 
 what the community think of the reason tot 
 delivering it? Must not every one see with 
 what unpardonable laxity you venture to 
 speak? Your little world of satellites may tell 
 you so! But St. John's is not our country. 
 I could give you another public sentiment, 
 but I will not imitate your vain boasting. 
 You shall hear it for yourself, as it gathers 
 »n a returning tide from the limits of the 
 
 land. In the mean time, be admonished that 
 there is no collusion between the Bishop and 
 myself. I have not the honour even of a per- 
 sonal acquaintance with him. Nor must 
 you think that the nation will hold its breath, 
 and the Protestant press stand still, while 
 you swagger through the pompous rounds of 
 arrogant and empty essays on the rule of 
 faith. Again, the Catholic press in this coun- 
 try teems with parallel discussions of the 
 controversy now in progress. I have been 
 personally attacked by one of your papers; 
 and the Catholic Herald itself is continually 
 publishing some thing intended to bear upon 
 our controversy. In a word, a new era 
 has come in our country. The American 
 people will promptly see, "who the serpent 
 is" (to use your own illustration) " that stings 
 the bosom that warms it." They will hence- 
 forth know where to send their children for 
 education, and when to contribute in gene- 
 rous and abused confidence, to build the 
 schools, and convents, and chapels, that are 
 to train the children to call their parents he- 
 retics; and are arising to re-establish a eli- 
 gion which never did, never will, and never 
 can, permit a free government, or religious to- 
 leration. The people are awake or awaking; 
 and you must change your system, or lose 
 your prize. 
 
 7. As to Wesley, your defence so sadly 
 labours, that comment seems unnecessary. 
 Your explanation has turned stales-evidence 
 against you. 
 
 If space were not wanting, much power-' 
 ful matter might be adduced in exposure of 
 your treatment of him. Mr. Hughes savs, 
 Wesley was; the public defender of "the 
 Protestant Association." Wesley says, "J 
 have not one line in defence of the associa- 
 tion, either in Loudon, or elsewhere." Mr. 
 Hughes says, " It never was a Roman Ca- 
 tholic maxim, (that no faith is to be kept 
 with heretics) except when Protestant ca- 
 lumny made it so." Wesley says, "the last 
 volume (of Labbe's Book of Councils) con- 
 tains a particular account of the Council of 
 Constance, one of whose decrees, p. 169, is, 
 ".that heretics ought to be put to death, not- 
 withstanding the public faith engaged to 
 them in the most solemn manner. (Non ob- 
 stantibus salvis conductibus Imperatoris, Re- 
 gum, &c.) Whosoever, therefore, would re- 
 mark upon it (his late letter,) to any pur- 
 pose, must prove three things: (1.) That the 
 decree of the Council of Constance publicly 
 made, has been publicly disclaimed. (2.) 
 That the Pope has not power to pardon sins, 
 or to dispense with oaths, vows, and pro- 
 
160 
 
 mises. And (3,) that no priest has power to 
 pardon sins." These you never can prove; 
 yet until you do, you have left an unanswer- 
 ed argument, which will; last as long as the 
 writings and memory of Wesley. 
 
 7. As to your allusion to our domestic 
 slavery, I fully accord with you in the senti- 
 ment, that it is a great national crime, and 
 a great national calamity. Rut then the 
 question for you to answer is this: The 
 Pope's Bull consigned heretics to slavery, 
 in the name of God and the Church. Had 
 he the right to do this ? If the State 
 sins in allowing slavery, may the Roman 
 church encourage and incite to it, and be 
 
 which it is not as apparent as the light were 
 delivered and instituted by our Lord Jesus 
 Christ and his Apostles." 4t In the days of 
 the Apostles (to tell you the truth, but you 
 must be silent) and for several years after 
 them there was no mention made of either 
 pope or cardinal — there were none of these 
 large revenues belonging to the bishops and 
 priests, no sumptuous Temples were raised; 
 there were no monasteries, priors, or abbots, 
 much less any of these doctrines, these 
 laws, these constitutions, nor this sovereign- 
 ty, which we now exercise over people and 
 nations." " And here you must awake and 
 exert all your force to hinder as much as you 
 
 guiltless? Is such a church infallible ? This can, the Gospel from being; read (especially 
 is the question. in the vulgar tongue,) in all the cities which 
 
 8. As to the rule of faith, you say "the are under your dominion. Let that little of 
 
 subject is fairly exhausted, by your unex- 
 pected declaration, that private interpreta- 
 tion is not the Protestant rule of faith." 
 Unexpected! Strange language at the close 
 of a discussion, when in the first column of 
 my first letter, five months since, I gave this 
 definition of our rule rule of faith, viz: 
 
 " The word of God as contained in the 
 Scriptures of the Old and New Testa- 
 ments." It is to this definition I have ad- 
 hered. By your own admission, then you 
 have evaded the real Protestant rule of faith, 
 and argued against its abuses alone! And 
 strange to tell, you have never to this day 
 given a definition of your rule of faith; 
 and the story of the Shepherds, and the 
 rogue's mark, applies to it as directly this 
 day, as it did three months ago. 
 
 At the close of my last letter I intro- 
 duced many extracts from the famous letter of 
 the cardinals to Pope Paul the Sd, showing 
 the necessity of a reformation in the Church 
 of Rome. Let us proceed to other testimo- 
 nies. The next I cite is also on Romish au- 
 thority — being the famous letter of the three 
 
 it which they have in the mass serve their turn, 
 nor suffer any mortal to read any thing more; 
 for so long as men were content with that lit- 
 tle, things went to your mind, but grew worse 
 and worse from that time, that they common- ._ 
 ly read more. This, in short, is the book, that 
 has beyond all others, raised those storms 
 and tempests, in which we are almost driven 
 to destruction. And really whoever shall 
 diligently weigh the Scripture, and then 
 consider all the things that are usually done 
 in our churches, will find there is great dif- 
 ference betwixt them — and that this doctrine 
 of ours is very unlike, and in many things 
 quite repugnant to it.'' This letter is fur- 
 nished by Verjerius, and Wolfius, and is 
 translated at large by Dr. Claggett of Gray's 
 Inn. 
 
 Many years before this, the 1st Council of 
 Pisa had decreed a Reformation. The Coun- 
 cil of Constance resolved that a reformation 
 was necessary, and enumerated nearly twen- 
 ty items, one on Simony, and another on 
 Indulgences, &c. &tc. in which it was called 
 for. The Council of Basil, and the 2d Pisan 
 
 bishops at Bononia, written to the Pope (at i Council also decreed a reformation neces- 
 his request, and containing counsel for thejsary. One of these at least is conceded to 
 establisment of the Church,) after the Re- be a general council, confirmed by a pope, 
 formation had begun. This letter covers I Now if the decrees of a general Council, con- 
 nearly six folio pages, and you will scarcely firmed by a Pope (as you say) be infallible, 
 expectits entire publication. TheBishops say then a reformation was infallibly necessary; 
 " The Lutherans receive and confess all the and if such a decree be an article of faith, 
 articles of the Athanasian, Nicene, and Apos-nhen it is an article of faith that a refor- 
 ms creed.'''' " And these Lutherans refuse to mation was necessary. 
 
 admit any doctrine but that alone which hath 
 the Prophets, Christ and his Apostles for its 
 authors, and wish that all men would be con- 
 tent with those few things that were observ- 
 ed in the Apostles' times, or immediately 
 alter; and would imitate the. ancient church- 
 
 To these testimonies I might add almost 
 innumerable authorities from the prelates and 
 other writers of the church of Rome. .Having-,, 
 not room for this, I -««H%r you in fine to the 
 
 " CENTUM GRAVAMINA, Or HUNDRED GRIEVAN- J 
 
 ces, of Germany," presented in a memorial, 
 
 es, and not think of receiving any traditions, to the Pope, by the diet of Nuremburg in 
 
161 
 
 1523, the very era of the Reformation. Many 
 years before, the Emperor of Germany join- 
 ing the King of France in calling for Reform, 
 drew up ten grievances, the 8th of which 
 was that " new indulgences had been granted, 
 and old ones revoked and suspended, merely to 
 squeeze out -money." About this time, (as Du- 
 pin a Roman Catholic historian says) " Pope 
 Alexander VI. died Aug. 17th, 1503, fo/ the 
 poison which he had prepared for another, 
 loaded with the iniquities of himself and His 
 natural son Caesar Borgia.'' But by 1522, 
 the ten grievances had grown to one hundred. 
 Some of these were as follows: (see Dupin on 
 this subject:) 
 
 1st. Too many human constitutions which they {the 
 Papacy) dispensed with for money. 
 
 2d. Indulgences were become an insupportable 
 yoke, by which much money was squeezed s out of the 
 Germans, piety destroyed, and a door set open to all 
 sorts of crimes — because by that means men are freed 
 from punishment, for money,- that the sums gathered 
 by these indulgences, was consumed by the Popes in 
 maintaining the luxury of their relations and family, ■ 
 that the stations and indulgences granted to certain 
 churches were not less scandalous, , nor did less injury 
 to the poor." 
 
 10th. The encroachments of the ecclesias- 
 tical Judges in lay (mark it) lay causes, and 
 their malversations. 
 
 11th. Exactions of the clergy for sacra- 
 ments, burials, masses, &c, and even for 
 licenses to keep concubines. 
 
 These may serve as specimens of the 
 whole hundred. Observe, these were com- 
 plaints by a Roman Catholic Emperor, 
 Charles V.; and a Roman Catholic Diet; 
 and the account is taken from a Roman Ca- 
 tholic historian. These testimonies added 
 to those given at the close of my last letter, 
 plainly show that a Reformation was neces- 
 sary. We shall prove still farther hereafter, 
 God willing, that this Reformation was need- 
 ed in faith, as well as morals; in the wor- 
 ship of the church, in its head, and in its 
 
 MEMBERS. 
 
 Now the history of the church plainly 
 shows, that the Popes and Councils did not, 
 and would not, attempt the necessary reform. 
 The very assumption of Infallibility, while 
 persisted in, renders all essential reform in- 
 consistent and absurd; unnecessary and im- 
 possible. Hence the corruptions of the 
 church of Rome, in doctrine, morals, and 
 essential worship, have been perpetuated 
 from age to age. Hence when you call 
 yourselves unchangeable, you, by confession, 
 and as an article of faith, declare against all 
 reformation: and hence, though like the 
 camel eon, you take the lights and shades of 
 
 the objects around you, in different countries, 
 still you are in essence the same church, 
 
 UNREFORMED AND UNREFORMABLE, BOTH NOW 
 
 and for ever. Wherefore the voice of 
 God, speaking in his providence, in your 
 history, and his holy word, called upon 
 every lover of truth and holiness to fly from 
 your communion, saying, come out of her 
 
 MY PEOPLE, THAT YE BE NOT PARTAKERS 
 OF HER SINS, AND THAT YE RECEIVE NOT 
 OF HER PLAGUES ; FOR HER SINS HAVE 
 REACHED UNTO HEAVEN, AND GOD HATH 
 REMEMBERED HER INIUUITIES. (ReV. Xviii. 
 
 4 > 5 - ) 
 
 It was in obedience to this divine call that 
 the illustrious, and ever memorable " Refor- 
 mation," as it is emphatically styled, was at 
 first effected. This Reformation was not 
 the introduction of a new religion; but the 
 restoration of the old, as found in the word 
 of God, as preached by Christ, and his Apos- 
 tles; as held by the earliest writers, and pro- 
 fessed in the creed called the Jipostles: that 
 primitive Christianity, >diich was gradually 
 and greatly perverted, and corrupted by the 
 rise and establishment of the Papacy, and 
 was more anrr more abused by the church of 
 Rome until the 1 6th century. 
 
 To the question often put to Protestants, 
 " Where was your religion before Luther's" 
 we may answer with a youthful reformer, 
 " Where was your face before it was wash- 
 ed?" or if you prefer this, " Where was 
 
 your religion before the Council of Nice?" 
 and where was it, when the Pope of Rome 
 signed the Arian creed, and the chief part of 
 the church adopted it? Protestantism is a 
 new name for the Catholicism of antiquity; 
 irl contrast with Romanism, or the absurd 
 term Roman Catholicism. This name was 
 given to the Reformers, who protested in 
 1529 against the unjust decisions of the 
 Diet of Spires. Protestants, properly so 
 called, are Reformers, as their Lord was of 
 the corruptions of the Jews; and are heretics 
 as Paul and Peter were, in coming out from 
 that ancient but erring people. 
 
 That Protestants are not innovators is 
 virtually confessed by Romanists, and ap- 
 pears from this, that we hold to the Bible 
 as the only rule of faith; whereas they add 
 to it many things, as Traditions, Apochry- 
 pha, and the interpretations of their Councils. 
 We hold to Christ's headship over the 
 church; they add to it the headship of the 
 Pope. We hold to two sacraments; they 
 add five more. We hold to the alone merits 
 of Chrisfs death, and the one only sacrifice 
 of Christ; they add other, and human me- 
 
162 
 
 rits to Christ's merits, and profanely pretend 
 to sacrifice him anew every day in the Mass. 
 ft e hold to concession to God; they add auri- 
 cular confession. We hold that Christ's 
 church cannot fail; they add that they as 
 the church are infallible. In a word, not to 
 mention many such distinctions, their sys- 
 tem is like a great wen on a man's head, 
 which has appeared upon the church; and 
 though growing out of, and cleaving to the 
 true church, is not the true church; but 
 a corrupt and vicious excrescence which has 
 encumbered it for ages, ana will at last be 
 cut off! 
 
 Protestantism is not a novelty, but became 
 another name for Christianity in western Eu- 
 rope, marking an era when religion and learn- 
 ing and liberty revived. Romanism is a novel- 
 ty; the parent of ignorance, corruption of truth, 
 and oppression. There are no less than twelve 
 new articles of faith in the creed of Pius IV. 
 manufactured or adopted by the Council of 
 Trent in the 16th century of the Christian era; 
 and ascending from age to afe, you may dis- 
 tinctly note when Purgatory, Transubstantia- 
 tion, Indulgences, &c.&c. were first broached 
 and legalized. And while *fhe Protes- 
 tants recalled primeval Christianity, in Eu- 
 rope, there were churches scattered over 
 large regions of Asia, and Africa, some of 
 which were never subject to the church of 
 Rome, as the Syrian Christians, and others 
 protested against many of the false doctrines, 
 and repelled the despotism of the Roman 
 Hierarchy, as the Armenians in central Asia, 
 and, in a greater or less degree, the Greek 
 church at large. Add to this, that the Albi- 
 genses and Waldenses did for ages, and, in 
 the very heart of Europe, like the burning 
 bush which Moses saw, survive your fiery 
 persecutions, and protest almost in our lan- 
 guage, against the papal errors. These peo- 
 ple may be traced up for many ages before 
 the days of Luther; indeed Rhinerius, a Ro- 
 man Inquisitor, tells us, that some have car- 
 ried them up to the Apostles' times. 
 
 Roman Catholics profess to be the only 
 true church, and that Protestants are schis- 
 matics. But is it not notorious, that in 
 your church there was a great schism in 
 the 14th century, so that, for the spare of 
 fifty years, there were sometimes two and 
 sometimes three popes; and scenes were 
 acted out by their Holinesses the contin- 
 ued occurrence of which rent the church and 
 agitated Europe ; and the very recital is 
 enough to make one shudder. And where 
 was the Greek Church? Did it not break off 
 from you, and protest against many of the very 
 
 errors and corruptions which we reject? 
 And with her did not whole nations irreparably 
 forsake the church of Rome? Why did not 
 your infallible rule of faith " settle these dis- 
 putes^ which rent your church so often and 
 so long; which tore from you so much of Asia 
 and eastern Europe on the one hand, and 
 half western Europe by the Reformation on 
 the other? And did not the President of the 
 Council of Trent say, that the depravation and 
 corruption of discipline and morals in the 
 church of Rome, was in a great measure the 
 cause and original of all those schisms and 
 heresies which then troubled the church? 
 
 When, therefore, you call for a definition 
 of " The Protestant Religion," (as the 
 time to give it has now arrived,) I reply, it 
 is the Religion of the Reformation, in con- 
 tradistinction from the Roman Catholic Re- 
 ligion, as it concerns doctrine, and morality, 
 government, discipline, and worship. It is 
 the religion which is exclusively derived 
 from and consistent with the Holy Scrip- 
 tures AS THE ONLY INFALLIBLE RULE OF 
 
 faith and practice; and which protests 
 against the errors and corruptions of the 
 Church of Rome. To be more particular, we 
 protest against the universal supremacy of the 
 Pope; against infallibility, purgatory, and in- 
 dulgences; against transubstantiation, the sa- 
 crifice of the Mass, and communion in one 
 kind; against the satisfaction and merit of 
 creatures, not duly honouring the atonement 
 and righteousness of our divine Saviour; 
 against penance, auricular confession, abso- 
 lution, and extreme unction; against the 
 substitution of external services and rites 
 for the work of the Spirit, and the religion 
 of the heart; against worshipping the host, 
 images, relics, saints, and angels; against 
 prohibiting the Bible to the people, prayers 
 and other worship in an unknown tongue, 
 the doctrine of intention, innovations on the 
 sacraments as to number and administration, 
 the celibacy of the clergy and monasticism; 
 against the manifold superstitions, and im- 
 moralities of the church; against sanctuary 
 for crimes, exemption of subjects from alle- 
 giance, and priests from obedience to magis- 
 trates; against the oppression, persecution, 
 and exclusive salvation of the Church of 
 Rome. These are theleading errors and evils 
 against which we protest; and I am, by the 
 grace of God, prepared to prove that the Pro- 
 testant Religion (in contradistinction from 
 the religion holding, teaching, and practising 
 these things,) is the Religion of Christ. 
 
 Especially do I stand ready to show, that 
 the supremacy of the Pope is a usurpation, 
 
103 
 
 not founded in Scripture, oppressive to 
 man, anol injurious to Christ, the only head 
 of the church; that Purgatory is a fiction, 
 and ruinous to the souls of men; that Indul- 
 gences are "a bundle of licenses to commit 
 sin," and the true moral of Purgatory; that 
 transubstantiation is a novelty, an impos- 
 sibility, and an absurdity; that the sacri- 
 fice of the Mass is an impiety, and the worship 
 of the host idolatrous; and so in order, if you 
 can venture to meet me. And as you 
 charge me so pertinaciously with being the 
 assailant, I will now claim the privilege 
 which you thus force upon me; especially 
 as heretofore you have chosen your own 
 ground, and called on me to follow where 
 you led in the discussion. This is the more 
 reasonable, since you profess to belong to the 
 true and the only true church; and thus com- 
 ing with exclusive salvation, and prescrip- 
 tive claims, make all other forms of religion 
 void; and present the alternative of Catho- 
 
 licism, or no religion. I shall therefore with 
 great freedom examine these high preten- 
 sions. This is the proper and natural order 
 of discussion. In this way our reasons for 
 protesting will be fully brought to view; and 
 the two systems presented in continued con- 
 trast. 
 
 Yours, &c. &c. 
 
 John Breckinridge. 
 
 P. S. I regret that in attempting to injure 
 Mr. Burtt you should expose yourself. — 
 tk But he is of age; and shall speak for him- 
 self." As to the reference, delicacy, and 
 justice, ought to have prevented you from 
 speaking as you have of Dr. Wylie's reason 
 for declining. Did not a sense of propriety 
 hinder me, I also could make inferences 
 from his dignified, and honourable letter. I 
 do heartily wish that he would yet consent 
 to give his decision on the score of referred 
 topics. , J. B. 
 
CONTROVERSY......N°. 21. 
 
 ISbbIc oi'Failh. 
 
 Philadelphia, June 2lst, 1833. 
 To the Rev. John Breckinridge. 
 
 Rev. Sir, — I have read your last letter 
 with all attention, and shall now proceed to 
 notice such parts of it as require to be an- 
 swered. It begins thus, " The celebrated 
 Pascal, himself a Romanist." Pascal, Rev. 
 Sir, was a Jansenist, and as such, was not 
 a "Romanist," nor even a Catholic. This 
 mistake of jours is common among Protes- 
 tants, even those who ought to be acquainted 
 with the difference. As to his Provincial 
 Letters, critics of all parties are agreed that 
 they were written in a spirit of satirical en- 
 mity towards the Jesuits. Racine says they 
 are nothing but a "comedy," the characters 
 of which were selected from Convents and the 
 Sarbonne. Voltaire, who was certainly no 
 friend to the Jesuits, says that the whole work 
 is a misrepresentation, in consequence of the 
 author's attributing " artfully (adroitement) 
 to the ivhole Society the extravagant opi- 
 nions, set forth by a few of its members in 
 Spain and Flanders." (Volt. Siecle de 
 Louis XIV.) So much for your first sen- 
 tence. 
 
 2. If I have charged you with "garbling 
 authorities," and making assertions which 
 are " untrue," I always supported the charge 
 with proofs, which remain unanswered. 
 The first sentence of the 2d paragraph is 
 equally unfounded in the truth. It is as fol- 
 lows, "your Bible, your public Prayers, your 
 Breviary and Mass book, your Catechism, de- 
 crees of Councils, and Bulls of Popes, being 
 in a dead language." Now, our Bibles are 
 in English, our public prayers are in Eng- 
 lish, our Catechisms are in English, our 
 Mass book is in English; and how can you 
 
 say that they are in a "dead language" 
 
 when any one may call at the Catholic 
 bookstore of Mr. Cummiskey of this city, 
 and purchase the very books you mention, 
 all in English? If by such assertions 
 your "credit suffers," as you sav, do not, 
 I pray you, throw the blame on "me. Ca- 
 tholics have published more editions of 
 the Scriptures in English, within the last 
 thirty years, than any other denomination of 
 
 A* 
 
 j Christians in the United States. This fact 
 proves how far you are from being correct, 
 when you assert that our " Bibles," are " in 
 a dead language." It proves also how far 
 Protestants are deceived by their blind cre- 
 dulity, and their prejudices, when they say 
 that Catholics are not allowed to read the 
 Scriptures. The first edition would be still 
 on the booksellers shelves, if there existed 
 such a prohibition — since Protestants never 
 purchase our Bibles. 
 
 3. The Bull of Innocent VIII. In your 
 letter No. 16, you stated that it was in the 
 University of Cambridge; and repeated twice 
 that it was issued in 1477. You subsequent- 
 ly admitted your mistake of ten years, as to 
 the time; but, nothing daunted, you "dared 
 me to deny it." I did deny it. Then you 
 proceed to the "-show of proof," and quote 
 the annals of Baronius. Does he say that 
 such a Bull exists? No. The quotation 
 merely testifies, that Albertus Cataneius was 
 commissioned to preach a crusade a°ainst 
 the Waldenses; who, as you yourself ac- 
 knowledge, had' already '"taken vp arms 
 and murdered those who had been sent 
 among then-. — or as you express it, "slew 
 his servant." This does not prove the ex- 
 istence of the Bull in the University of Cam- 
 bridge. And after having made 'the asser- 
 tion, and "dared me to deny it," is it not 
 strange that you should adduce such a vao-ue 
 citation, and" then say— "here is the Bull, 
 Brief, or whatever I please to call it." Be- 
 sides, the annals of Baronius, come down 
 only to the year 1198; and yet you quote his 
 authority for a fact which should have taken 
 place in 1487!!! How is this ? 
 
 4. I must give you great credit for the inge- 
 nious manner in which you get over the per- 
 secution of the Catholics of Maryland, by the 
 Presbyterians. The persecutors were Puri- 
 tans. ("Mark, reader, not Presbyterians, 
 Puritans.") This important distinction is to 
 show, I suppose, that the persecutors of Ge- 
 neva were Calvinists; those of Holland, Go- 
 marists; those of New England, Congrega- 
 lionalists; and those of Scotland and Eng- 
 land, in the time of Charles the first, as well 
 
166 
 
 as their brethren of Maryland, Puritans. 
 But pray, where were the Presbyterians, all 
 this time? When children disown their pa- 
 rentage, it is a sign they are ashamed of it. 
 
 5. As to the case of John Huss, the au- 
 thority of Lenfant rs no better than that of 
 Mr. Wesley or your own. He was the son 
 of a Calvinistic minister, and was brought u jj 
 to be a Calvinistic minister himself. In 
 1727, he published what he called a history 
 of the Council of Constance, held one hun- 
 dred years before the Reformation. And it 
 was such a production, as might have been 
 expected from the author of the "history of 
 Pope Joan," which he published in 1694. 
 But he lived long enough to be ashamed of 
 having treated with grave authorship, so ab- 
 surd and calumnious a fable. These few 
 remarks are sufficient Rev. Sir, to show your 
 readers, that your own authority would be 
 quite as unimpeachable against the Council 
 of Constance, as that of Lenfant. He was 
 a bitter enemy of the Catholic church. As 
 to the Safe-Conduct given by the Emperor, 
 I have already, in my last letter, established 
 its character, conditions, and circumstances. 
 With reference to the unfortunate Huss 
 himself, the Council condemned his' doc- 
 trine; and degraded him as an obstinate 
 heretic, from his rank of Priesthood. 
 But having done this, it declared that its 
 powers as a spiritual tribunal extended no 
 farther. The civil laws of the age and of 
 the city of Constance did the rest. I have 
 the acts of that Council now before me, and 
 I defy enmity itself to make any thing more 
 out of them. As to the " devils paint- 
 ed on his paper mitre," it is one of those lit- 
 tle tales by which Protestant children are 
 frightened into hatred against Catholics; — 
 the germ of prejudice is planted in their 
 minds; — so that when they have grown up, 
 they are the unconscious victims of the "radi- 
 cal delusion" of Protestantism, and imagine 
 that their religious opinions, no matter ivhat, 
 are taken from the pure word of God — the 
 Bible alone. 
 
 6. In paragraph 4th of your letter, you 
 quote the words of Bellarmine "sunt procul 
 dw&ioextirpandi" to show that they were not 
 " falsified," as I had stated. But you know 
 that we both write from the corrected proof 
 of each others letters; which is furnished 
 several days before the paper is regularly 
 issued. You know further that in the proof 
 the passage was as I stated — and candor 
 should have induced you to say that you had 
 
 escaped my notice. You knew that such 
 disingenuousness must come to light after 
 one short week — and that you ought not to 
 have claimed the advantages of a mistake, 
 into which your oum false citation of the pas- 
 sage had betrayed your opponent, although 
 you had afterwards corrected it. 
 
 7. In your paragraph No. 4, you again 
 admit that you had garbled the passage from 
 the 4th Council of Lateran, which, however, 
 you had unhesitatingly pronounced to be 
 " continuous, ' Of course there is no longer 
 any issue between us, on that subject. As 
 to what you call " the memorable cases of 
 Tertullian and Wesley," I have already dis- 
 posed of them by proving all I had asserted. 
 9. Your 6th paragraph is a vindication for- 
 sooth of Bishop Qnderdonk's Charge on the 
 Rule of Faith, and a volley of personality 
 discharged at myself. The former, it seems 
 to me, was in you, a work of supererogation; 
 and the latter is a species of literary warfare 
 in which I am determined not to mingle. I 
 began this controversy to reason, but not to 
 quarrel, with you. And whether you are 
 pleased to represent me as " the fashionable, 
 learned, and powerful Mr. Hughes,'' or as 
 '.' a garrulous daw," is a matter of trivial im- 
 portance to the question, to the public, and 
 myself. But I would simply remark, that I 
 have not attempted to depreciate your talents 
 or qualifications. In fact, the way the world 
 goes, talents and qualifications are quite un- 
 necessary for the man who undertakes to 
 combat the Catholic religion. The task re- 
 quires only a hold and irresponsible pen. 
 Call it " Popery," Romanism," " Supersti- 
 tion," " Idolatry," " Mummery," &c. Call 
 the clergy of the church, from the Cardinal 
 down to the Deacon, a consolidated mass of 
 spiritual knaves, who understand their parts 
 so ipell, that cholera or pestilence may range 
 the world, and not find one of them quitting 
 his post, except it be to sink in the grave: — in 
 a word, men who never had a good motive^ 
 but are always planning dark schemes against 
 the welfare of the human race, for the sole 
 glory and aggrandizement of " Anti-christ" 
 — " even their lord God, the Pope." Call 
 the Catholic laity, "ignorant," "blind-led,' 
 " priest-ridden" debased creatures, who dare 
 not read the Bible, nor even think, except as 
 the Pope gives them permission; — do all 
 this, and it will be received by the millions: 
 of Protestants as a highly satisfactory and j 
 rational refutation of Catholic doctrine. 
 Now it does not require for all this, any rare 
 
 corrected the "falsification" before the paper combination of talents. And as to yours - , 
 went, finally, to press — which correction j Rev. Sir, I have, so high an opinion of them, 
 
167 
 
 that I only regret their not being employed 
 in a better cause. If you only knew the 
 Catholic religion as it is, I am sure you 
 would not have assailed it as you have done. 
 But until God make another Revelation, he 
 will not endow either men or angels with 
 talents equal to the task which you have 
 rashly undertaken. This is the true secret 
 }f that " dissatisfaction among better in- 
 formed Protestants," in reference to the ac- 
 tual issue of the present controversy; and 
 whilst they exaggerate my qualifications, and 
 disparage yours, they are guilty of injustice 
 to us both. 
 
 As to the "considerable undertone of dis- 
 satisfaction,'' I had reason to believe in its 
 existence, but as you seem to be sceptical on 
 the subject, let me suppose that I was mis- 
 taken, and that Protestants generally are 
 perfectly satisfied with the manner in which 
 you have vindicated their rule of faith. But 
 this supposition also, has its difficulties. For 
 in the first place the " charge'' to which you 
 refer was in favour of the Protestant rule, and 
 opposed to the Catholic principle — and this, 
 pendente lite ! Neither do you, and the 
 "charge," agree in your mode of vindication. 
 You deny that private interpretation " is the 
 Protestant rule of faith;'' — the 'charge' 
 admits this, if I understand it — where it 
 says that the Scriptures are to be "inter- 
 preted as other ancient books" — in the 
 exercise, however, of a discreet judgment. 
 The charge teaches that according to the 
 Protestant rule " moral certainty, but not in- 
 fallible certainty, can be attained," whereas 
 you agreed that an " infallible rule has been 
 appointed by Christ himself," and contend- 
 ed that this is no other than the Protestant 
 rule, from which it would follow that those 
 who are guided by that rule, should have an 
 "infallible certainty," of being right ; — 
 a conclusion which clashes with that of the 
 * charge!' Again, the Methodist paper in 
 New York called " Ziooi's Advocate," by 
 way of letting its readers judge for them- 
 selves, as Protestants pride themselves in do- 
 ing, has suppressed all my letters and publish- 
 ed all yours! Judge for themselves, indeed ! 
 In contrast with this, look at the Catholic 
 paper published in St. Louis called the 
 <k Shepherd of the Valley," which is so small 
 that one of our letters seems to eat it up, and 
 yet it contrives to publish your letter entire, 
 verbatim et literatim; whilst it economi- 
 ses space by the curtailment of mine! Again 
 still, why is it that two Protestant papers in 
 this city suspended the publication of the con- 
 troversy after having both announced that 
 
 they would furnish regular abstracts of the 
 arguments on both sides? — And after having 
 done so to the number of four or five letters? 
 Why is it that every Catholic paper in the 
 country except one (which publishes the dis- 
 cussion in New York) spreads out to its rea- 
 ders the whole controversy; your writings as 
 well as mine? What does all this look like 
 if there is no dissatisfaction among Pro- 
 testants generally ? Some papers publish- 
 ing all your letters and none of mine — and 
 others, rather than be guilty of such unequal 
 justice, cutting their own promises short, by 
 suspending the publication of botli ! But this 
 is not all : many of them have represented 
 my arguments against the radical delusion of 
 Protestantism, as arguments against the Bi- 
 ble! Do not these proceedings, this injus- 
 tice, this misrepresentation and calumny ar- 
 gue the evidence of dissatisfaction ? 
 
 In your paragraph 7, you say that Mr. 
 Wesley never wrote a line in defence of the 
 Protestant Association in London or else- 
 where. In answer to this I have to say the 
 "association" itself was of a different opi- 
 nion. Wesley's letter from which I quoted 
 was dated, Jan. 12, 1780. And on the 17th 
 of February following, the thanks of the "As- 
 sociation'' were voted to him for his exertions 
 in the cause. But for further particulars I 
 refer you to my letter to a Wesleyan Metho- 
 dist in this paper as I do not wish to answer 
 the same arguments or objections coming 
 from two opponents. 
 
 10. The rest of your letter, down to your 
 definition of the Protestant religion, which I 
 shall examine presently, is a description of 
 abuses, and of the low state of public morals 
 at, and previous to the pretended " Refor- 
 mation." That there were abuses, and that 
 there still may be abuses, is what no man of 
 sense and education will deny. But it will 
 be perceived, that Catholics themselves were 
 crying out for the correction of these abuses. 
 They demanded a reformation — but they did 
 not conceive that in order to eltect it, it 
 would be necessary to deny the existence of 
 free will in man, as a moral a:^eni, with 
 Luther; — they did not conceive it necessa- 
 ry to make God the author of sin, and the 
 slave of his own foreknowledge, witi. Calvin ; 
 they did not conceive it necessary, to deny 
 the Divinity of Christ, and destroy the belief 
 of redemption through the merits of his blood, 
 with Socinus: — and so of the other " Refor- 
 mers." This was not the kind of Reforma- 
 tion that they anticipated. They tlesired 
 that men would reform their lives, according 
 to the religion of Jesus Christ; — but the Pro- 
 
168 
 
 testant Reformers changed the religion of 
 Christ, and yet testified, as I shall prove in 
 its place, from their own writing, that their 
 followers became less moral and more deprav- 
 ed than they had been before the change. As 
 for your authorities on those abuses, be 
 pleased to let me know where I shall find 
 them. For example, the reference to the 
 " letter of the three Bishops at Bononia,'' is 
 too vague. Again the testimony of "Dr. 
 Clagget of Gray's Inn," is no better than 
 yours or that of Mr. M 'Gavin. He, a Pro- 
 testant, quotes from Wolfius, another Pro- 
 testant; and both together with Lenfant, 
 Robert Hall, and John Wesley may be placed 
 in the same rank of testimony with arch- 
 bishop " Usher." 
 
 Altogether, you will be pleased to quote 
 the original authorities, and I will do the 
 same, as I have done from the commence- 
 ment. Such authorities as those just refer- 
 red to, are not a whit better than your own 
 assertion. 
 
 Before we pass to another topic it may 
 be proper for me to tai<e a retrospective 
 view of the question which has been under 
 discussion, viz. the rule of faith. We started 
 on the principle, that the Son of God having 
 made a revelation of divine truths, and hav- 
 ing required the belief of them as one of the 
 conditions of our salvation, appointed at the 
 same time, an " infallible" means to arrive 
 at the knowledge of what those divine truths 
 are. To accomplish this, the Catholic church 
 has presarved from the days of the Apostles 
 until this hour, the same uniform princi- 
 ple of .religious guidance. For the proof 
 that the Catholic church in holding to this 
 principle, has followed the rule appointed by 
 the Divine Author of Christianity, I refer the 
 candid reader to the evidences adduced in 
 my letters No. 5, 7, and 9 — from Scrip- 
 ture, history. Apostolical and primitive usage 
 in the Christian church, and from the very 
 necessities of the case. Let him also see 
 whether in any or all the letters of my op- 
 ponent, these evidences, arguments and au- 
 thorities have been refuted. 
 
 On the other hand Protestants have adopt- 
 ed from their origin in the 1 6th century, as 
 the "infallible" means of arriving at the 
 knowledge of those divine truths, which 
 Christ revealed, the sacred writings, exclu- 
 sively, of the Old and New Testament, as 
 each understands them for himself. This 
 principle secures to each minister the right 
 to propagate his own conceits, as divine 
 truths contained in the Bible — and conse- 
 quently has given rise to heresy of every 
 
 description, until it has thrown Protestant 
 Christianity into a scene of confusion, con- 
 tradiction, inconsistency, doubt, indifference 
 and infidelity, in which no man can say who 
 is right, or who is wrong. Is this principle of 
 religious guidance, "infallible?" And if not, 
 who will say that it was established by Christ? 
 
 In my first letter I laid down certain ar- 
 guments to prove that this principle is nei- 
 ther infallible nor competent to the end for 
 which a rule of faith was instituted by the 
 Divine Redeemer. These arguments it will 
 be admitted by the candid reader, have not to 
 this day been refuted. The first was, that 
 the Bible was not complete until about the 
 beginning of the second century — and there- 
 fore, could not be the rule of faith previous 
 to its completion. The 2d was, that the Bi- 
 ble no where speaks of itself as the exclu- 
 sive rule of faith — and that, therefore, Pro- 
 testants have no divine authority for this 
 assumption. The Sd [was that the Bible 
 " alone? is the Bible on "the shelf" — in 
 which sense it is absurd to speak of it, as a 
 rule of faith. Now the public will be sur- 
 prised to perceive that you have given up 
 the Protestant rule of faith, in your last let- 
 ter, except in this identical and absurd sense 
 of the Bible on " the shelf." In your epistle 
 No. 18, you frankly gave up " private inter- 
 pretation,'' as not being " the Protestant rule 
 of faith." In your la-t you tell me, that in 
 arguing against " private interpretation,'' I 
 have argued "not against the real Protes- 
 tant rule of faith, but aguinst its abuses 
 alone!" You affect to be surprised that I 
 was not aware of this sooner. But I believe, 
 Rev. Sir, that you are the first Protestant 
 writer that has recognised " private interpre- 
 tation" as an "abuse." The real rule of 
 Protestants is, you tell us, "The word of God 
 as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and 
 New Testaments." This is the real rule, 
 but if men try to understand these " Scrip- 
 tures," it must be by "private interpretation? 
 and this, you tell us, is the" abusf," against 
 which you say I have been arguing. Now 
 you will not be offended, I trust, at learning 
 that so far as this admission goes, you are a 
 Catholic. The Church has always held your 
 declaration on this point — and she has ever 
 taught, that "private interpretation," as it 
 is among Protestants, is an "abuse." 
 
 My 4th argument was that the Bible alone 
 cannot attest either its authenlicit;/, inspira- 
 tion^ or meaning — which is proved by the 
 contradictions which Protestants profess to 
 derive from it; — and therefore is not the 
 only rule of faith. 
 
169 
 
 The 5th was, that during the first four 
 hundred years of Christianity. the Bible was 
 not, and could not be, the only rule of faith 
 — and the proof is, that during that interval 
 the Canon of Scripture was not universally 
 settled in the Church; and even if it had 
 been, copies of the sacred book could not be 
 multiplied for the general wants. 
 
 The 6th was, that since the beginning of 
 the world, no controversy was ever decided 
 by the Bible alone.' 7th. That the Bi- 
 ble perverted by " private interpretation " 
 
 fore they are not the same. In proof of the 
 premises of this argument, I challenge you to 
 name on the face of the globe, or in the history 
 of the whole human race, any society of Chris- 
 tians, agreeing in doctrines with the authors of 
 the pretended Reformation or with any sect 
 that has grown out of it. Consequently either 
 the religion of Christ was not professed by 
 any society of Christians, until the days of 
 Luther; — jr else, the Protestant religion is 
 not the religion of Christ. This is a dilemma 
 from which escape is impossible. Is it not 
 
 in other words, the Protestant rule of faith then, Rev. Sir, strange to hear you answer 
 has given rise to all the heresies that evening the question, " where was your religion 
 
 did, or'do exist. 8th. That in consequence 
 of its " abuse," by private interpretation, it 
 makes for the Socinian, as well as for the 
 Calvinist. 9th. That by the same "abuse," 
 it compels a man who is an orthodox Protes- 
 tant to become heterodox, if he thinks that he 
 was wrong, and wishes to be right. 10th. 
 That it reduces orthodoxy and heterodoxy 
 to the . same quagmire of uncertainty, in 
 which neither can find any thing more 
 solid, as a foundation, than mere private 
 opinion. 
 
 Thus it is, that Protestants by adopting a 
 false principle of religious guidance, have 
 unhinged Christianity, and left infidelity to 
 reap the fruits of their rashness. Now, 
 Rev. Sir, I contend that these plain, com- 
 mon sense arguments against the Protestant 
 rule of faith, have not been refilled in all you 
 have written. They have, indeed, been met 
 with cavil and objection; but if cavil and 
 objection are to be received as proof, then 
 the Atheist may triumph. We all ad- 
 mit, Catholics and Protestants, the Bible to 
 be the inspired word of God, but at the com- 
 mencement of the controversy I assailed 
 '"'private interpretation," as the "radical 
 delusion of Protestantism," and I am happy 
 to perceive that in your last letter you also 
 denounce it as " abuse." Here then we may 
 take leave of the rule of faith and proceed to 
 the second topic of discussion, which profes- 
 ses to be this: 
 
 "Is the Protestant Religion the Reli- 
 gion or Christ?" 
 
 To this question I answer with a full 
 sense of my responsibility both to God and 
 my fellow men, that it is not. And I am 
 persuaded that all men who are candid, and 
 competent to give due consideration to the 
 reasons I shall adduce, will arrive at the same 
 conclusion. 
 
 1. The Protestant religion is only three 
 
 before Luther?" by asking another, "where 
 was your face before it was washed ?" 
 
 2. Whenever God communicated any re- 
 velation or new doctrine to mankind, he 
 invariably gave to the organ of that new 
 doctrine, a divine commission to speak in 
 his name; and the power of miracles to 
 prove that God had so commissioned him 
 to speak. This was the case with Moses ; 
 this was the case with Jesus Christ himself, 
 during his life, and with his apostles, after 
 his ascension into heaven. But the Protestant 
 religion was a new religion, since no society 
 of Christians had professed its doctrines pre- 
 vious to Luther, and yet its founders had 
 no divine commission, and no power of 
 working miracles to show that God had sent 
 them, for this new work: — Therefore the 
 Protestant religion is not the religion of 
 Christ. 
 
 3. The religion of Christ consists of doc- 
 trines which have been revealed, taught, and 
 believed as positive truths; whereas the 
 Protestant religion consists of doctrines 
 which are variable, unsettled, and which are 
 submitted and believed not as positive truths, 
 but as mere opinions : therefore the Protes- 
 tant religion is not the religion of Christ. 
 
 4. The Apostles of Christianity, besides their 
 power of working miracles in proof of their 
 having been sent, preached the same divine 
 faith every where, without the least variation 
 or disagreement; whereas the Apostles of 
 the Protestant religion, Luther, Zuinglius, 
 Henry VIII., Socinus, Calvin, &c, not only 
 disagreed in their doctrines, but denounced 
 each other in the most solemn manner, as 
 Heretics and deceivers of souls. Therefore 
 the Protestant religion is not the religion of 
 Christ; even according to the testimony of 
 its founders. 
 
 Here, Rev'd Sir, are four brief and dis- 
 tinct arguments, which I defy all the pow- 
 
 hundred years old; — whereas "the religion ers of human ingenuity to refute: — not be- 
 of Christ" is eighteen hundred years — there-' cause they are of my construction, but because 
 
170 
 
 they are true, in all their parts. Nothing 
 can overturn truth. You may excite the 
 passions of men to hate it, you may succeed 
 to envelope it in the mists of prejudice, but 
 still it is truth, and because it is truth, it 
 cannot be altered or destroyed. Permit me 
 then to invite your attention to these tour 
 arguments, examine them joint by joint, 
 and if they are true, then admit for the sake 
 of truth, that "the Protestant religion is not 
 the religion of Christ.'' 
 
 Your definition of tjje Protestant religion, 
 might have been much shorter and equally 
 to the purpose. You might have said, at 
 once, and in a few words, "The Protestant 
 religion is not the Catholic religion." Now 
 this is no definition. You tell me what the 
 Protestant religion is not; whereas I require 
 to know what it is. In order to a definition, 
 you must describe a thing by its own pro- 
 perties, its own distinctive characteristics. 
 "The Protestant religion, you say, is 'the 
 religion of the Reformation." This is mr 
 definition; until you have fixed the positive 
 meaning of the word Reformation. That 
 word has a great variety of meanings, among 
 Protestants; it gave birth to a numerous off- 
 spring of religions, and I should be glad to 
 know whether you intend to bear a shield 
 Broad enough to cover and protect them all. 
 In my arguments above, I disregarded all 
 definition of the Protestant religion; be- 
 cause those arguments are equally strong, 
 no matter what it is. But a definition is 
 absolutely necessary, and as yours is the bu- 
 siness of defence, it is your duty to furnish 
 it. You have attempted another definition, 
 and told us that the Protestant religion "is 
 the religion which is exclusively derived 
 from and consistent with the holy Scrip- 
 tures AS THE ONLY INFALLIBLE RULE OP 
 
 faith and practice." This, Rev'd Sir, is 
 precisely the definition, which the Unita- 
 rians, Sweclenborgians, and Universalists, 
 give of their religion. Do you purpose then, 
 to prove that their religion^ is the religion of 
 Christ! But as I do not wish to misrepre- 
 sent the Protestant religion, I desire that you 
 tell me whether these denominations are in- 
 cluded in it, or not; they are certainly in- 
 cluded in your definition. 
 
 If I were allowed to define the Protestant 
 religion, I should call it "the religion of free- 
 thinking about the meaning of the Bible. 
 The religion in which every man has a right 
 to judge for himself; and to make the sacred 
 text of Scripture speak in accordance with 
 his judgment. The religion, in which there 
 is neither seism, nor heresy, neither faith 
 
 nor heterodoxy, because being a religion of 
 individual s/eculation, and private opinion, 
 these things are necessarily rendered impos- 
 sible. I should say, that it is the religion 
 which cannot recover, from the moral shock 
 of its own first principles. The religion which 
 if considered in the aggregate of its sects, 
 allows its ministers to teach the people that 
 the Bible contradicts itself ten times in one 
 page. The religion, in fine, which occupies 
 the intermediate space, between ancient 
 Christianity, and modern Deism, combining 
 certain elements ol both ; and cherishing en- 
 mity towards both, (especially the former,) 
 and unable to defend itself against either." 
 
 Such is, in my opinion, the true definition 
 of the Protestant religion. Such are its own 
 inherent properties and characteristics. But 
 still as you have undertaken to prove that it 
 is the " religion of Christ," you have a right 
 to define it as you please, provided you will 
 only tell me what it is, instead of amplifying 
 its negative qualties, by telling me what it 
 is not. 
 
 Before I conclude this letter, I must call 
 your attention and that of our readers, to a 
 passage of vour last epistle which if I under- 
 stand it, proves that the leaven of intoler- 
 ance is still working in the bosom of Presby- 
 terianism. It is not, indeed, the declaration 
 of the General Assembly; and therefore I am 
 inclined to impute it rather to the irritation 
 of your pen, than to the body of Calvinists 
 at large, among whom, I have no doubt there 
 are many who will disapprove of its spirit 
 and bearing as much as I do. It runs as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 " In a word, a new era has come in our 
 country. The American people will prompt- 
 ly see, 'who the serpent is (to use your own 
 illustration,) that stings the bosom which 
 warms it.' They will henceforth know 
 where to send their children for education, 
 and when to contribute in generous and 
 abused confidence, to build the Schools, and 
 Convents, and Chapels, that are to train the 
 children to call their parents heretics; and 
 are arising to re-establish a religion which 
 never did, never will, and never can, permit 
 a free government or religious toleration. 
 The people are awake or awaking; and 
 you must change your system or lose your 
 prize." 
 
 This language. Rev. Sir, will be read not 
 indeed, with astonishment, (considering its 
 source) but with indignation by every true 
 hearted American citizen. Is it then a crime 
 in the "American people," that they do not 
 exclude Catholics from the privileges which 
 
171 
 
 the constitution secures to all? Is the de- 
 mon of sectarian hatred, ill-will among men, 
 and intolerance to be again invoked; — are 
 the penal laws to be again enacted ; — the 
 fires of persecution to be again lighted up, as 
 the nostrum of political salvation for these 
 United States; merely because Mr. Breck- 
 
 frightened at the 
 at are the crimes 
 
 inridge is, or affects to be, li 
 progress of Catholicity? Wha 
 
 progress 
 
 their own interest in thi9 matter. They 
 wish to place their sons in those institutions 
 where there are found good discipline, con- 
 scientious tutors, vigilant attention to health 
 and morals, competent and zealous profes- 
 sors, and all the means of a sound, radical, 
 and thorough education; — and if, in their 
 judgment, all these advantages are found in 
 Catholic colleges and seminaries, why should 
 you blame them for not sending their children 
 
 imputed to Catholics? Why, that they estab- you bla 
 
 lish houses of " education," and that P.otes- 1 to Princeton and Carlisle ? As for the charge 
 tants have been generous enough to contribute j of teaching them to call their parents " He- 
 to their erection. Now if they have founded i retics," it is a calumny too silly to deserve 
 such institutions, it is a sign that they are refutation. Their own interest would forbid 
 not those votaries of ignorance, which you | them, even if they were inclined. But I ap- 
 vouiself have elsewhere represented them, peal to all the Protestant parents that ever 
 And if Protestants have "contributed," to patronised those institutions, to say whether 
 aid them in this work (of which you furnish their children did not return to them as obe 
 
 no evidence) it is a sign that these Protes 
 tants approved of the undertaking, and exer- 
 cised the privilege of dominion over their 
 own property, without consulting their minis- 
 ters. Farther, Catholic literary Institutions 
 have never cost the public one cent for their 
 maintenance, whereas those under the 
 management of Protestant professors, besides 
 their primitive endowment, have obtained 
 vast sums of the public money. Not to go 
 out of our own State, look at the Dickinson 
 *Presbyterian College of Carlisle, which never 
 flourished except when it was allowed to feed 
 at the public treasury of the State; and after 
 having received a number of legislative 
 grants, as if it were an alms house instead of 
 a College, it has finally transferred itself to 
 the Methodists, who, 1 trust, will make a 
 better use of it. 
 
 The Catholic colleges, and houses of edu- 
 cation, never beg at the doors of government 
 for any such aid. They hold that the insti- 
 tution which, in this country, is not able to 
 support itself by its own intrinsic merit, 
 ought not to exist. They are patronised by 
 Protestants and I regret that you should have 
 betrayed your mortification at this circum- 
 stance. Protestants begin to understand 
 
 * Grants by Legislature to Dickinson College : 
 1786, April 7, 500Z. and 10,000 acres of land, ex- 
 changed afterwards for #6000, say #7335 00 
 1788, Oct. 4, a lot of ground in the borough of 
 
 Carlisle. 
 1791, Sept. 30, 1500/, say 4000 00 
 
 1795. April 11, #5000 5000 00 
 
 1806, Feb. 24, #8400 on mortgage free of interest 
 
 for five years ; but 
 1819, the trustees discharged from the payment, 8400 00 
 1921, Feb. 20, #2000 annually for five years, 10,000 00 
 1826, Feb. 13, #3000 annually for seven years, 21,000 00 
 
 #55,735 00 
 Making in all fifty-five thousand seven hundred and 
 thirty-five dollars of the public money given to the Pres- 
 byterian Dickinson College of Carlisle! 
 
 dient, as respectful, as affectionate as before 
 they went; and with a more delicate and 
 conscientious apprehension of thei r filial, so- 
 cial, and moral duties. Why then should 
 you blame them for their preference ? 
 
 As to Catholics being a " serpent warmed 
 in the bosom of the American people," it is 
 language, which, as I said before, no true son 
 of the Constitution will understand, except to 
 execrate the spirit which it seems to breathe. 
 The "American people," as a people, knows 
 no distinction of creeds; and yet you speak as 
 if the Government were already chained to 
 the car of the General Assembly! The Catho- 
 lics, as citizens, are part and portion of that 
 "people," being as peaceable in their de- 
 meanor, as upright in their dealings as indus- 
 trious in their avocations, and as ardent in 
 their attachment to civil and religious liber- 
 ty, as any other denomination. When 
 the tree of American liberty was plant- 
 ed, was it not watered with Catholic blood? 
 When the instrument of American Indepen- 
 dence was drawn up, was it not signed with 
 Catholic ink? When the provinces on our 
 borders were to be conciliated, was not the 
 commission intrusted to a Catholic Senator, 
 and a Catholic Priest; afterwards Archbish- 
 op Carrol? When the battle was won, was 
 not the glory of the victory divided with the 
 Catholic soldiers, of a Catholic king? And 
 yet, you speak of Catholics as if they live 
 and breathe the free air, by the criminal 
 connivance of "the American people.'' But 
 you, forsooth, are about to rouse that "peo- 
 ple," from its apathy to teach them, that in 
 allowing the Catholics to share the benefits 
 of the constitution — for I know of no other 
 privilege that they enjoy — they are "cherish- 
 ing a serpent that will sting the bosom which 
 warms it." 
 
172 
 
 But this, you say, was my " own illustra- 
 tion," applied to Presbyterians. Yes, Rev'd 
 Sir, but applied on the faith of history ; to 
 the Puritans, who, when they were perse- 
 cuted in Virginia, fled to the Catholic Colony 
 of Maryland, and in return for the hospitality 
 they received, turned round at the first op- 
 portunity, and persecuted those who had ex- 
 ercised it towards them. Read M'Mahon's 
 History of Maryland. This was the case, 
 which was illustrated by the simile of the ser- 
 pent; and if history testifies that Catholics 
 have at any time, ever been guilty of such 
 base ingratitude, I have no objection that 
 you should borrow and apply "my illustra- 
 tion." Your application of it to Catholics, 
 as distinguished from "the American peo- 
 ple," borders too much on the ludicrous, and 
 shows that you were straitened for matter, 
 wherewithal to excite prejudice against Ca- 
 tholics, when you quit the testimony of pa^t 
 events, and appeal to the visions of futurity. 
 But I fear that your fallibility as an histo- 
 rian, will have impaired your credit as a 
 prophet. — Since it is much easier to be ac- 
 quainted with what has taken place in the 
 world, than to thread with prophetic accu- 
 racy the labyrinth of future contingencies. 
 
 "Chi oft'ende, non pardona,'' says the 
 proverb. And it would be one happv result 
 of this controversy, if you could only turn 
 against the Catholics that current of jealous 
 apprehension, which for some time past has 
 been setting in> against the Presbyterians them- 
 selves in reference to their ambitious projects 
 and political aspirations. It would be well, if 
 the " American people,'' could be induced to 
 cast their eyes in another direction. But, 
 Rev. Sir, J shall not be the accuser of Pres- 
 byterians, as to any ulterior political de- 
 signs. I have marked their movements ; 
 their professions of zeal for the glory of God; 
 their plans for accomplishing it; their schemes 
 of sectarian quackery, by which it would ap- 
 pear that they are accountable for the reli- 
 gious, and moral well-being not only of the 
 " American people," but of the whole hu- 
 man race; — their wish to have "Christian par- 
 ties" in politics, and Christian magistrates, 
 whose duty it is, says their Standard to be 
 "nursing fathers of the Church;" — their 
 enumeration of Presbyterian votes on the 
 day of election; their attempts to have the 
 mail stopped on Sunday — in a word, their 
 gigantic schemes for the reformation of the 
 world, according their ideas of perfection; — 
 all conspire to produce the apprehension, not 
 that will seize the civil government (the 
 
 American people will take care of that) but 
 that in their zeal for the sanctification of 
 others, they may neglect the sanctification of 
 themselves. This is all the evil that I 
 apprehend from the intermeddling and 
 pragmatic spirit, which seems to animate 
 the zealous members of Presbyterianism, 
 from the Moderator in General Assembly, 
 down to those well meaning children who 
 cherish large notions about curing the. moral 
 distempers of a whole neighbourhood, by 
 thrusting tracts into every house, whether the 
 family desires them or not. But as to the 
 " American people," they have nothing to 
 dread on either side, — they will take care of 
 the State, if clergymen will only take care of 
 the Church — the denomination, however that 
 first attempts to bring about a union of these 
 two, makes preparations for tragic nuptials. 
 In your postscript you charge me with at- 
 tempting to injure the Rev. Mr. Burtt. I 
 really cannot suffer such a charge to pass 
 unnoticed. How does the case stand ? You 
 stated that you had been informed, that 
 Bishop Kenrick had warned the people 
 against reading this controversy. You sub- 
 sequently apologized to him; but transferred 
 the charge to some other of the Catholic 
 clergy in this city. The charge itself was 
 a "gratuitous falsehood," because there 
 was not the shadoiv of foundation for it. 
 This was manifest, from the ludicrous tex- 
 ture of that ludicrous composition, signed 
 John Burtt — and more so still, from the let- 
 ter of the Rev. Mr. Fitton, of the " Connec- 
 ticut Valley," who proves it a falsehood, 
 by showing that he was in Washington city, 
 on the very day on which he is charged 
 with having issued the "prohibition," in St. 
 John's church, Philadelphia. It was a " ca- 
 lumny," because it insinuated dishonesty of 
 purpose on the part of the Catholic clergy, 
 in forbidding the people to behold the light 
 of truth which your pen was shedding, 
 around the topic of controversy. This was 
 the state of the case independent of any 
 man's authorship. And when I held Rov. 
 John Burtt as accountable for it; you should 
 remember that I did so, on your own specific 
 testimony, for in your last letter but one you 
 stated positively, that Mr. Burtt was "the 
 
 ORIGINAL, AND RESPONSIBLE INFORMANT." 
 
 If that Gentleman is injured, therefore, let 
 him charge the injury upon you, or upon him- 
 self or on both together ; but not upon 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
 Jno. Hughes. 
 
CONTROVERSY N u . 22. 
 
 Is the Protestant Religion the Religion of Christ? 
 
 Philadelphia, June 21th, 1833. 
 To the Rev. John Hughes, 
 
 Sir, — The great question now before us, is this: 
 Is the Protestant religion the religion of Christ ? The 
 order of debate as agreed on between us, entitles 
 me to introduce this topic. Hence you have cal- 
 led on me for a definition of " the Protestant re- 
 ligion," and pledged yourself to respect it. The 
 terms of the question make it general — not Pres- 
 byterian, but Protestant ,- they also refer us to zfact 
 out of which the name grew, viz. that a protest had 
 been entered : and they point us to the church and 
 system against which lue protest. The very first 
 step, therefore in the order of discussion, is to show 
 against what we protest. After this, or if you 
 please, in' contrast with it, it will be proper to ex- 
 amine that vjhich the Protestants propose, as true 
 and good, in opposition to the errors and evils of 
 the church of Rome. I have on this plan given 
 you a definition of the Protestant religion. It is 
 a positive definition, viz. a religion exclusively de- 
 rived from, and consistent with the Holy Scriptures, 
 as the only infallible rule of faith and practice — and 
 I referred for illustration of it to the earliest creed 
 and the earliest Christian writers, as well as to those 
 who have been emphatically called The Reformers 
 of the 16th century. It is also negative in contra- 
 distinction from the Roman Catholic religion as to 
 doctrine, morality, government, discipline and wor- 
 ship, and as protesting against the errors and cor- 
 ruptions of the church of Rome. If I am then to 
 show why I protest, I must exhibit what I protest 
 against ; else the correlative term Protestant, has no 
 meaning. And if, as you say, I am the original 
 assailant, why do you tell me that mine " is the I 
 business of defence?" And if, of two leading! 
 questions, (viz. "The rule of faith," and this) 
 the first is given to you, and the last to me, 
 shall I be required to defend under the first, 
 and also under the last? Are you then afraid 
 to follow me in the steps of my discussion, 
 while I compare our respective religions with each 
 other, and with the religion of Christ ? If so, 
 you concede the weakness of your cause. If not, 
 then follow me. 
 
 I have already proved (in my letters Nos. 18, 
 and 20,) on the authority of Roman Catholic 
 writers, and Roman Catholic councils, that a Re- 
 formation was necessary — and that it was an 
 article of faith that a Reformation was neces- 
 sary—not only in the days of Luther, but 
 for ages befote : that a Reformation was needed, 
 in the head and in the members: that the name of 
 Christ had been forgotten by the nations, and 
 even by the clergy ; that Rome herself, the avenv- 
 
 ed mother and mistress of churches, was the 
 very place wher« Christ's religion was scanda- 
 lized and his worship corrupted : that simony 
 and sacrilege with nuns, clerical debauchery, 
 " a world of superstitions" and the most shock- 
 ing corruptions abounded and reigfted in the 
 church ; and in a word, that an ignorant and cor- 
 rupt priesthood were bringing ruin on the church. 
 Pope Adrian the 6th said, " the whole world 
 groaned aftera reformation:" the Suffragan Bishop 
 of Salts-burgh (onus ecclesiae) declared " it is 
 vehemently to be presumed, and cautiously to be 
 feared, that the ruin of the Latin (Roman) 
 Church, as to its ecclesiastical dignity, is 
 near;" and the 2d Pisan council (sess. 3d apud. 
 Richerium, b. 4. pt. 1st) decreed " that the uni- 
 versal Church needed reformation in faith and 
 manners, in the head and members.'''' 
 
 And yet it has also been proved that the 
 Church of Rome would not be reformed ; that it 
 was not reformed--; and that on the ground of its 
 pretended infallibility, it never could be reformed. 
 Such confessedly was the deplorable condition of 
 the Church of Rome when " the Reformation" be- 
 gan, and it3 authors received the name of Protes- 
 tants. Treading in their footsteps, we Protest 
 against her corruption of the religion of Christ. 
 
 ;Ii She has corrupted this religion at the foun- 
 tain-head, by making another Bible, adding to it 
 "the Apochryphal Books," which I have already 
 proved were rejected for many centuries by the 
 Christian church, which contain fables, lies, 
 false doctrines, and contradictions ; and in which 
 alone are found some of those very errors that are 
 held by the church of Rome. She has also given 
 to corrupt and unwritten traditions the same au- 
 thority with God's own word ; and thus at her 
 will brought from this forge any doctrine that the 
 times and ends called for. From these topics, 
 while on the rule of faith, you uniformly shrunk, 
 thus confessing that they could not be defended.^.^ 
 
 2, The Supremacy of the Pope, is a radicalar^T , " , * 
 ror in the church of Rome, is a wicked and anti- ( 
 christian usurpation, which by a lawless mo- ' V 
 narchy oppresses men, and rebels against God. 
 
 In the famous creed of Pius IV., which every 
 Roman Catholic is bound without qualification, to 
 believe, is this oath : " I promise and swear true 
 obedience to the Roman Bishop ; the successor 
 of St. Peter, the prince of the Apostles, and vicar 
 of Jesus Christ." Boniface VIII. in a decree 
 extant in the canon-law, pronounces it " neces- 
 sary to salvation for every human being to be 
 subject to the Roman Pontiff." Bellarmine says, 
 (Chap. 17. b. 2.) "All the names, which in 
 
174 
 
 Scripture are applied to Christ, proving him to be 
 above the church, are in like manner applied to the 
 Pope."" Is not this profane ? The Pope is also 
 styled " Head of the church"—" Lord of lords" 
 "Father of fathers"— " our -Lord God the Pope," 
 and the like. As the vicar of Christ, the Pope is 
 blasphemously set up to take his place on earth. 
 Thus he is the Prophet, Priest, and King, of the 
 church on earth. He is a Prophet; for no 
 Council is valid, unless called and approved by 
 him; and from this infallible source we are to 
 learn, (1.) What is the word of God and what 
 not; and (2.) without daring to think for our- 
 selves, we are to learn what it means, and what 
 not. As a Priest, he professes to offer up con- 
 tinually the true Christ in the Mass as a sacri- 
 fice to God : and as a king, he is a monarch, is 
 Head of the church and the state, is King of 
 kings; has both swords, and can make laws to 
 bind the consciences of men, can depose kings, 
 dissolve oaths, allegiance, &c. This can all 
 be clearly made out on indisputable evidence. 
 This is blasphemy. Is Christ absent from the 
 world that he needs a substitute! "All power 
 is given unto me on earth and in heaven, and lo 
 I am with you always, even to the end of the 
 world." (Matth. xxviii. 18-20.) Is he impo- 
 tent? Is he neglectful of his kingdom? Does 
 not the Scripture say, "There is one Lord," 
 (Ephes. iv. 5.) one head as well as one body . 
 that Christ is the only potentate, the King of kings, 
 and Lord of lords. (1 Tim. vi. 15;) and the only 
 lawgiver. (James iv. 12 ?) And did not Christ 
 say to Peter and the other Apostles, " Be ye not 
 called Rabbi ( 'master ) for one is your master, 
 even Christ, and all ye are brethren .- neither be 
 ye called masters, for one is. your master, even 
 Christ; but he that is greatest among you shall 
 be your servant." (Matt. chap, xxiii. 8.) Does not 
 Paul say, (2 Cor. i. 24.) " We have not domi- 
 nion over your faith.- (yet Paul was equal to Pe- 
 ter,) but we are helpers of your joy : by faith ye 
 stand," (Titus iii. 1.) "Put them in mind to be 
 subject to principalities and powers, to obey ma- 
 gistrates." (Matth. xx. 25. 26.) Jesus said; " Ye 
 know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise 
 dominion over them, and they that are great, ex- 
 ercise authority upon them, but it shall not be so 
 among you." This was a rebuke to apostles, 
 who were asking for supremacy ! So palpable is 
 the sacrilegious arrogance of the titles and au-' 
 Jhority of the Pope, that Pope Gregory I. said, 
 (though many centuries ago) " I confidently say 
 that whosoever doth call himself universal Bishop, 
 or desireth to be so called, doth in his elation be- 
 come the forerunner of anti-christ, because in his 
 pride he doth set himself before all others," and he 
 calls that title, (which is less presumptuous than 
 others since assumed,) "foolish," "proud," 
 "profane," "wicked;" and refers the man who 
 aspired to it, to the example of Lucifer for illustra- 
 tion, and to the judgment of the great day for 
 retribution. How fitting is the prophecy of 
 Paul's, — than which a truer likeness \vas never 
 drawn, and which God's people have been accus- 
 tomed, for many ages, (uniting with Pope Gre- 
 gory) to apply to his successors at Rome ! " And 
 
 J^ 1 
 
 that man of sin be revealed, the son of perditiori 
 who opposeth, and exalteth himself above all that 
 is called God, or that is worshipped ; so that he 
 as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing 
 himself that he is God. (2 Thess. ii. 3, 4.) 
 
 Add to all this what. Genebard (chron. ad Ann. 
 901.) says: "For almost one hundred and fifty 
 years, about fifty popes, having departed from the 
 virtue of their predecessors, were apostate, rather 
 than apostolical ; at which times they entered in 
 (to office) not by the door, but by a back-door, that 
 is to say, by the power of the Emperors." Ba- 
 ronius too (vol. x. A. D. 908) thus writes : 
 " Hast thou heard of the most deplorable state of 
 things at this time when Theodora the elder, a 
 strumpet of noble family, obtained supreme con- 
 trol (monarchiam) if I may so say, in the city of 
 Rome. She prostituted her daughters to the 
 popes, the invaders of the Apostolic seat, and to 
 the marquisses of Tuscany ; by which means, the 
 dominion of such wicked women became so ab- 
 solute, that they removed at pleasure the lawfully 
 created popes, and having expelled them, in- 
 truded violent and most wicked men in their places." 
 Such things are almost loo bad to relate — how 
 much worse to be done in the infallible seat by the 
 Vicar of Jesus, and the universal head of the 
 Church ! Yet the same author informs us that 
 these monsters were received by the Church with 
 the reverence due to the successor of Peter! 
 (eundem ut Petrum colerent.) Now from such 
 a church, is it schism to come out ? Against such 
 corruptions in doctrine and radical morals, is it 
 heresy to protest ? 
 
 3. As you have several times alluded to my 
 statement, "that indulgences were a bundle of 
 licenses to commit sin," I will next present 
 that doctrine. The wanton and unprincipled 
 trafic of Tetzel in indulgences, under the sanction 
 of the Pope, may be considered the salient point 
 of the Reformation. This as you know was 
 Pope Leo Xth's way of paying for the immense 
 Apostolical edifice of St. Peters, which is estimated 
 to have cost $60,000,000. He published Indul- 
 gences and plenary remission of sins, to all such 
 as should contribute money towards it. The 
 form of these indulgences, drawn by the authority 
 of the Pope, shows their nature. " May our Lord 
 Jesus Christ have mercy upon thee, and absolve 
 thee by the merits of his most holy Passion- And 
 I, by his authority, that of his blessed Apostles, Pe- 
 ter and Paul, and that of the most holy Pope, grant- 
 ed and committed to me in these parts, do absolve 
 thee, first from all ecclesiastical censures, m 
 whatever manner they have been incurred, then 
 from all thy sins, transgressions, and excesses, 
 how enormous soever they may be; even from 
 such as are reserved for the cognizance of the Holy 
 See, and as far as the keys of the Holy Church 
 extend. I remit to you all punishment which 
 you deserve in purgatory on their account ; and 
 I restore you to the holy sacraments of the 
 Church, to the unity of the faithful, and to that 
 innocence and purity which you possessed at 
 baptism : so that when you die, the gates of pun- 
 ishment shall be shut, and the gates of the para- 
 dise of delight shall be opened ; and if you shall 
 
175 
 
 not die at present, this grace shall remain in full 
 force, when you are at the point of death. In 
 the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
 Ghost." It was in the use of this daring and 
 scandalous commission that Tetzel set up heaven 
 for sale ; and it was in resisting this infamous 
 traffic that Luther began the work of reformation. 
 The Council of Trent teaches that " whoever shall 
 affirm that when the graee of justification is receiv- 
 ed, the offence of the penitent sinner is so forgiven, 
 and the sentence of eternal punishment so revers- 
 ed, that there remains no temporal punishment to 
 be endured, before his entrance into the kingdom 
 of heaven, either in this world, or in the future 
 state in purgatory : let him be accursed." It is 
 also an article of faith in the creed of Pius LY^ 
 *' that the power of indulgences was left by' 
 Christ to his church, and that the use of them 
 is very helpful to Christian people." Bellar- 
 mine's second and third chapters of book- 1, 
 on Indulgences, are headed : "That there exists a 
 certain treasury in the church, which is the 
 foundation of indulgences; that the church has 
 the power of applying this treasury of satis- 
 factions, and thus of granting indulgences." 
 And he proceeds to tell us that this treasury is 
 made up of the merits of Christ and of the Saints. 
 The merits of the Saints are called ivorks of su- 
 pererogation, or what a man does beyond his duty. 
 As lately as the year 1825, the Pope of Rome in 
 publishing a jubilee, uses the following language : 
 " t'ie authority divinely committed to us the 
 Pope,) to open as widely as possible that heaven- 
 ly treasury, which, being purchased by the mer- 
 its, passions, and virtues of our Lord Christ, of 
 his virgin inother, and of all the saints, the au- 
 thor of human salvation has entrusted the dis- 
 tribution of it to us," &c. 
 
 In fine, that there may be no doubt of the fact, 
 that the church of Rome still holds this article of 
 faith in all its force, we point our readers to the 
 plenary indulgence, published in the Catholic 
 Herald, on the 2d of May, 1833, on the authority 
 of his present Holiness, Gregory the XVI. and 
 signed John Hughes, Secretary. This document 
 we shall examine at large hereafter. The above 
 history and extracts from the standards of the 
 church, might suffice without further proof or 
 comment, to show the anti-christian character of 
 this doctrine. 
 
 (1.) Here weseethat the Pope, a finiteand sinful 
 creature, usurps the power to forgive sins. But 
 the word of God (in Mark ii. 7-13. Luke v. 21-26. 
 Isaiah xliii. 25: xliv. 22. Acts x. 42., and a crowd 
 of other passages,) teaches us, that it is the preroga- 
 tive of Infinite and Almighty God alone to forgive sins. 
 
 (2.) This doctrine teaches that there is need of 
 adding merit to the merit of Christ, viz : that of 
 the Saints. But the Scriptures teach us that' 
 Christ's merits are infinite,- that his righteous- 
 ness is perfect ; that he who believeth on Him 
 is justified from all things; that Christ's satis- 
 faction is a perfect, satisfaction ,■ and that he that 
 believeth on Him has passed from death unto life: 
 M that there is no other name under heaven, given 
 among men whereby we must be saved, but the 
 name of Jesus, neither is there salvation in any 
 
 other." (See 1 John i. 7-10. Acts xiii. 39. Acts 
 iv. 12. Ephes. ii. 8. 2 Cor. v. 21. Rom. iii. 23- 
 20. Rom. viii. 2-4., &c. &c.) Away then with 
 the wretched impiety of attempting to add to this 
 divine and perfect satisfaction ! ' 
 
 (3.) The doctrine of Indulgences supposes that 
 a creature, and he a fallen one, can do more than 
 his duty ; and have works of supererogation for 
 others. But what sailh the Scripture, (I quote 
 from our version.) " Be ye therefore stedfast, 
 immovable, always abounding in the work of the 
 Lord." (1 Cor. xv. 58.) Is there any room 
 left beyond "abounding;" or any time beyond 
 "always?" "So, likewise ye, when ye have 
 done all these things which are commanded you, 
 say we are unprofitable servants ; we have done 
 that which was our duty to do." (Luke xvii. 10.) 
 " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy 
 heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, 
 and with all thy strength ,- and thou shalt love 
 thy neighbour as thyself?' 1 '' Mark xii. 30. 31. Is 
 there any place here, to render satisfaction for 
 another, even if we had any merits of our own? 
 But in this fallen world no man ever yet rendered 
 any meritorious satisfaction for himself, much less 
 for another. 
 
 (4.) This doctrine supposes money may buy 
 pardon, and remission of sins. Hence the abun- 
 dant sale of indulgences ; and the moneys still 
 paid for souls in purgatory ! If this doctrine has 
 antiquity on its side, it looks for parentage to 
 Simon Magus ; — and surely Peter, your 1st Pope 
 (as you say) was against it; for it is written (Acts 
 viii. 18-20.) When Simon (Magus) saw that 
 through laying on of the Apostles' hands, the 
 Holy Ghost was given, he. offered them money 
 saying, give me also this power that on whomso- 
 ever I lay my hands he may receive the Holy Ghost. 
 But Peter said unto him, thy money perish with 
 thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of 
 God may be purchased icith money .'"* 
 
 Room is wanting to add to these particulars. 
 We hope hereafter to pursue the proof thus be- 
 gun. In the mean time, the following contrast 
 may show the difference between your religion 
 and the religion of Christ. 
 
 Protestant Church. Church of Rome. 
 The Gospel Preached. Another Gospel. 
 
 The word of God says, The Church ot Rome 
 
 ''Thou stuilt not make a says. "We may have im- 
 graven image, or bow down ages to kiss them, and un- 
 to it.*' cover our heads, and pros- 
 irate our bodies before 
 them/' 
 
 The 
 
 following statement which was stuck up a few 
 years ago in the churches of Madrid, may serve as a prac- 
 tical illustraiion of this subject: 
 
 " The sacred and royal bank of piety lias relieved from 
 purgatory from its establishment in 1721 to Nov. 1826 
 1,030,095 souls at an expense of £1,720.437 sterling. 
 ' do. from Nov. 1826 to ) iaq-ic 
 . Nov. 1827, 5 l *'~'° 
 
 11,405 
 
 1,011,797 1,734,703 
 
 "The number of masses calculated to accomplish this 
 
 pious work was 558.921 : consequently each soul cost 
 
 abouthalf a mass, or thirty-three shillings and four pence." 
 
 So true is it that the real character of Romanism is but 
 
 half disclosed in this country. 
 
17© 
 
 The Gospel of Christ says, The Church of Rome 
 
 " There is one Mediator be- says, "The Virgin Mary 
 
 tween God and man, the is also a Mediator, and she 
 
 man Christ Jesus." worships her as such in her 
 
 offices." 
 
 The Gospel of Christ In' the Church of Rome 
 
 says, "Christ was once Christ is daily offered in 
 
 offered to bear the sins of the sacrifice ol the Mass. 
 many." 
 
 The Gospel of Christ The Church of Rome 
 
 says, '• Other foundation says, " The true foundation 
 
 can no man lay than that js "St. Peter." 
 is laid, which is Christ Je- 
 sus." 
 
 The Gospel of Christ The Church of Rome 
 
 says, " The heavens must says, '• The body of Christ 
 
 receive Christ until the res- is every day substantially 
 
 tjlution of all things," in the hands "of the Priest - " 
 
 The Gospel of Christ The Church of Rome 
 
 says, "It is a mark of apos- says, "Marriage is not holj' 
 
 tacy to forbid to nAarry, for or" honourable to the cler- 
 
 marriage is honourable in gy." 
 all." 
 
 The Gospel of Christ The Church of Rome re- 
 says, " we should not pray cites many of her public 
 in an unknown tongue, we prayers and offices in Latin, 
 should pray with the under- which is an unknown tongue 
 standing." to most, and few can under- 
 stand it. 
 
 The Gospel of Christ The Church of Rome 
 
 says, " Blessed are the says, "Many of those who 
 
 dead who die in the Lord, die in the Lord, go into 
 
 for they rest.i'rom their la- purgatory, where there is no 
 
 hours." rest." 
 
 The Gospel of Christ says, " though we or an 
 angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto 
 you, than that which we have preached unto you, 
 let him be accursed." 
 
 I have now show T n, as far as the space allowed 
 me would admit, the anti-christian character of 
 several of your leading doctrines. Here observe, 
 that infallibility i3 lost, if but one error is de- 
 tected. But I have brought proof of many. 
 
 II. Having thus shown that several of the lead- 
 ing doctrines of the church of Rome are anti- 
 Christian, I proceed next to prove that they are 
 novel doctrines also. Your church lays great stress 
 on her antiquity ,- and you say in your 1st objec- 
 tion, " that the Protestant religion is only 300 
 years old." But, Sir, it is as old as the religion 
 of Christ. T proved in my last letter that divers 
 churches besides those called Protestant, had dis- 
 sented from many of the cardinal doctrines of the 
 Roman Catholic church ; and pointed you to the 
 Syrian church which had never been subject to 
 her. You choose, however, for good reasons, not 
 to notice these facts, I will now point out the 
 novelty of some of those doctrines which you call 
 apostolical, and prove them innovations. 
 
 1. The very canon of your church is an innova- 
 tion ; for you include in it many books that were 
 for centuries rejected by the ancient Christian 
 church, as I have heretofore proved. Cardinal 
 Cajetan called " an oracle" in your church, thus 
 writes, in his Commentaries, §c. (composed at 
 Rome,) on the Bible. "That what books were 
 .canonical or not canonical to St. Jerome, the same 
 ought either way to be so with us." " And that 
 the whole Latin church js hereby very much 
 obliged to St. Jerome, who by severing the ca- 
 nonical books of Scripture from those that are not 
 canonical, hath freed us from the reproach of the 
 Hebrews, who otherwise might say, that we had 
 
 forged a new canon for ourselves, or parts of 
 books, which they never had." "For this rea- 
 son he excluded from his volume, all those which 
 Jerome counted Apochryphal." " For Judith, 
 Tobit, and the Maccabees, are placed out of the 
 canon, and are placed among the Apocrypha, with 
 the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, by the 
 blessed Jerome." " These books are not canoni- 
 cal, that is, are not according to rule, for estab- 
 lishing the faith ; (Non sunt hi libri canonici, 
 hoc est, non sunt regulares ad firmandum ea quae 
 sunt fidei,) but yet they may be called canonical, 
 that is, they are according to rule, for the edifica- 
 tion of the faithful." " Neither be disturbed by 
 the novelty, if at any time you should find these 
 books numbered among the canonical, either in 
 the Councils or sacred Doctors :" and he adds 
 " that Augustine and the Council of Carthage 
 are to be reconciled with Jerome, and the Coun- 
 cil of Laodicea, by this distinction.'''' (1 Cap. 
 Epis. Heb. ; and Epis. ded. ad Pap. ante com. 
 in Lib. V. T.) This is most decisive. Erasmu3 
 is still more strong. And I could bring fifty tes- 
 timonies, in the different ages, to prove that your 
 canon is a corrupted and new canon. 
 
 2. The claim of the Pope to be universal 
 Bishop and Vicar of Christ — is a novelty. The 
 title of universal Bishop was not confered on, or 
 claimed by the Bishop of Rome till the 7th cen- 
 tury. Phocas (not Christ) who murdered his pre- 
 decessor, and who waded to the throne through 
 his blood, conferred this title on Boniface the 3d in 
 the year 606 after a criminal collusion between 
 them on the subject. We have seen above, that 
 Gregory, Bishop of Rome had resisted the be- 
 stowing of this blasphemous title on the Bishop 
 of Constantinople — as the forerunner of Jlnti- 
 Christ. This very fact shows that he had no 
 such title, and claimed no such headship. And 
 it is notorious that the Bishops of Constantinople 
 and Rome long contended for the supremacy; 
 that it was first tendered to the Bishop of Con- 
 stantinople ; and taken from him to be given to 
 the Bishop of Rome. The present Pope of 
 Rome is as unlike the first Bishop, as a common 
 justice of the peace is unlike an emperor. The 
 Apostle John survived Peter, the pretended 1st 
 Pope, some forty years. Either then there was no 
 pope in the world for forty years, or else an apos- 
 tle of Christ was subject to him ! Pope is a 
 name synonimous with father — and was given to 
 all bishops until the time of Gregory the VII. 
 Even the succession of the Bishops of Rome, on 
 Papal principles, cannot be made out. If it 
 could, they were like other Bishops — and most 
 unlike the present Pope : they had nothing above 
 other bishops : they were wholly inferior to all 
 the apostles : Peter was never Bishop of 
 Rome : and the Church of Rome instead of be- 
 ing the oldest church, was established long after 
 the church at Jerusalem, Antioch, &c. So clear 
 is it that the supremacy of the pope is a novelty 
 and an innovation. 
 
 3. Transubstantiation is an utter novelty. This 
 doctrine was so far from being held by the primitive 
 church, that we know its date and age. It is an 
 absurdity so great that it required implicit faith to 
 
177 
 
 believe it, and " is incapable of proof, by sense 
 or reason, Scripture miracles, antiquity, or by 
 any testimony whatever." That it is a novelty 
 is clear from this, that the famous Roman Catho- 
 lic Scotus affirms that it was not an article of 
 faith before the Lateran council (A. D. 1215) and 
 that it cannot be proved from the sacred Scriptures. 
 Bellarmine owns (book 3 chap. 23, on the Eucha- 
 rist,) that Scotus says so, and he admits " though 
 the Scripture quoted by us above seems clear to 
 us, and ought to convince any man who is not 
 froward; vet it may justly be doubted wheth- 
 er it be so (i. e. proved by Scripture) when the 
 most learned and acute men, such as Scutus in 
 particular hold a contrary opinion." Ocham, Biel, 
 Bishop Fisher, cardinal Cajetan, and Melchior 
 Cane hold the same belief. Now if it be not 
 taught in Scripture, surely it is not an ancient 
 doctrine,- and if it be doubtful, then it "was not 
 one of those fixed stars in the firmament of revela- 
 tion" of which you speak, or a positive fact or truth, 
 such as you contend every Roman Catholic doc- 
 trine is. Yet the Council of Trent decreed in all 
 the fierce spirit of fanatical zeal, " Whosoever 
 shall deny that in the most holy sacrament of the 
 Eucharisi, there are truly, really, and substan- 
 tially contained the body and blood of our Lord Je- 
 sus Christ, together with his soul and divinity, and 
 consequently Christ entire, but shall affirm that he 
 is present therein only in a sign, or figure, or by 
 his power, let hinube accursed." Here then, on the 
 one hand, is history, and the testimony of your 
 own chosen writers, proving the novelty of this 
 doctrine, and a grave Council cursing and dam- 
 ning all who say it is not the very truth of Chris- 
 tianity, on the other. 
 
 4. It is an antichristian novelty to deny the cup 
 to the people, in the eucharist. The canon of 
 Trent says, "whosoever shall affirm that the Ho- 
 ly Catholic Church has not just grounds for res- 
 tricting the laity and non-officiating clergy to 
 communion in the species of bread only, or that 
 she hath erred therein, let him be accursed." 
 This is awful language when levelled directly at 
 the Lord Jesus : for " He took the cup, and gave 
 thanks, and gave it to them, saying, drink ye all of 
 it" — " and they all drank of it" — " for as often as 
 ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show 
 his death till he come." (See Math. xxvi. 1 Cor. 
 xi. &c.) 
 
 Here then is annulling a law of Christ, and 
 violating a sacrament of his appointing ! And 
 what makes the impiety as well as the novel- 
 ty of this article of your faith apparent, is that 
 the Councils of Constance and Trent, acknow- 
 ledge it as an alteration, and vindicate the change. 
 The Council of Constance, session 13, says : 
 " that although this sacrament was received by 
 the faithful under both kinds in the primitive 
 church, it was afterwards received under both 
 kinds by the officiating priests, and by the people, 
 under the species of bread alone this there- 
 fore being approved, it is now made a law." And 
 the holy synod ordered that all transgressors of 
 this decree " be effectually punished." The 
 Trentine decree is if possible still more outrage- 
 ous. Here then, out of her own mouth your 
 
 church is convicted of the most glaring innova^ 
 tions. And I need not quote Justin Martyr, 
 Cyprian, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Pope Gelasius, 
 Gratian, Aquinas, &c, to show that this flagrant 
 change, is a novelty which none can deny, an out- 
 rage which none can defend. 
 
 The above specimens of the novelty and innova- 
 tions of your doctrines, fully meet your first ob- 
 jection, and prove that your religion is not the 
 religion of Christ, since as you say, " the religion 
 of Christ is 1800 years old." 
 
 Your second objection has no application, ex- 
 cept to your own religion, for we profess no new 
 religion. Ours is as old as the Bible. Yours, I 
 have proved above, is characterised by novelty. 
 We pretend to no miracles, but those that esta- 
 blished the religion of Christ. Whereas your 
 pretensions to them indicate that your church feels 
 the need of new seals to a new religion. And 
 yet the utter failure of her attempts to work 
 miracles, proves that she innovates without di- 
 vine right, or being sent of God. 
 
 Your third objection is only a repetition of 
 wmat has again and again been answered by me; 
 and appears, with the fourth edition of your ten 
 heads on the rule of faith, like the books of the 
 sybil which were offered to Tarquin, growing 
 less and less, and yet setting up the same claims 
 time after time. 
 
 Your fourth objection will be easily exposed, 
 and turned directly against you, when we come to 
 show the variations of Romanism ,- and in its pro- 
 per place, if Providence permit, we shall bring up 
 in parallel with it, the Protestant Religion. 
 
 Before I close this letter, it is necessary to no- 
 tice briefly what, for the sake of distinction, we 
 
 Will Call MULTIFARIOUS MATTERS. 
 
 1. You tell us that " Puscal was a Jansenist, 
 and as such was not a Romanist nor even a Catho- 
 lic.'" I am pleased to find that you admit the 
 distinction between Romanist, and Catholic. It is 
 from confounding these very dissimilar charac- 
 teristics, that many of the errors of your church 
 have arisen. The history of Jansenism most 
 clearly proves that your communion has been no 
 stranger to sects.- and its condemnation by the 
 Pope, is one of the most remarkable evidences of 
 the fact that the church of Rome is an enemy to 
 evangelical truth. This is apparent as the light of 
 day from the Bull of Pope Clement XI. issued 
 in 1713, with advice of a congregation of Cardi- 
 nals, against "Father Quesnel's moral reflections 
 upon the New Testament." We are by no means 
 disposed to defend his doctrines in the gross. 
 But will not Christians of every name look with 
 amazement at the head of "the infallible church" 
 denouncing such propositions as the following. 
 We select then from 101 which are specified and 
 condemned in the Bull, viz : 
 
 " No. 26. No graces are given except by faith. 
 66. He who would draw near to God, must nei- 
 ther come to Him with brutal passions, nor be 
 led as beasts are by natural instincts, or by fear, 
 but by faith and by love. 80. The reading of the 
 Holy Scripture is for every body. 94. Nothing 
 gives the enemies of the church a worse opinion 
 concerning the church, than to see therein an ab- 
 
178 
 
 SOLUTE DOMINION EXERCISED OVER THE FAITH OF 
 BELIEVERS, AND DIVISIONS FOMENTED On aCCOUDt 
 
 of such things as are prejudicial, neither to the 
 faith nor morals. 100. That it is a deplorable 
 time when God is thought 'to be honoured by 
 persecuting the truth, and the disciples thereof. 
 This time is come. ...... We often think we 
 
 sacrifice to God a wicked person, and we sacrifice 
 to the Devil a servant of God.'''' These are some 
 of the doctrines which the Bull " condemns and 
 rejects as false, captious, shocking, offensive to 
 pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, injurious 
 to the church and her practice." How remark- 
 ably this Bull confirms a multitude of my former 
 reasonings ! How true is it that Romanism is 
 not Jansenism, nor Christianity. And now as to 
 the Jesuits, whom by implication you approve, and 
 Avho were the victorious opponents of Jansenism 
 at the court of Rome, the very name, though be- 
 speaking a follower of Jesus, conveys an associa- 
 tion so offensive that I will not define it, lest I 
 should appear to be personal. But how strange 
 it is that they were expelled in a former age from 
 so many countries, and their order abolished by 
 one Pope, and in latter days revived by another. 
 Each Pope gives potent reasons for the act. 
 Both could not be infallible. Yet both seem to 
 have been approved by the suffrages of the church. 
 How do you explain it? 
 
 You say " our Bibles are in English." An- 
 swer. Is your English version authorised by the 
 church? You say " The first edition would be still on 
 the bookseller's shelves if there existed such a prohibi- 
 tion.'" Answer. Has the following law of your 
 church been repealed ? If not, what does it mean ? 
 " In as much as it is manifest from experience that if 
 the Holy Bible translated into the vulgar tongue (for 
 example into English) be indiscriminately allowed to 
 every one, the temerity of men will cause more evil than 
 good to arise from it, it is on this point referred to the 
 judgment of Bishops or Inquisitors, who who may by 
 
 THE ADVICE OF THB PRIEST OR CONFESSOR PERMIT 
 
 the reading of the bible and this permission 
 
 they must have in writing. But if any one shall 
 have the presumption to read or possess it without 
 such written permission, he shall not receive absolu- 
 tion until he have first delivered up such Bible to the 
 ■ordinary." And even "Booksellers" (I hope Mr. 
 Cummiskey will look well to the written permis- 
 sion) '■'■shall forfeit the value of the books" (is not this 
 church and state?) "to be applied by the Bishop to 
 some pious use, and be subjected by the Bishop to 
 such other penalties as the Bishop shall judge pro- 
 per." Many of your readers, who wonder at your 
 former silence on this subject, would esteem it a fa- 
 vour if you will now explain this contradiction. And 
 as to your Breviary, your Mass-book in full, your 
 book of Councils, and book of Bulls, do you say 
 they are in English 1 
 
 3. You shun the Bull of Innocent VIII. in 
 a way that is most peculiar. In the first instance 
 you evaded its bloody contents by the argument 
 that a mistake of ten years had been made in its 
 date by me. Next you defend it by saying that 
 the Waldenses " slew the servant" (for these are 
 the words of the annalist) of the Inquisitor! Bat 
 what right had the Inquisitor to arrest and 
 
 destroy the Waldenses ? And if the Walden- 
 ses did slay his servant, what had the Pope 
 to do with, that? Where was the civil govern- 
 ment? If a Protestant should wickedly slay a 
 Roman Catholic in London, or in Edinburgh, has 
 the Pope a right to order his Inquisitor to slay him 
 and all others who think with him ? Yes, surely 
 according to your reasoning! and the civil go- 
 vernment is only the Pope's creature. Lastly, 
 when I adduce your own historian in proof of the 
 Bull, or Brief of the Pope, you say "the annals 
 of Baronius come down only to the year 1 198, and 
 yet you quote his authority for a fact which should 
 have taken place in 1487. How is this ?" And 
 is it then possible that this is designed for a se- 
 rious and candid answer to the authority of the 
 Historian ? Can you be ignorant of the fact that 
 Raynald is the continuator of the annals of 
 Baronius; that he brought them down to the year 
 1534, and that his continuation is published with 
 the permission and approval of the highest autho- 
 rity at Rome? And can you mean to argue that 
 as it is the continuator only who says there was such 
 a Bull, therefore there was no such Bull? I have 
 not words to express to you my 'surprise at the 
 impolicy of your defence, not to name its want 
 of candour. The fact then still returns upon 
 you with augmenting force, that the said Bull or- 
 dering Heretics to be butchered, or made slaves, if not 
 exterminated, was indeed issued by the Pope, and 
 executed by his minions in the name of the God 
 of mercy ! 
 
 4. It is true that Presbyterians were once in a 
 generic term, classed with other protestants under 
 the title of Puritans: and it is also true that Con- 
 gregationalists, Independents, Presbyterians, and 
 Puritans, as a body were and are, in their funda- 
 mental doctrines, one people. But you stated on 
 the authority, as you say of Thomas Jefferson, 
 that Presbyterians, persecuted Roman Catholics 
 in Maryland, after having been protected by 
 them : and then you change the term into Puritans 
 as if they were convertible, and say the Pres- 
 byterians persecuted them. Whereas the fact 
 is, there were no Presbyterians in Maryland at that 
 time; and by the change of words in your two 
 successive letters, you first misrepresent the facts, 
 and then seek to conceal that misrepresentation. 
 
 5. As for the authority of Lenfant, in the case 
 of the martyr Huss, it is in vain you seek to des- 
 troy his authority in this matter. The treachery 
 of the Council of Constance is too palpable to be 
 denied by you, much less defended. But the re- 
 bound of your defence acts on your own cause 
 alone. It were easy, by a number of Roman Ca- 
 tholic writers, to show that with more candour, 
 they admit and justify the broad principle, " that 
 no faith is to be kept with heretics." Simancha, 
 (Cath. Inst. Tit 46.) " Faith is not to be kept 
 with heretics, as neither with tyrants, pirates, 
 
 nor public robbers Certain heretics were 
 
 therefore, justly burned by the solemn judgment 
 of the Council of Constance, although promise 
 of security had been given them. For if faith be 
 not kept with tyrants, pirates, and other robbers, 
 who kill the body, much less with heretics who 
 destroy souls." This writer was a Bishop, a 
 
170 
 
 Canonist, and a Civilian ; and was surely of a 
 very " different opinion" from you as to the 
 Council of Constance. He also cites Salamo- 
 nius, and Placa, as holding the same doctrine. 
 And not only so, but Popes in great numbers, 
 have in word and deed maintained the same gene- 
 ral principle. Gregory IX., Urban VI., Paul V., 
 Innocent X.,Honorious,Eugenius IV. ,&c. avowed 
 this infamous principle. And worse than all, 
 Councils have done the same. The 3d and 4th 
 Councils of Lateran, the Council of Lyons, and 
 Pisa, as well as the Councils of Constance, held 
 the same shocking doctrine. Why therefore, 
 should we stop to contend for one case, when it 
 has been the common doctrine, and practice of 
 the church of Rome to keep no faith with here- 
 tics ? 
 
 6. You strangely expose yourself in the al- 
 leged omission of the word " dubio.'''' That wbrd 
 Was in my manuscript when it went to the 
 press ; it was corrected by me in the proof-sheet, 
 on Saturday ; it was in the revised proof, which 
 I corrected on Monday; it was in the Presbyte- 
 rian, and Herald, of Wednesday and Thursday ; 
 and I did not see your strange critique on its ab- 
 sence until the next Saturday ! Charge me not 
 then With want of candour; while you " strain at 
 gnats, and swallow camels." I cannot consent 
 to cover your blunders and cavils, at the price of 
 owning what I never did. 
 
 7. After the above statement, the charge of 
 "" garbling" will be interpreted, without the need 
 of my disproving it a third time. 
 
 8. "The considerable undertone" of Protes- 
 tant and Presbyterian dissatisfaction dies away 
 before my call for proof; and "the general*' im- 
 pression that the Bishop's charge was intended as 
 a prop to my weak arguments, shrinks into " let 
 me suppose that I was mistaken." But you are 
 assuredly Very much mistaken when you think 
 that the Protestant press is receding from the 
 publication of your letters. I am acquainted 
 with almost twenty Protestant papers that pub- 
 lish this controversy. If then your reasoning is 
 just in explaining their pretended suppression of 
 it into a token of defeat, What conclusion must 
 we draw from this redundant and undaunted re- 
 publication? Not surely that Protestants despair 
 of the truth, or shrink from free inquiry. 
 
 9. You seem much disturbed by my retorting 
 your figure of the serpent stinging the bosom that 
 nurtured it. I assure you I meant neither to stir the 
 American people to disturb the equal rights of 
 our Roman Catholic citizens, nor to charge those 
 citizens with being designing or ungrateful ; and 
 no ingenuity can pervert my language so as to 
 convey this meaning. It was not to the people, 
 but to the priesthood I referred, when retorting 
 your charge against Presbyterians. I informed 
 you that the nation was awaking to a proper dis- 
 covery of their influence and designs. No man 
 can be a consistent Roman Catholic Priest under 
 such bonds and vows to a foreign prince, and spi- 
 ritual dictator, without being of necessity exclu- 
 sive, aiid an eager proselyter of all men to his pe- 
 culiar system. The history of the Jesuits, (who 
 have been called, by a strange union of discord- 
 ant terms and dissimilar beings, " the militia of 
 Jesus") is ample evidence of the truth of my as- 
 sertion. 
 
 As to the sum which you say has been expended 
 on Dickinson College, Carlisle, I take it on your 
 word to be so. If Presbyterians (as formerly at 
 Carlisle,) are selected by our public institutions to 
 aid in their instruction, I leave you to determine 
 whether it be their crime, their calamity, or their 
 honour and duty to serve them : and if the Legis- 
 lature of the State choose, in its bounty, to assist 
 these institutions, whether you will condemn 
 them for it ? You should have known the histo- 
 ry of Dickinson College better, however than to 
 call it a " Presbyterian College." I would re- 
 mind you also, that Papal money is poured into 
 this country from year to year for the very purpose 
 of proselyting us heretics, aud building up institu- 
 tions for the establishment of Popery among us.- 
 In the year 1828, 120,000 franks were confessedly 
 (I know not how much more in reality) sent from 
 Rome to sustain your cause in this country ! You 
 compel me reluctantly to dwell on these topics. 
 I hope in your next to see manly arguments in a 
 Christian spirit, and a cessation of that low and 
 vulgar warfare which must speedily weary the 
 patient and kind readers of our letters. 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
 John Breckinridge, 
 
CONTROVERSY N°. 23. 
 
 Is the Protestant Religion the Religion of* Christ? 
 
 Philadelphia, July 3, 1833. 
 To the Rev. John Breckinridge. 
 
 Rev. Sir — In your letter No. XX. when we 
 were discussing the previous question, you gave, 
 as the definition of the Protestant rule of faith, 
 " The word of God as contained in the Scriptures 
 of the Old and New Testament ;" and because I 
 did not attack the " word of God," you charge 
 me with having evaded " the real Protestant rule 
 of faith, and argued against its abuses alone !" 
 If you had thus candidly, given up private inter- 
 pretation as an " abuse'' at the commencement of 
 the discussion, we might have saved much time 
 and labour. But I am surprised, and indeed gra- 
 tified, to perceive that good sense, and the press- 
 ing necessities of the case, urged you, finally, to 
 yield, however reluctantly, so precious a tribute to 
 the majesty of Truth. It certainly did not occur 
 to you that by this admission, you sapped the 
 very foundations of the Protestant religion, since 
 it is known to all men that this very " abuse" is 
 the parent of the Reformation. 
 
 When I ask you to define the Protestant reli- 
 gion, you tell me-, that it is " a religion which pro- 
 tests against the (supposed) errors of the Catho- 
 lic church," (in so much the definition applies to 
 Deism as well as Protestantism, since both pro- 
 test against the same doctrines,) " and which is 
 derived exclusively from, and consistent with, the 
 Holy Scriptures as the only infallible rule of 
 faith and practice." This is your definition. 
 But how is the Protestant religion " derived" 
 from the Scriptures 1 Is it not by private inter- 
 pretation ? Now, Rev. Sir, will you " derive" 
 your religion through a medium which you, your- 
 self, have denounced as an " abuse?'" 
 
 Again, the Protestant religion is " a religion 
 consistent with the Holy Scriptures." But who is 
 to be the judge of this 1 Or how is it to be de- 
 termined whether any particular doctrine of Pro- 
 testantism is " consistent" with the Holy Scrip- 
 tures or not ? Does not this position again, be- 
 tray the " radical delusion" of the whole system? 
 Every sect considers that its own notions are 
 «' derived from, and consistent with the Holy Scrip- 
 tures." And pray, do the Holy Scriptures 
 contain, in reality, the notions of every sect of 
 Protestants'? If we admit the principle of your 
 definition at all, it will be as favourable to the 
 Protestant who denies the Trinity of persons in 
 God, as to him who admits it ; — to the one who 
 holds that there is no sacrament, as to the other 
 who maintains that there are, at least, two, Bap- 
 tism and the Lord's Supper. Every sect main- 
 tains that US own peculiar prejudices are " derived 
 c* 
 
 from and consistent with the Holy Scriptures," 
 and how am I to know which are the doctrines 
 that are really, and truly, derived from the sacred 
 volume ? 
 
 You make the following Statement, in the first 
 paragraph of your last letter. — " If, as you say, I 
 am the original assailant, why do you tell mo that 
 mine is the business of defence !" Answer. Be- 
 cause, when I held you responsible as the original 
 assailant, it was as the challenger " of priests 
 and bishops" to the field of controversy; but it 
 was agreed, that we should commence by the rule 
 of faith. Those who have read your letters 
 through, to the final and very memorable conces- 
 sion, by which you recognise "private interpreta- 
 tion" as an " abuse," will be able to appreciate 
 the merits of your " defence" of the Protestant 
 rule of faith. The second question to be exami- 
 ned, according to mutual agreement, was, whe- 
 ther "the Protestant Religion be the Religion of 
 Christ." Now I undertake, as the very question 
 supposes, to prove that it is not: and I should sup- 
 pose that yours was the opposite side of the case, 
 which I intimated by saying that yours is the 
 " business of defence." This is the position se- , 
 lected by yourself, as may be seen by referring to 
 your last letter in the preliminary correspondence, 
 where you say, " I am to defend the Protestant 
 faith.'''' The sincere inquirer, who looked to your 
 last letter, for this promised " defence" of the Pro- 
 testant religion, must have found himself mortify- 
 ingly disappointed. 
 
 In my last letter I reduced the question to the 
 simplicity of a dilemma, from which I defy you to 
 escape. It is this: Either the Protestant religion 
 is a religion differing from the religion of Christ; 
 — and by this admission you give up the ques- 
 tion ; — or else, the religion of Christ was not pro- 
 fessed by any society of Christians, previous to the 
 time of Luther. And in that case, the religion of 
 Christ is only three hundred years old ! ! To 
 which of these" alternatives do you choose to 
 cling 1 for, one of them is inevitable. To this ar- 
 gument, you oppose the " defence" of — silence. 
 Not a word of authority ; not a word of reason* 
 ing ! Silence only, prudent silence. 
 
 My second argument grew out of the first : It 
 was this, that whenever God gave new doctrines, 
 such as the Protestant religion was, when Lu- 
 ther and the rest began to preach it ; he always 
 gave, at the same time, to the preachers of such 
 doctrines, the gift of miracles, to show that they 
 were not impostors ,- this gift, however, was de- 
 nied to the authors of the Protestant religion, and 
 therefore the inference is, that God never deputed 
 
182 
 
 them. To this argument the only answer given 
 is, that " we (Protestants) profess no new reli- 
 gion." That you say so, I admit. But in order 
 to show this, you were hound to prove that your 
 religion had been professed by some society, in some 
 part of the world, in some age, hetween the preach- 
 ing of Christ, and the preaching of Luther. But 
 there was no such society, and therefore your gra- 
 tuitous assertion of the Protestant religion's not 
 being a " new religion," must go for nothing. 
 We require proof. 
 
 My third argument was, that the Protestant re- 
 ligion being a religion of opinions, is not the re- 
 ligion of Christ, which was a religion of positive 
 truths. Consequently that they are not the same. 
 To this you give no reply, except that I luid in- 
 troduced it before.'.'.' But it has never been an- 
 swered; nor has even an attempt been made at a 
 refutation of it. The one was a religion of cer- 
 tainty, the other is a religion of chance. Can you 
 deny this ! 
 
 My fourth argument was that the Reformers 
 themselves denounced each other as heretics and 
 deceivers of souls. And to this argument you re- 
 ply that it " will be easily exposed and turned 
 directly against me." As if this invalidated the 
 inference which it furnishes against the religion, 
 of which these Reformers were the authors .' These 
 few remarks of yours, are the only testimony con- 
 tained in the whole of your last letter, to show 
 the reader that "the Protestant religion, is the 
 religion of Christ." 
 
 As to your objections against the doctrines of 
 the Catholic church, even if they were well 
 founded, they do not appertain to the present sub- 
 ject ; and you will recollect that one of our rules 
 binds us " to adhere strictly to the subject of de- 
 bate for the time being, and to admit no second to- 
 pic until the first shall have been exhausted." 
 In obedience to this regulation, I shall pay no at- 
 tention to any thing you may have to say against 
 the Catholic doctrine, until we shall have discussed 
 the present question, viz.- "whether the Protestant 
 religion is the religion of Christ." But that 
 question once disposed of, I shall allow you " to 
 take up any doctrine of the church, and I shall 
 hold myself prepared to refute all the arguments 
 you may bring against it." 
 
 The candid reader, who wishes to investigate 
 the grounds of his religion with a view of arriv- 
 ing at the truth, should reject from his mind 
 every preconceived opinion, which, on examina- 
 tion, he does not find to have been established on 
 the basis of facts. The supposition which Pro- 
 testantism holds forth to its votaries, is, that the 
 religion of Christ, established in its purity, by 
 the Apostles, gradually, and, what is rather 
 etranwe, imperceptibly, became corrupted, and was 
 finally restored to its primitive purity, in the IGth 
 century of the church, by the event which is called 
 the "Reformation." Now, Rev. Sir, to save 
 you the trouble, at this moment, of straying from 
 the question, to prove that this was the case, let us 
 suppose for sake of argument that it was. Let us 
 suppose that Christ after having promised to be 
 with his church, in the teaching of " all nations, 
 
 till the end of time," violated his 'promise ; and 
 that, in fact, all Christendom was buried, as the 
 English Homily book has it, "in damnable idol- 
 atry for the space of eight hundred years and 
 more" — and starting even from this extravagant 
 supposition, you will find it a difficult task to 
 prove that "the Protestant religion is the religion 
 of Christ." And why"? 
 
 1. Because no man can tell what the Protestant 
 religion is. We know it as a compound of heteroge- 
 neous opinions about the meaning of the Bible. As 
 you have defined it, you have bound yourself to prove 
 that Quakerism, Episcopalianism, Baptistism, 
 Methodistism, Presbyterianism,Universalism, Ar- 
 minianism, Unitarianism, Swedenborgianism, are 
 all " the religion of Christ ;" since the mercy of 
 your definition graciously embraces them all ! 
 Each of them is "a religion, exclusively derived 
 from, and consistent with the holy Scriptures as 
 the only infallible rule of faith and practice." 
 Now, Rev. Sir, permit me to ask you, did you 
 seriously intend to distribute, as your definition 
 imports, the religion of Christ equally among 
 all these sects'? Do you mean to defend the doc- 
 trines of all these denominations ? For all these 
 according to your definition, constitute the Pro- 
 testant religion ; and this you have undertaken to 
 vindicate, as " the religion of Christ." How 
 much wiser would it have been in you, to have 
 borrowed the language of the celebrated Bishop 
 Watson, of the church of England, and told us 
 that the Protestant religion is that system of 
 Christian liberty, in which " a man believes what 
 he pleases ,• and professes what he believes." Sen- 
 tire quae velit, et quse sentit, loqui. 
 
 2. But by another definition you have said that 
 the Protestant religion is "the religion of the Re- 
 formation." Now the only way to ascertain the 
 religion of the Reformation, is by bringing to 
 view the doctrines of the Reformers as stated by 
 themselves. To begin then with the father of 
 that revolution, he tells us that " God works the 
 
 evil in us, as well as the good." Is this 
 
 "the religion of Christ 1" And that " by his 
 own will, he (God) necessarily renders us worthy 
 of damnation, so as to seem to take pleasure in 
 the torments of the miserable." (Luth. Opera, ed. 
 Wittemb. Tom. ii. p. 437.) Is this "the religion 
 of Christ!" Again. " If God foresaw, says he, 
 that Judas would be a traitor, Judas was com- 
 pelled to be a traitor ,• nor was it hi his power to 
 be otherwise." (Luth. de Servo. Arbit. fol. 460.) 
 Is this the religion of Christ V " Man's will is, 
 (says the same Reformer,) like a horse : if God 
 sit upon it ; it goes as God would have it; if the 
 Devil ride it, it goes as the Devil would have it; 
 nor can the will choose its rider, but each of 
 them (viz: God and the Devil) strives which shall 
 get possession of it." (Ibid. vol. ii.) Is this "the 
 religion of Christ ?" "Let this be your rule," 
 (continues the same father,) " in interpreting 
 the Scriptures ; whenever they command a good 
 work, do you understand that they forbid it." 
 (Ibid. Tom. iii. p. 171.) Is this, Rev. Sir, "the 
 religion of Christ." O what a task you have un- 
 dertaken ! 
 
183 
 
 • And now let us see what Calvin, your own 
 Calvin, puts forth as "the religion of the Refor- 
 mation," which, 1 you say is, the religion of Christ. 
 " God requires, says he, nothing of us hut faith ; 
 he asks nothing of us hut that we helieve." 
 (Calv. Inst. L. iii. c. 23.) " It is plainly wrong 
 to seek for any other cause, of damnation, than the 
 hidden counsels of God. "••••" Men, by the free 
 will of God, without any demerit of their own, 
 are predestined to eternal death." (Ibid.) Is this 
 " the religion of Christ V The whole ope- 
 ration of this doctrine is to produce fanaticism 
 in belief, and quietude of conscience in the midst 
 of immorality. This same impious doctrine of 
 Calvin, is well approved, in the Presbyterian 
 Confession of faith as amended in the year 1821. 
 
 " By the decree of God, for the manifestation of 
 his glory, some men and angels are predestinated 
 unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to 
 everlasting death." 
 
 These angels and men, thus predestinated and 
 fore-ordained, we particularly and unchangeably 
 designed ; and their number is so certain and de- 
 finite, that it cannot be either increased or dimin- 
 ished. (Presbyterian Confession of Faith, p. 16, 
 17.) Now, what else is this, but saying, with Cal- 
 vin, that " the hidden counsel God, is the sole cause 
 of damnation ?" 
 
 There are few persons who will not acknow- 
 ledge the justice of the following commentary, on 
 this doctrine of Calvin, by a Protestant compan- 
 ion of his own. " He is a false God," says this 
 author, "who (according to Calvin's showing) is 
 so slow to mercy, so quick to wrath, who has 
 created the greatest part of mankind to destroy 
 them, and has not only predestined them to dam- 
 nation, but even to the cause of their damnation. 
 This God, then, must have determined from all 
 eternity, and he now actually wishes and causes 
 that we be necessitated to sin ,- so that thefts, adul- 
 teries and murders, are never committed but at his 
 impulse ,■ for he suggests to men perverse and 
 shameful affections ; he hardens them not merely 
 by simple permission, but actually and efficacious- 
 ly , so that the wicked man accomplishes the 
 work of God and not his own, and it is no longer 
 Satan, but Calvin's God, who is really the father 
 of lies. (Castel. in lib de Praedest ad Calvin.) Is 
 this, Rev. sir, "the Religion of Christ]" 
 
 This, however, was the religion of the Refor- 
 mation: — of Luther, who maintained that the will of 
 man is a horse, alternately bestridden, by God and 
 the Devil, whichever succeeds to mount first, and 
 is always obedient to its rider, for the time being. 
 This was the religion of Geneva, as we have seen. 
 This was the religion of England itself, as some 
 of its most eminent divines admit and deplore, as 
 for instance, Bishop Bancroft. (A survey of the 
 pretended holy discipline, p. 44.) But we have 
 nearer testimony than that of an English Bishop. 
 Doctor Samuel Miller of Princeton, tells us, in 
 his Introductory Lectures on " creeds and con- 
 fessions," that " the Calvinistic articles of the 
 church of England were the means of keeping her 
 doctrinally pure, to a very remarkable degree, for 
 the greater part of a hundred years ! In the reign 
 
 of James the 1st, says the Doctor, very few oppo- 
 nents of Calvinism dared to avow their opinions; 
 and of those who did avow them, numbers were 
 severely disciplined, and others saved themselves 
 from similar treatment by subsequent silence and 
 discretion.'''' (p. GO.) Those must have been glo- 
 rious days for England, when, for nearly a hund- 
 red years, her church was almost pure, thanks, 
 not to the Bible, but to her " Calvinistic articles," 
 against which no onu " dared" to say a word. 
 
 Here then, is only one of the doctrines of the 
 Reformation, by which we see free will extin- 
 guished ; — and man degraded from his station as 
 a moral and responsible agent, to a mere machine, 
 operated on for evil as well as good, by a predes- 
 tinating influence, over which he has no controul. 
 On the other hand we see God himself, represent- 
 ed as punishing, with eternal damnation, his crea- 
 tures for having clone, what they could not avoid, 
 by complying with those inevitable decrees, which 
 had been framed in the solitude of eternity past. 
 Is this " the Religion of Christ V 
 
 5. But supposing, as Protestants do, that the 
 true religion, contrary to the promise of the Sa- 
 viour, had disappeared from the world ; — were the 
 Reformers, I ask, such men as God would have 
 employed to restore it 1 I am aware that under 
 the influence of those strong feelings with which 
 that turbulent epoch abounded, their opponents may 
 have done injustice to their character. On this 
 account, I shall not give one line on the testimo- 
 ny of their Catholic cotemporaries. Such testimo- 
 ny would naturally be received with suspicion by 
 my Protestant readers. Injustice to all parties, 
 then, I shall give the fathers of the Protestant re- 
 ligion as they describe themselves, and as they 
 describe each other. But first let me state who 
 were the principal personages, hy whom this 
 great work was accomplished. 
 
 Luther, an Augustinian friar, fficolampadius, 
 a monk. 'Melancthon, a professor of Greek. Zuin- 
 o-lius, a cure in Switzerland. Bucer, a Dominican 
 friar. Calvin, a French ecclesiastic. Ochin, a 
 Capuchin friar. Henry the 8th in England. And 
 in Scotland, Jno. Knox, a priest, whom Dr. Sam- 
 uel Johnson describes as " the ruffian of the Re- 
 formation." 
 
 Luther says of himself, that " while a Catho- 
 lic he passed his life in austerities, in watchings, 
 in fasts and praying, in poverty, chastity and 
 obedience." (Tom. v. In cap. 1. ad Gal. v. 14.) 
 But hear what he says of himself, after his " re- 
 formation." "As it does not depend on me not 
 to be a man, so neither does it depend on me to 
 be without a woman." (Ibid. Serm. de Matrim. 
 p. 119.) 
 
 Melancthon who was his very Boswell, tes- 
 tifies that he received blows from him, " ab ipso 
 colaphos accepi." (Lett, to Theodore) " I trem- 
 ble says he (writing to the same friend) when I 
 think of the passions of Luther; they yield not 
 in violence to the passions of Hercules." 
 
 Hospinian, another reformer, says, speaking of 
 Luther, " This man is absolutely mad. He 
 never ceases to combat truth against all justice, 
 even against the cry of his own conscience." 
 
184 
 
 (Ecolampadius said of him, "He is puffed up 
 up with pride and arrogance, and seduced by 
 Satan." And- Zuinglius corroborates this testi- 
 mony. "Yes" says he, "the Devil has made 
 himself master of Luther." 
 
 After the death of Zuinglius, however, Luther 
 pronounced on him the following panegyrick in 
 return, " Zuinglius, is dead and damned, hav- 
 ing desired like a thief and a rebel, to compel others, 
 to follow hi3 error. (Tom. 11. p. 36. in Florim.) 
 
 The whole church of Zurick (against Luther's 
 Confession, page 61,) writes as follows, " Lu- 
 ther treats us as an execrable and condemned sect, 
 "but let him take care lest he condemn himself as 
 an arch-heretic, from the sole fact, that he will 
 not and cannot associate with those who confess 
 Christ. But how strangely does this fellow al- 
 low himself to be carried away by his devils. 
 How disgusting is his language, and how full 
 are his words of the Devil of Hell ! He says 
 that the devils dwell now and forever in the bodies 
 
 of the Zuinglians. He wrote his works by 
 
 the impulse and the dictation of the Devil, with 
 whom he had dealings, and who in the struggle 
 seemed to have thrown him by victorious argu- 
 ments," (Ibid.) 
 
 "In very truth," said Calvin, "Luther is ex- 
 tremely corrupt (cited by C. Schlusomberg,) 
 
 would to God that he had been attentive to disco- 
 ver his vices." (Theol. Calv. L. 11. fol. 126.) 
 Calvin elsewhere speaks very contemptuously 
 of the Lutheran Church ; (in his reply to 
 Westphal) he says, " Thy school is nothing but 
 a stinking pig-stye; dost thou hear me, thou 
 dogl dost thou hear me, thou mad-man'? dost 
 thou hear me, thou huge beast?" 
 
 Of Carlosladius, Melancthon says that "he 
 was a brutal fellow, without wit or learning, or 
 any light of common sense; who, far from hav- 
 ing any mark of the Spirit of God, never either 
 knew or practiced any of the duties of civilized 
 life." To Calvin himself, however, the testimo- 
 ny of his brother reformers, is certainly not very 
 favourable. 
 
 "Calvin," said Bucer, "is a true mad dog. The 
 man is wicked and he judges of people according 
 as as loves or hates them." Boudoin could not 
 bear him, because as he says, he found him to be 
 vindictive and blood thirsty, "propter nemiam 
 vindictce et sanguinis sitim." This was the rea- 
 son alleged by him for renouncing Calvin's doc- 
 trine. 
 
 Stancharus, one of the Reformers, addressing 
 his brother of Geneva writes " what demon has 
 urged thee, O Calvin! to declaim with the Ari- 
 ans against the Son of God ? It is that anti- 
 christ of the north that thou hast the imprudence 
 to adore, that grammarian, Melancthon." (de 
 Mediat in Calv. instit. No. 4.) " Beware Chris- 
 tian readers, (he continues,) above all, ye minis- 
 ters of the word, beware of the books of Calvin. 
 They contain an impious doctrine, the blasphe- 
 mies of Arianism, as if the spirit of Michael 
 Seryetus had escaped from the executioner, and 
 according to the system of Plato had transmigra- 
 ted whole and entire into Calvin,'''' (Ibid No. 3.) 
 
 Now, Rev. Sir, if Catholics had written these 
 things of the Reformers, I should not have trou- 
 bled you with a single quotation. But these are 
 the Reformers themselves, speaking of each other : 
 and of each other, in the exclusive capacity of 
 Reformers ! Their private character affords mat- 
 ter for quite as painful a chapter. But the ques- 
 tion will naturally force itself on every reflecting 
 mind, " if the promise of Jesus Christ failed, in 
 preserving the purity of the doctrine which he 
 brought from heaven, is it likely that these are 
 the men whom God would have appointed to re. 
 form his Church ? If they spoke the truth of each 
 other, then it is evident that they were lost to 
 all principle of religious rectitude .- but if they 
 calumniated each other, it is clear that they were, 
 utter strangers to truth, and moral integrity." 
 In either case their testimony proves, that both 
 themselves and their doctrines stood quite as 
 much in need of being reformed, after the " Re- 
 formation" as before. 
 
 But were the morals of their followers improv- 
 ed, by joining in that ecclesiastical insurrection 
 of which they were the prime agitators 1— And 
 through which they pressed onward, in the spirit 
 of unanimous discord. Let us hear their own 
 testimony on the subject. 
 
 " The world," says Luther, (Serm. in Postil. 
 Evang. i. adv.) "grows every day worse and 
 worse° It is plain that men are much more cove- 
 tous, malicious, and resentful ; much more unruly, 
 shameless, and full of vice, than thev were in 
 the time of Poperv." "Formerly," says he 
 (Serm. Dom. 26 post Trim) " when we were se- 
 duced by the Pope, men willingly followed good 
 works, but now all their study is to get every 
 thing to themselves, by exactions, pillage, theft, 
 lying, usury." The writings of this prime Re- 
 former, abound with similar testimonies, which 
 proves that as regarded morals at least, the Refor- 
 mation was all in the inverse ratio. Aurifaber, Lu- 
 ther's biographer, reports him to have declared that 
 " since the appearance of Gospel" (meaning his 
 own separation from all the religions in the world 
 as well as the Catholic Church) virtue seems to be 
 utterly extinct, and piety driven from the earth." 
 
 But however the Reformers may have quarrel- 
 led about their doctrines, they are unanimous in 
 their testimony, as to the retrograde movement of 
 public and private morals, immediately subse- 
 quent to what they called the " preaching of the 
 Gospel." Bucer's evidence accords exactly with 
 that of Luther. " The greater part of the peo- 
 ple," says he, " seem only to have embraced the 
 Gospel, in order to shake off the yoke of disci- 
 pline, and the obligation of fasting, penance, &c. 
 which lay upon them in the time of Popery; and 
 to live at their pleasure, enjoying their lust, and 
 laioless appetites without control. They therefore 
 lend a willing ear to the doctrine that we are jus- 
 tified by faith alone, and not by good works, hav- 
 ing no relish for them." (Bucer de regn. Christ. 
 L.\ c. 4.) Calvin's testimony is to the same 
 effect. "Of so many thousands," says he, 
 "seemingly eager in embracing the Gospel, how 
 few have since amended their lives ? Nay, to what 
 
185 
 
 else does the greater part pretend, except by shak- 
 ing off the heavy yoke of superstition, to launch 
 out more freely, into every kind of lascivious- 
 ness." (Calv. 1. vi. do scand.) 
 
 These testimonies, Rev. Sir, [coming from 
 such witnesses, will convince you that the mor- 
 als of the people, (the low condition of which 
 you have set forth as a plea for the insubordina- 
 tion of those spiritual chieftains,) instead of be- 
 ing improved, became absolutely deteriorated by 
 their walking in the footsteps of the change ;— 
 and that the effect of the Reformation, was as 
 Dr. Chalmers declares, "to reform men into 
 
 Returning then, to the extravagant supposition, 
 which for the present I shall not dispute with 
 you, viz : that the gates of hell had prevailed 
 acrainst the church of Christ, contrary to Ms pro- 
 mise.-— that she had ceased to be. " the pillar and 
 ground of the truth," as described by St. Paul;— 
 and viewing the impiety of the Reformers' doctrine, 
 on the uselsssness of good works ; the absence of 
 free will in man,— the fatalism in all things„by 
 predestination :— viewing the character which 
 they themselves give of each other, — the bitter- 
 ness of their language,— the coarseness of their 
 mutual denunciations ;— the crimes and corrup- 
 tions of the doctrines of Christ, reciprocally im- 
 puted; — viewing, in a word, the concordance of 
 their testimony, as to the increasing depravity of 
 • morals which distinguished those who followed 
 in the wake of the " Gospel ;" ask yourself 
 whether the religion of that undefineable com- 
 pound called the " Reformation," can be the reli- 
 gion of Christ. Is there any resemblance be- 
 tween the doctrines of the one, and the blasphemies 
 of the other 1 Between the Apostles of the one, 
 and the inventors or revivers of the other? Between 
 the moral effects of the one, and the progressive im- 
 morality of the other ? Reflect, I pray you, on 
 all this, and remembering that an infallible judge 
 will review all our judgments, ask yourself, whe- 
 ther such doctrines, originated by such men, and 
 followed by such consequences, are >' ^he religion 
 of Jesus Christ." H ■ 
 
 "The religion of the Reformation" teaches that 
 there are two sacraments, according to the Cal- 
 vinists ; and it teaches also, that there are no sa- 
 craments, according to the Quakers. It teaches 
 that infant baptism is sufficient, according to the 
 Presbyterians; and that infant baptism is not 
 sufficient, according to the Baptists — "He that 
 believeth, and is baptized shall be saved." It 
 teaches that there is a real distinction between 
 Bishops and Presbyters, according to the Epis- 
 copalians; it teaches that there is no such distinc- 
 tion, according to the Westminster Confession of 
 Faith. It teaches that there is a hell for the 
 wioked, according to the Methodists ; it teaches 
 that there is no hell according to the Universalis^. 
 It teaches thot Christ is corporeally present in 
 the Eucharist, according to Luther ; it teaches 
 that there is no such presence, according to Cal- 
 vin ; whilst, to the believers in the thirty-nine ar- 
 ticles and the book of Common Prayer, it teaches 
 that Christ is, at the same time, both absent, and 
 
 present. Christ is " verily and indeed" received 
 in the communion; although the communion is, 
 " verily and indeed," nothing but bread and 
 wine! It teaches that Christ is God, according 
 to the Episcopalians ; it teaches that Christ is 
 not God, according to the Socinians. It teaches 
 that there are a trinity of persons in the Godhead, 
 according to the Baptists ; it teaches that there is 
 no trinity of persons in the Godhead, according 
 to the Universalists. It teaches that the father 
 alone is God, according to the Unitarians; it 
 teaches that the father is not God, according to 
 the Swedenborgians ; that the Son alone, Christ, 
 is God. All this "the religion of the Reforma- 
 tion" teaches,- and you have unwittingly pledged 
 yourself to the public, to prove that "the religion 
 of the Reformation," is "the Protestant religion," 
 and that " the Protestant religion" is " the reli- 
 gion of Christ." Now, Rev. Sir, will you not 
 find it rather difficult to prove that "the religion 
 of Christ," teaches all this 1 ? 
 
 It is mere sophistry, to assert that the Protes- 
 tant religion "is as old as the Bible." _ The 
 Turk may say, wita equal propriety, that his reli- 
 gion is as old as God himself. But the main 
 question is, did the Protestant religion exist be- 
 fore Luther 1 If yov say it did, then please to 
 inform us of the time when, of the village, where ,■ 
 and the name of at least one individual, by luhom 
 it was professed. This is the touchstone of truth, 
 which will test your assertion. I bespeak the 
 attention of our readers to the answer which you 
 will give to this question. In the meantime I 
 venture to predict that you will evade it; but let 
 us not anticipate. 
 
 Again, it is well known, that the doctrine 
 of Jesus Christ inculcates subordination to au- 
 thority. This doctrine is eloquently put forth 
 by Presbyterians themselves, whenever they 
 wish to tame a disorderly brother in their own 
 communion. And whenever he refuses submission, 
 this authority strips him of all the ministerial and 
 pastoral power with which it had invested him. 
 Thus it is with the Rev. Mr. Irvine of London, at 
 this moment; because forsooth, like a consistent 
 Protestant, he wished to take his religion from 
 "the Bible alone." Thus Luther had received his 
 mission and ordination from the Catholic church, 
 on the understanding that he should exercise his 
 pastorship in communion with the church, and ac- 
 cording to her doctrines. If the pastors of the Ca- 
 tholic^ church then, were not true pastors, it fol- 
 lows that the Christian ministry was extinct. 
 Are you prepared for this alternative ] But if they 
 were the true and legitimate pastors, then Luther 
 in the first instance presented himself as a rebel 
 against the injunction of Christ, and a disturber 
 of that spiritual order, which Christ had establish- 
 ed. He trampled on the vows of his ordination — 
 he violated the solemnity of his promise— he be- 
 came an apostate and a traitor. If Luther's 
 case were true of a Presbyterian parson, instead 
 of a Catholic monk, how well the General As- 
 sembly, " that highest judicatory of the church, 
 would know how to pass a just decision upon it. 
 But Luther was, at the period of his revolt, lik' 
 
186 
 
 Irvine, slript of all the spiritual authority he had 
 received from the Catholic church. Now will 
 you please to tell us, from what source, he derived 
 those spiritual powers, by virtue of which he under- 
 took to reform the church, which had excommunica- 
 ted him ? How came he to arrogate to himself, 
 the title of "the Ecclesiastes of Wittemburgl" 
 Whence did he derive his new authority after his 
 excommunication 1 Was it from the Landgrave 
 of Hesse, to whom he granted the privilege of 
 having two wives at once, whereas he himself was 
 satisfied with only one 1 Was it from Melanc- 
 thon, the Professor of Greek ? Or from the popu- 
 lace, whom his gross invective, and fiery decla- 
 mation roused into madness and fury against the 
 whole church! In a word from whom did he re- 
 ceive his authority 1 And if he received no au- 
 thority, by what right did he put forth his sacri- 
 legious hand, to stay the ark of the living God, 
 with which Jesus Christ promised, himself, to 
 abide, "all days even to the end of time?" 
 Whence did he receive his new authority ? From 
 a new Revelation? So, indeed, he asserts. But, 
 at the same time, he informs as that the angel of 
 this Revelation was no other than the devil him- 
 self, with whom he frequently disputed, and 
 whom he describes as a firs;-rate logician and an 
 elegant latin scholar. But the question still re- 
 turns, from whom did Luther derive his authori- 
 ty! He had been unfrocked by the Catholic 
 church, from whom, I repeat, did he derive the 
 new garment of authority 1 Will you have the 
 goodness, Rev. Sir, to answer this question. 
 When Moses revealed the Jewish religion, he 
 showed his authority. When Christ revealed the 
 Christian religion he showed his authority. But 
 when Luther revealed the Protestant religion he 
 showed no authority ,■ judging probably with Mo- 
 hamet; that the world was no longer worthy 
 of miracles. The ways of God Rev. Sir, and the 
 conduct of men are almost equally mysterious. 
 The people were incredulous both in reference to 
 Moses and to Christ, with all their miraculous 
 proof of divine authority ; and they hearkened to 
 Luther and his reforming followers, without re- 
 quiring that even a particle of primitive or subse- 
 quent authority should be exhibited ! It is true, 
 indeed, that to be saved by faith alone, was a re- 
 formation of religion, well calculated to make con- 
 verts. The soul could rise to heaven, much more 
 rapidly, when borne on the wings of faith alone, 
 than when its flight, (as before the Reformation,) 
 was wont to be retarded by the superstition of 
 good works. But the question is, whence did Luther 
 derive his authority ! Until you are pleased, Rev. 
 Sir, to answer this all important interrogatory, I 
 feel warranted in maintaining, that Luther, and 
 Calvin and their associates, during that epoch of ec- 
 clesiastical anarchy, and religious phrenzy, which 
 has been mantled into a decent appearance at 
 least by the word " Reformation," had not a par- 
 ticle of authority from either God or men. They 
 were mere laymen in this respect; ■ and iheir suc- 
 cessors in the ministry, are not, and cannot be 
 substantially any thing more. Still I am not 
 bigotted in this; I will give it up, if you 
 
 can show that Luther, or Calvin, or Socinus, or 
 any of the others, received any subsequent au- 
 thority, to supply the absence of that which they 
 forfeited in their excommunication from the Ca- 
 tholic church. The proof of this authority is all I 
 require. 
 
 But even then, how will you account for their 
 denouncing each other as corrupters of the doctrine 
 of Christ? Their doctrines, if they told the truth, 
 were all " exclusively derived from and consist- 
 ent with the Scriptures of the Old and New Tes- 
 tament, as the only infallible rule of faith and 
 practice;" and this, according to your definition, 
 proves them to have been the doctrines of Christ. 
 Then, why did they denounce each other 1 Why 
 did each deny the doctrines of the other, as the 
 doctrines, not of Christ, but of the devil ? 
 
 Nor is even this all. How did they de- 
 rive those doctrines 1 It certainly, was not by 
 the Catholic rule of faith, which for certain 
 causes, known to themselves, they had renounced. 
 Neither was it by the Protestant rule faith ,• for 
 this, you yourself, Rev. Sir, have recently told 
 us, " is the word of God, contained in the Bible ;" 
 of which, private interpretation, you also asure 
 us, constitutes " the abuses alone." Now, the 
 religion of the Reformation was derived from the 
 Bible or it was not. If it was not ; then accord- 
 ing to Protestants it must be false. But if it 
 was, then according to your own showing, you are 
 indebted for your religion to " the abuse of the 
 Bible.'''' And is it this monstrous offspring of 
 " abuse,'''' which you say is the religion of Christ 1 
 Your own words, Rev. Sir, contend against you, 
 and hem you in a difficulty, from which you cannot 
 escape, until you deny or disown them. 
 
 Again, touching what are called " orthodox" 
 tenets among Protestants, I have to observe that 
 they are all found in the Catholic Church. These 
 doctrines always existed in the Church and 
 the Reformers in going out from the Church car- 
 ried them forth, although on subsequent examina- 
 tion, as it appears, many of them cannot be disco- 
 vered in the Bible, and they have consequently 
 been protested against, as the remnants of Catholic 
 superstition. The doctrine„of the Trinity, of the 
 Incarnation and Divinity of the Son of God ; the 
 doctrine of Original Sin, and the Atonement 
 through the death of Christ ; these were, and are 
 the doctrines of the Catholic Church. But the 
 denial and rejection of these dogmas was " the 
 religion of the reformation.'''' It is the Protestant 
 religion Avhich has discarded them, and you must 
 vindicate the rejection of them, in order to prove 
 that " thtProtestant religion''' is " the religion of 
 Christ:' 1 
 
 You perceive, Rev. Sir, that I allow you in this 
 argument all the advantages you can desire ; the 
 whole benefit of the Protestant hypothesis, viz. 
 that Christ was unfaithful to his promises, and al- 
 lowed the church to fall into the errors against 
 which the children of the Reformation have protest- 
 ed. This will save you the trouble of proving any 
 thing against the church, by allowing you to take 
 the conclusion, for granted. And now to simplify 
 the matter, let me put the arguments of this let- 
 
187 
 
 ter, in the form of a few questions bearing direct- 
 ly on the subject. 
 
 1st Question. Did there ever exist a society 
 of Christians (previous to the Reformation,) agree- 
 ing In doctrines with any sect of Protestants ? In 
 other words, were there Lutherans before Luther 1 
 Socinians, before Socinus? Calvinists, before 
 Calvin ] or Episcopalians (in the Protestant 
 sense) before Henry VIII.'? Yes, or no. 
 
 2d Question. Taking the Reformers as they 
 have been described by themselves, is it clear that 
 they were the men, whom God would have se- 
 lected to purify his church 1 Yes or no. 
 
 3d Question. Does the " religion of Christ" 
 teach the doctrines of Protestantism, from the 
 highest point of Episcopalianism, down the des- 
 cending scale to the farthest verge of Unitarian- 
 ism 1 — if not, the Protestant religion, is not the 
 religion of Christ. Yes, or no. 
 
 4th Question. Had Luther, Calvin, Socinus 
 and their associates in reforming the church, and 
 re-establishing the supposed religion of Christ, 
 any lawful ministerial authority — derived in any 
 regular way from either God, or men ? Yes, or no. 
 
 5th Question. If they had not, was it in their 
 power to impart any ministerial authority to 
 their successors — the present clergy (so called) 
 of the Protestant religion 1 Yes, or no. 
 
 Now, Rev. Sir, if you believe the Protestant 
 religion to be the religion of Christ, you will give 
 me a plain, categorical answer to these Jive questions. 
 Come up to them boldly; — answer them candidly, 
 " Yes, or no;" and then support your answer by 
 such authority, evidence, and argument as truth 
 can always command. In supporting whatever 
 answer you may give successively to each of 
 them, you will have opportunity of reviewing all 
 the preceding arguments and authorities of this 
 letter. What I have said of the Reformers, I 
 have said on their own proper testimony, and I 
 
 premise this observation, least you should charge 
 me with a wish to calumniate them. I have no 
 such a wish towards any man, living or dead. 
 
 The closing words of your last are these : " I 
 hepe in your next to see manly arguments in a 
 Christian spirit, and a cessation of that low and 
 vulgar warfare which must speedily weary the 
 patient and kind readers of our letters." The ad- 
 vice, Rev. Sir, is a good one ; but whether the 
 rebuke was merited by myself, or expected from 
 you, I shall not presume to say. I have tried in 
 this letter to furnish you with solid and substantial 
 "arguments;" and to show you that I am not 
 disposed to be "unchristian," "low" or "vul- 
 gar," I shall conclude this letter by a quotation 
 which breathes the soul of Christian charity, and 
 which you will not prize the less, because it is 
 the chastened and beautiful production of a fe- 
 male pen. It is taken from the letter of Miss 
 Pitt, (relative of the English minister,) upon 
 her conversion to Catholicity. " As to the Pro- 
 testants, who may obtain information of it, I do 
 not consider myself calculated to instruct them, 
 much less to convert them ; but I conjure them, 
 as my brethren, whose salvation is most dear to 
 me, to follow one piece of advice ; which is, not 
 to reject, without the most serious examination, 
 the doubts which must be originated in their 
 minds, if they think deliberately upon it; by the 
 novelty of their belief, and its variations since the 
 Reformation, compared with the antiquity and 
 unity of the Catholic doctrine ; for the true faith 
 must be one ; and must necessarily be traced to 
 the Apostles and to Jesus Christ. May it please 
 God to enlighten them, as he has deigned to en- 
 lighten me, in order to draw me from the errors 
 in which my birthand education had unfortunate- 
 ly engaged me." 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
 John Hughes, 
 
CONTROVERSY N°. 24. 
 
 Is the Protectant Religion the Religion of Christ? 
 
 Philadelphia, July llth, 1833. 
 To the Rev. John Hughes, 
 
 Sir, — Whatever, in your fond fancy ^or more hon- 
 est fears, has been gained or lost, in the present 
 controversy, one thing is certain, that the Bible does 
 not teach the religion of Borne. With a redundant 
 frequency and zeal you have told us that the Bi- 
 ble may be made to teach Unitarianism, while we 
 cannot, prove the Trinity from it; that Universal- 
 ism, and Swedenborgianism, and in fact, any and 
 every system may be supported by the Bible. 
 In order to teach Popery however, you own that 
 you are compelled to resort to authoritative inter- 
 pretation, which shall require all to think alike, 
 right or wrong. This is Deism; barefaced De- 
 ism. It abandons the Bible, as not being a suffi- 
 cient and infallible revelation of divine truth; 
 and it proceeds upon the plan of forcing a mean- 
 ing to an unmeaning book, and then of enforcing 
 that meaning on an unthinking multitude. If 
 the Bible however in the hands of men, teaches 
 any thing but your system, why then your cause is 
 given up by you. Well did Eckius tell the Elec- 
 tor of Bavaria that the doctrines of the Roman 
 church could be proved from the Fathers, but not 
 from the Bible ! This was honest and true. 
 Protestants on the other hand hold that the Bible 
 has a fixed meaning; that no authority can alter that 
 meaning ; that it is absurd to say that authority can 
 give it a sense, which, otherwise it has not; .and 
 that it is an insult to its author, to say that he has 
 so revealed himself, and his will, that his word 
 may mean any thing, and every thing, unless in- 
 terpreted by the church of Rome. As I have often 
 told you, the Bible is the Protestant rule of faith ; 
 and honest, common-sense interpretation the way 
 to ascertain the true sense of that rule. If men 
 misinterpret it, as you do, and as many calling 
 themselves Protestants do, this is the abuse of the 
 rule, and of reason ; it is not the rule, or the de- 
 fect of the rule; but of those who abuse the rule. 
 This is the definition given, and advocated by me 
 from the first; and having failed to defend your 
 rule, or disprove in the least degree the divine 
 character of the true rule, you finally charge the 
 defects of your arguments, on alleged changes in 
 my definition. By so doing you virtually aban- 
 don your previous positions ; and to this I trace 
 your sudden consent to pass from the question 
 without ev>er bringing your rule of faith to view ; 
 though we were discussing the general subject 
 for five months. I hope therefore the intelligent 
 reader will observe that as Mr. Hughes has not 
 yet either produced, or defended when I have pro- 
 duced, several of the leading features of his rule 
 
 j of faith, (as the Apochryphal books, the unani- 
 I mous consent of the fathers, and unwritten tradi- 
 | tions.) he is hardly a fit person to define our rule. 
 And I am perfectly Willing to leave his suppres- 
 sion of his own rule, and his charge of change on 
 mine, as proof and even confession, that his can- 
 not be defended, nor ours weakened by him. 
 
 The expressive silence which you observe in 
 your last letter tells but too plainly both your po- 
 licy and your straits. On the first question, viz: 
 the rule of faith, you pursued the same course. 
 In your second letter you said, " at a proper time, 
 I shall defend the Catholic rule with positive ar- 
 guments;" and again, in the same letter, "when 
 the time shall come, however, I bind myself to 
 prove that several of the former (my authorities) 
 are spurious, and several of the latter (my propo- 
 sitions) are false." But let any reader refer to 
 the long list of these propositions, spread out at 
 large in my first letter, and see whether this 
 pledge has ever been redeemed. You flew at the 
 authorities, and cried out for references; but after 
 all your struggles the authorities still stand. As 
 to the propositions, the 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 
 9th and 10th, stand untouched; and the pro- 
 mised " strong arguments," linger like Sisera, 
 " when his mother looked out at a window, and 
 cried through the lattice, why is his chariot so 
 long in coming!" (Judges v. 28.) 
 
 And now on the 2d great question, your plan is 
 still the same. For the chief part of three letters, 
 I have advanced upon this question — your reply 
 is silence, as to all that I have said, with the good 
 old promise, to save us from despair, viz. " That 
 question being disposed of, I shall allow you to 
 take up any doctrine of the church and I shall 
 hold myself prepared to refute all the arguments 
 you shall bring against it!" And so after going 
 over all the ground of Protestantism in perfect si- 
 lence, and leaving the Papacy reposing in securi- 
 ty and state, some three or four years hence, (not 
 sooner, if you spend the proportion of time on 
 each topic as on the rule of faith) you will answer 
 my arguments against " the doctrine of the ehurcK'! n 
 But sir, the country has never fully seen the mys- 
 teries of your system; and are curious to behold 
 them; and I design with the help of God now 
 to do my part towards bringing them to view. 
 As you say, so it is admitted, that " / am to de- 
 fend the Protestani 'faith .•" and as this is the true 
 and natural, as well as just order of discussion, I 
 will proceed, as. I have begun, promising, like 
 yourself, but in much shorter time, to meet all 
 your objections and attacks. If this line of ar- 
 gument displeases, you have the option of a con- 
 
190 
 
 nected and more enlarged discussion of the whole 
 subject, or of a public oral discussion by which in 
 a few successive days the entire ground may be 
 traversed. Each has often been tendered to you. 
 The latter you have prudently declined. The 
 former I am now preparing for the press as op- 
 portunity is allowed me. 
 To proceed, then. In my last three letters I have 
 
 J)roved, on Roman Catholic authority, viz. of pre- 
 ates, popes, and councils, that a reformation in 
 morals, worship and doctrine was necessary be- 
 fore, and at the time of Luther's appearing. 
 
 I have also showed (upon testimony which you 
 have wisely left untouched) that your canon of 
 Scripture corrupted the religion Christ at the 
 fountain head : that the doctrine of the Tope's su- 
 premacy is a wicked, and anti-christian usurpa- 
 tion, oppressing men, and rebelling against God, 
 by a lawless monarchy ; and that the doctrine of 
 Indulgences, against the > express testimony of 
 the Bible, gives to Popes 'and others the power to 
 pardon sin, adds creature-merits to the infinite 
 merits of Jesus Christ, and assumes the impious 
 right to sell for money the gifts, and grace of 
 God. 
 
 I also proved that the canon of Scripture used 
 by the church of Rome, the Pope's supremacy, 
 Transubstantiation, and depriving the Laity of 
 the cup in the Lord's Supper, were innovations 
 unknown for ages after the resurrection of Christ. 
 Of course it follows that the church guilty of 
 these anti-christian innovations, has so far, cor- 
 rupted the religion of Christ. 
 
 I. In prosecution of the plan thus begun, I pass 
 to expose the doctrine of TRANSUBSTANTiATroN. 
 In my last leter I proved that it was not promoted 
 into a doctrine, as your Scotus affirms, until 
 A. D. 1215 ! Surely then it is not an ancient doc- 
 trine ; yet is it taught in your church " that novel- 
 ties are subversive of Christianity, and that those 
 who teach them must fall under the divine ana- 
 thema, and are of the school of Satan !" 
 
 The doctrine according to the Council of 
 Trent is this : " That by the consecration of the 
 bread and wine there is effected a conversion of 
 the whole substance, the bread into the substance 
 of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole 
 substance of the wine into the substance of his 
 blood. "Which conversion is fitly and properly 
 termed by the Holy Catholic Church, Transub- 
 stantiation." Sess. 13. C. 3. and Can. 1. "If any 
 one shall deny that in the most holy sacrament 
 of the eucharist, there are contained, truly, really 
 and substantially, the body and blood, together 
 with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ ; or say that he is in it only as a sign or 
 figure, or by his influence, let him be accursed." 
 The following shocking and humiliating ex- 
 tract from the Missal, which is the authorized 
 book of the church for the celebration of masses, 
 will show how the consecrated bread is regarded. 
 It is one of many such things. " If the priest 
 vomit the Eucharist and the species appear en- 
 tire, they must reverendly be swallowed again, 
 unless nausia prevent it ; if so let the consecrated 
 species be cautiously separated, and put in some 
 
 holy place, until they be corrupted, and then let 
 them be cast into holy ground ; hut if the spe- 
 cies do not appear, the vomit must be burned, 
 and the ashes thrown into holy ground." (Mis- 
 sale De. Def. in eel. Mass. occ.) 
 
 Now can any one in his senses need proof that this 
 doctrine and this illustration, are contrary to the 
 word of God ? You say it is deduced from the 
 institution of the supper, where our Lord said 
 of the bread, " this is by body.'''' But so it is said 
 " that rock was Christ.'''' 1 Cor. x. 4. Is this literal 1 
 John x. 9. and xv. 1. Christ says "/ am the door," I 
 am the true vine." Heb. xii. 29. "Our God is 
 a consuming fire." Num. xiv. 9'. The spies said 
 on their return to the camp "the people of the land 
 are bread for us." Is this all figure 1 or all 
 fact ] for they stand or fall together. Isaiah 
 xl. 6. says " all flesh is grass." Peter explains 
 this, 1 Peter i. 24. " All flesh is as grass. In- 
 deed I remember that you said in letter No. 7, 
 " Just lend me the Protestant rule of faith for a 
 few minutes, and I will prove from Scripture that 
 it is right to call the Pope God. You arc gods. 
 I have appointed thee god of Pharaoh." P. 71. 6. 
 Exodus vii. 1." Such was your language when 
 figure was convenient. To see the unscriptural 
 character of this doctrine, you have only to look 
 at 1 Cor. x. 16. and also xi. 26 — 29. where the 
 element of bread is called bread after consecra- 
 tion, "As oft as ye eat this bread," &c. ; and 
 where by another figure the cup is put for the 
 vune, "as oft as ye drink this cup ;" and according 
 to your doctrine the wine which was first made the 
 real blood of Christ, is then transmuted into a 
 real cup ,- and then this cup is changed into the 
 New Testament ! We are referred for proof of 
 Transubstantiation to John vi. 53, " Except ye 
 eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his 
 blood, you have no life in you." But it is most 
 clear that this cannot mean transubstantiation. 
 1. For in verses 32 — 3. he tells us this bread came 
 down from heaven; but his natural body was born 
 on earth. 2. Whoever eats this bread has eternal 
 life. But do all that take the eucharist, have 
 eternal life] 3. Whoever eats not this living 
 bread (verse 53,) is forever lost — but surely some 
 are saved who never received the sacrament. 
 4. As you deprive the people of the cup, so 
 if this means the Eucharist and Transubstan- 
 tiation, you destroy all their souls, for it says 
 " except ye drink his blood ye have no life 
 in you." 5. To drink the blood of Christ at 
 that time or at the institution was impossible — 
 for it was not then shed ; and if it be as you say, 
 then Christ drank his own blood, and eat his own 
 flesh ! 6. In this same chapter Christ tells us 
 that it is a figure, and has a spiritual meaning ; v. 
 63. " The words that I speak unto you they are 
 spirit, and they are life." 
 
 I have already produced the admission of Bel- 
 larmine and the testimony of Scotus (see last 
 letter) against this doctrine. Cardinal Cajetan 
 (Notes on Aquinas p. 3. q. 75. Art. 1, &c.) says, 
 " The other point which the gospel has not ex- 
 pounded expressly, that is the change of the 
 bread into the body of Christ, we have received from 
 
191 
 
 the church.^ Here i9 the church against the gos- 
 pel ! Again: "There appears nothing in the 
 gospel to compel any man to understand these 
 words, this is -my body, in a proper sense. Nay, 
 that presence (of Christ) which the church hold- 
 eth, cannot be proved, unless the declaration of the 
 church be added." Bishop Fisher, also Vas- 
 quez, Alphonsus de Castro, Erasmus, Durand, 
 Melchior Cane, &c. &c. all of your church, 
 not to mention others, bear the same testimony. 
 By order of Pope Pius V. the above conces- 
 sion of Cajetan was expunged from the Roman 
 edition of his works ! Such is the testimony of 
 Scripture and your own writers, against a doc- 
 trine which we are cursed by your church for re- 
 jecting. 
 
 But this doctrine invades the testimony of the 
 senses. If it be true, that the bread by consecra- 
 tion becomes " substantially the body and blood 
 together with the soul and divinity of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ," and yet appears bread, and retains 
 all the qualities of bread, then am I ever to be- 
 lieve my senses again ? I see, and handle, and 
 eat the bread — a little piece of wafer, and yet you 
 tell us that a few words by a priest have made it 
 the body, soul, and divinity of Christ? If the pro- 
 perties of one substance may become those of 
 another, and utterly different substance, and yet 
 those properties remain, then I can be certain of 
 no substance ; nor of any thing I see, feel, taste 
 or touch? If transubstantiation is true, Chris- 
 tianity may be false — for the evidence of miracle 
 appeals to, and rests on the testimony of the senses. 
 As for example, after Christ rose from the dead, 
 he said to his disciples, (Luke xxiv. 39,) " Han- 
 dle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and 
 bones, as ye see me have." Now this was'ap- 
 pealing to their senses, that he was not a disem- 
 bodied " spirit," (as they feared) but had a real 
 body. Here the proof rested on the testimony of 
 the senses. But the senses tell us the bread is 
 bread, blessed, or not blessed. But if it be the 
 real body of Christ, then they deceive us in this 
 important case, and they may have deceived the 
 disciples in the Lord's resurrection : and then all 
 miracles are vain, and Christianity which rests on 
 them is vain ; and David Hume is right in re- 
 solving all religion and all nature into illusions 
 and ideas. And is there any thing more abhor- 
 rent than to suppose that a priest can make his 
 God, by uttering a few words ? And when he 
 has thus made a wafer of senseless matter into 
 the soul and divinity, as well as body of Jesus 
 Christ, what becomes of them after the wafer is 
 eaten ? Does the wafer become our creator, pos- 
 sessed of the attributes, and capable of the acts 
 of God ? And does that wafer ever cease to be 
 God after once becoming so? No doctrine of 
 your church is more strenuously and exclusively 
 pressed ; none with less evidence, or greater ab- 
 surdity ; and nothing has more contributed to de- 
 grade the Christian religion, and make men inn- 
 dels. There was more of wisdom than of Chris- 
 tian honesty in the confession of Mr. Cressy 
 when he said, "I have not learned to answer 
 such arguments, but to despise them." Cicero 
 
 says, "When we call the fruits of the earth Ceres, 
 and the wine Bacchus, we use but the common 
 language — but do you think any man so mad &9 
 to believe that which he eats to be God?" (De 
 nat. Deornum b. 3.) Yet in that very Rome, 
 where a wise heathen thus spoke, the infallible 
 head of the church does this very thing. Ama- 
 zing indeed ! 
 
 Averroes, an Arabian philosopher, who lived 
 after this doctrine was invented, says: "I have 
 travelled over the world, and have found divers 
 sects — but so sottish a sect, or law, I never found 
 as is the sect of the Christians; because with 
 their own teeth they devour the God whom they 
 worship." 
 
 Such is the testimony of Scripture, and of your 
 own writers, of reason, and of the senses, against 
 this cardinal doctrine of the Church of Rome. Is it 
 not then a glaring novelty ? Is it not most cor- 
 rupt and anti-christian ? 
 
 2. This doctrine'' leads directly to another 
 equally novel, and corrupt, (for errors come in a 
 chain, one drawing after it another,) viz: the sa- 
 crifice of the Mass. In chap. I. of the Council of 
 Trent, on the institution of the sacrifice of Mass, 
 we are told that " our Lord, in the last supper on 
 the night in which he was betrayed, declared 
 himself to be constituted a priest forever after the 
 order of Melchisedek — offered his blood and body 
 to God the Father, under the species of bread and 
 wine, and by these symbols delivered the same to 
 be received by his Apostles whom he then ap- 
 pointed priests of the New Testament, and com- 
 manded them and their successors in the Priest- 
 hood to offer the same, saying, " this do in com- 
 memoration of me," Luke xxii. 19. Chap. 2. 
 " And since the same Christ who once offered 
 himself by his blood, on the altar of the cross, is 
 contained in this divine sacrifice which is cele- 
 brated in the Mass and offered without blood, the 
 holy Council teaches that this is really propitiato- 
 ry, and made by Christ himself'' 
 
 " We therefore confess that the sacrifice of the 
 Mass is one and the same sacrifice, with that of 
 the cross ; the victim is one and the same Christ 
 
 Jesus and the oblation of the cross is 
 
 daily renewed in the Eucharistic sacrifice. 
 
 The priest also is the same Christ our Lord." 
 (Catechism, Coun. Trent, on the Eucharist.) 
 
 Such are the infallible decrees, &c, on this 
 awful profanation, for I cannot truly caJl it by a bet- 
 ter name. The substance is this, that every priest 
 has power to turn bread and wine, by uttering a 
 few words, into the real Lord Jesus, the Son of Ma- 
 ry, and the Son of God, who is now enthroned in 
 Heaven ; and that having thus made his Maker, 
 he offers him up to God as an atoning sacrifice 
 for the living and the dead, who are in Purga- 
 tory ! 
 
 Now /* ihis less than crucifying to themselves the 
 Son of God afresh, which Paul tells us, (Heb. vi. 
 6.) is putting Him to an open shame? Is it not 
 written (Heb. ix. 24—28.) expressly, "that 
 Christ did not offer himself often, as the High 
 Priest entereth into the holy place every year, 
 with blood of others, for then must He often have 
 
 
192 
 
 suffered since the foundation of the world ; but 
 now once in the end of the world hath He ap- 
 peared to put away sin by the sacrifice of him- 
 self; and as it is appointed Unto men once to die, 
 but after that the judgment, so Christ was once 
 offered to bear the sins of many." " For such a 
 high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, 
 undefined, separate from sinners, and made higher 
 than the heavens; who needeth not daily, as 
 those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for 
 his own sins, and then for the people's: for this 
 he did once, when he offered up himself." (Heb. 
 vii. 26-27.) " And every priest standeth daily 
 ministering, and offering oftentimes the same 
 sacrifices, which can never take away sins : but 
 this man', after he had offered one sacrifice for 
 sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God ; 
 from henceforth expecting till his enemies be 
 made his footstool." (Hebrews x. 11 — 13.) 
 The repetition then of the sacrifice, if it were 
 possible, by the priest's hands, would be anti- 
 christian and absurd. Is not this most ex- 
 press; that daily sacrifices were not needed or de- 
 signed; that this was to be done but once; and that 
 He was to do it ,- not frail priests? And having 
 done it once, He forever sat down at God's right 
 hand, to die no more? 
 
 Again, (in Hebrews chap. ix. verse 22,) it is 
 expressly said "without shedding of blood is no 
 remission." But Christ had not shed his blood, 
 at the last supper; and "the vain oblation" of 
 the Mass, is called a bloodless sacrifice ; yet in 
 the extracts given above, your church says the 
 Mass is a real propitiatory sacr'fice. Query. Does 
 Christ now suffer when he is sacrificed in the 
 Mass] It is said, "that it is the same Christ, 
 who is the victim, in the oblation of the Mass, as 
 in the oblation on the cross." If he suffer not, he 
 is not a victim ; to say he suffers now is blasphemy. 
 Let any man compare the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 especially the ten first chapters, with the decrees 
 of the Council of Trent, and he will see at every 
 step, the Gospel tortured ; the order of things 
 turned backward ; the Pope and his priesthood 
 caricatured into a Levitical household ; Christ 
 degraded ; his death dishonoured, his worship 
 polluted, men exalted to gods, and God reduced 
 to the creature of men's hands, and then alter- 
 nately worshipped, offered up, and consumed by 
 those who made him. 
 
 One dreadful feature in this system is the pro- 
 fane power it puts into the Priest's hands. 
 The transubstantiation depends on the consecra- 
 tion of the Priest ; and if " his intention" be 
 wanting, then there is no real sacrament, and the 
 poor people are all deceived, they idolatrousiy 
 worship the bread and wine,, and the sacrifice is 
 lost. But supposing thetrue intention and proper 
 forms, the priest offers up the Christ he has made, 
 " as a true propitiatory sacrifice for the Hvingand 
 the dead." He does all that Christ need do for 
 the poor sinner. To him he confesses his sins, 
 from him he receives absolution, and he offers up 
 the victim even Christ, and by his sacrificing act, 
 the pardon of the sinner is secured. Hence mass- 
 es abound. Hence preaching, pastoral visitation, 
 
 studying the Bible, all things are secondary to 
 the Mass, and to celebrate it, (as a certain distin- 
 guished priest recently told an astonished friend 
 of mine) is the chief business of the priest. 
 
 Add to this that these masses are sold for mo- 
 ney. I gave a specimen from the churches in 
 Madrid in my last. "In the Laity's directory," 
 1830, p. 22. 31. Those who contribute to the 
 erection of a chapel are' assured " that every Sun- 
 day, prayers shall be offered up for them publicly, 
 and that amass will be said every year within the 
 octave of saints for the repose of their souls after 
 death :" and " four masses in each month are re- 
 gularly offered for the benefactors (subscribers 
 for a particular fund) living and dead :" i. e. 
 Christ is sacrificed thirty-six times annually in 
 these masses, in return for their money ! I have 
 before me, at this moment the form of constitution 
 of a "purgatorial society" in Dublin, A. D. 
 1815. The 22d rule is as follows: "Every 
 person wishing to contribute to the relief of the 
 suffering souls in purgatory shall pay one penny 
 per week, which shall be appropriated towards pro- 
 curing masses, to be offered for the repose of the 
 souls of the parents and relations of the subscribers 
 to the institution, and all the faithful departed in 
 general." 
 
 The 3d chap, of Dec. Conn. Trent is headed, 
 " Of Masses in honour of the Saints.'''' That is, Christ 
 is* offered up, in honour of his sinful creatures! 
 Thus the Missal (the Roman Directory containing 
 masses for the various days and occasions, and 
 sanctioned by Popes and used every where) under 
 the title of " the feast of St. Peter's chair in which 
 he first sat at Rome," has these prayers : " May 
 the intercession of thy blessed Apostle Peter, we 
 beseech thee, Lord, render the prayers and obla- 
 tions of thy church acceptable to thee, that what 
 we celebrate (the masses) for his glory (pro illius 
 gloria) may prevail for the pardon of our sins." 
 Again, "Sanctify, O Lord, the offerings of thy peo- 
 ple by the prayers of thy Apostle Paul, that what 
 is accceptable to Thee, because by Thee instituted, 
 may become still more accept able by his intercession." 
 Here is the authorized Directory for your church 
 worship; and the prayer it prescribes is that "the 
 offeiings of the people," that is, Christ sacrificed 
 in the mass, offered up in honor of Peter, and Paul, 
 may be made more acceptable, by the prayers 
 of these creatures! Is this Christianity? Is 
 it less than blasphemy] Yet this is authoris- 
 ed infallible Popery. Is it wrong then to protest 
 against it? Was not silence a sinful connivanee, 
 protestation a public duty, reformation a univer- 
 sal right? It is a remarkable fact that the coun- 
 cil of Trent, as if conscious of its anti-christian 
 character, does not attempt to found this doctrine 
 on the word of God, but rests it on the authority 
 of the church ! 
 
 3. The worship of the host (which arises out of 
 the former errors) is unscriptural, and grossly idol- 
 atrous. 
 
 The decree of the Council of Trent (Session 
 13. Chap. 5. and canon 6. are to the following 
 effect, viz : " There is therefore no room to doubt, 
 but that the faithful of Christ should adore his 
 
193 
 
 mo3t holy sacrament with that highest worship 
 due to the true God, according to the constant 
 usage in the Catholic Church. Nor is it the 
 less^to be adored, that it was instituted by Christ 
 our Lord as has been stated," (that is, to be eaten.) 
 Again, "whoever shall affirm, that Christ the only 
 begotten 'Son of God, is not to be adored in the holy 
 eucharist with the external signs of that worship 
 which is due to God; and therefore that the eu- 
 charist is not to be honoured with extraordinary 
 festive celebration, nor solemnly carried about in 
 processions, according to the laudable and uni- 
 versal rites and customs of the Holy Church, nor 
 publicly presented to the people for their ado- 
 ration; and that those who worship the same are 
 idolaters; let him be accursed." It is well for 
 Protestants, that this curse is harmless, for that it 
 is idolatry, the very language of the decree direct- 
 ly evinces. In our own country there is too 
 much light to bear the public elevation, and am- 
 bulatory'show of the Host. It is confined to the al- 
 tars and ailes of the church. But in Italy, and in 
 Spain "this tremendous mystery," as some Roman- 
 ist calls it, is often carried in public processions, and 
 every man must kneel or be knocked down, as the 
 Host moves by. In the above quotation the au- 
 thority and practice of the church are again (as 
 usual) substituted for the word of God, and the 
 law of Christ. As to "usage of the church'''' what 
 have we to do with that, when it practices gross 
 idolatry ] Besides this usage is of comparatively 
 modern date. The doctrine of Transubstantiation 
 was not made (as we have said) an article of faith 
 until the year 1215 — so say >Scotus, Tonst.al, 
 and others ; and of course before that, the bread 
 was not worshipped. And in the Roman Canon 
 Law it is written that Pope Honorius III. in the 
 following year directed that the priests, at. a cer- 
 tain part of the service, should elevate the host, and 
 cause the people to prostrate themselvesand aflore. 
 Soon afterthis, he directed the words " HicDeum 
 cc?ora" — here adore God, — to be inscribed on the 
 doors of those places in which the host was re- 
 served for the sick. 
 
 As to other charges of idolatry, some denial or 
 explanation is entered up. But here it is avowed, 
 and a curse levelled at those who decline it, or 
 condemn it. If the bread be not God, then it is 
 confessedly idolatry. But the council of Trent 
 decreed (Sess. 7. can. 11.) that the intention of the 
 priest is necessary to a true, sacrament, and the Ms- 
 sal, says " if a priest should not intend to consecrate 
 but to deceive, there is no sacrament. " But it is cer- 
 
 er's intention.'''' (Book 3. chap. 8. on Justifica* 
 tion.) 
 
 The Missal mentions no less than ten heads, 
 and under those no less than Jify particulars, in 
 wh ch defects may occur. But whenever such 
 defect occurs, (and who can be certain it does not 
 on any given occasion ]) the worship of the bread 
 is confessedly idolatry? As for Scripture au- 
 thority for this worship, there is not one loord. 
 But the church is residuary legatee of all power, 
 and settles all questions at Rome now, as the 
 sword of Brennus did in a former age. Vasquez 
 (on 1 Cor. 28,) says " the power of the Apostles 
 to give commandments, has not been greater than 
 that of the church and the Popes." Gabriel Biel 
 (Can. Mass.) " Priests have great power over 
 the one, a d the other body of Christ--«-He who 
 made me has, if I may say it, given me pow- 
 er to create him; and he that made me is made by 
 my means." And sec. 4th. " Christ is incarnate, 
 and made flesh, in the hands of Priests, as in the 
 
 Virgin's womb Priests do create their creator 
 
 and have power over the body of Christ." I will 
 not, as I might, multiply these shocking profani- 
 ties. But here is the seat of the* power, to make 
 the bread divine, and of the authority to require 
 it to be adored. And now is it anti-christian to 
 protest against such abominations 1 
 
 4. Purgatory is a fiction of the Church of Rome, 
 having no foundation in the word of God, and ruin- 
 ous to the souls of men. 
 
 In the decree of the Council of Trent on Pur- 
 gatory (sess. 25,> it is written — "That there is a 
 purgatory; and that, the souls detained there are 
 assisted by the suffrages of the faithful, but espe- 
 cially by the acceptable sacrifice of the mass ; this 
 holy council commands all bishops diligently to en- 
 deavour that the wholesome doctrine of purgatory, 
 delivered to us by venerable fathers and holy 
 councils, be believed and held by Christ's faith- 
 ful, and-every where taught and preached." The 
 creed also contains the following article : "I con- 
 stantly hold that there, is a purgatory, and that 
 the souls detained therein are helped by the suf- 
 frages of the faithful." The catechism of the 
 Council of Trent also teaches, (Part 1st. ch. 6.) 
 " That the souls of the pious, who have departed 
 this life, not fully cleansed, and having somewhat 
 yet to pay, make full satisfaction through the fire 
 of Purgatory." 
 
 Bellarmine heads his third general controversy, 
 with this extraordinary title : " Of the church 
 which is in Purgatory" ! ! ! In his first book, 
 
 tain that in the innumerable millions of masses 1st chapter, on the same subject he says, "Pur 
 said, priests often lack the intention. Then in ! gatory is a certain place in which, as in a prison, 
 such a case there is gross idolatry ; for as it is after this life, the 
 
 owned that in such case the bread, remains un- 
 changed, so those who worship it are idolaters. 
 But who can be certain of the intention of a priest, 
 especially when so many of them have been, and 
 are among the most abandoned, and irreligious of 
 men? Bellarmine (if he has not lost his ortho- 
 doxy with you) tells us "no man can be certain 
 with the certainty of faith that he receives a true 
 sacrament ; because it depends on the minister's 
 intention to consecrate it : and none can see anoth- 
 
 this life, the souls which have not been 
 fully cleansed on earth, are purified ,• so that thus 
 they may be certainly prepared for heaven, where 
 nothing that defiles shall enter." Such is the 
 summary of a doctrine so profitable to the priests, 
 and so ruinous to the people/ Bishop Fisher of 
 your church says; (In Confut. Luth. Art. 18.) 
 " Many are tempted now a days, not to rely much 
 on Indulgences,- for this consideration, that the 
 use of them appears to be new and very lately 
 known among Christians : To which I answer, 
 
194 
 
 It is not very certain who wa9 the first author of 
 them ; the doctrine of Purgatory was a long time 
 unknown, was rarely if at all heard of among the 
 ancients, and to this day the Greeks believe it not; 
 nor was the belief of either Purgatory, or Indul- 
 gences, so necessary in the Primitive church, as 
 it is now,- so long as men were unconcerned 
 about Purgatory, nobody inquired after Indul- 
 gences." The Greeks, to whom the above ex- 
 tract refers, say in their apology to the Council 
 of Basil, (De Igne Purgatorio,) "we own no 
 Purgatory-fire ; we have received no such thing; 
 nor doth our Eastern church confess it." And, 
 again: "For these causes, the doctrine pro- 
 posed, of a Purgatory-fire, is to be rejected and 
 cast out of the church, as that which tends to 
 slacken the endeavours of the diligent, and which 
 hinders them from doing their utmost to be purged 
 in this life, since another Purgatory is expected 
 after it." Otho Frising, an old Roman Catholic 
 Bishop and historian, cotemporary with St. Ber- 
 nard, tell us, " the doctrine of Purgatory was 
 first built upon the credit of those fabulous dia- 
 logues, attributed to Gregory 1st, about the year 
 600." Roffensis, and Pollidore Virgil, inform 
 us, that this doctrine was not believed by the 
 early Greek Fathers, and that it was but lately 
 known by the church as a doctrine. The earliest 
 Latin Fathers also, were strangers to this inno- 
 vation ; and it may with confidence be asserted, 
 that for 500 years after the death of Christ not one 
 of them can be named who held, throughout, this ar- 
 ticle of faith, as now professed by the church of 
 Home. This doctrine, besides being a novelty, 
 is directly contradictory to the word of God. 
 It supposes that the satisfaction of Jesus Christ 
 does not procure a full remission of sins, 
 either before we die, or perhaps long after : it 
 supposes that a creature, and he sinful, can make 
 a meritorious satisfaction to God for his sins by 
 suffering, and thus mend the imperfect satisfaction 
 of Christ : it supposes that God pardons men, 
 and yet punishes them afterwards : it holds that 
 God punishes the same sins twice, viz': in the 
 death of his Son and then in Purgatory : that He 
 applies pardonby punishment, and remits our debts 
 by making us pay them : that there is a distinction 
 between sins venial and sins mortal, i. e. that 
 some sins are trivial, and only some deserve eter- 
 nal punishment : it supposes that God forgives 
 our greater sins freely, and yet punishes us for 
 our lesser: it relies also upon this, that "God 
 requires of us a full exchange of penances and 
 satisfactions, which must regularly be paid here 
 or hereafter, even by those who are pardoned 
 here, which if it be true, we are all undone :" 
 it admits that a priest's mass on earth will re- 
 lieve a soul from purgatory, when Christ's in- 
 tercession in heaven will not : it supposes ages 
 perhaps of sufferings after death, by (those who 
 are the children of God, and not guilty in his 
 sight : in a word, it is the parent of indulgences, 
 makes the Church a mart where sin, and heaven, 
 and hell, the blood of Jesus, and the souls of men 
 are suspended on the will of a priest, and commuted 
 for money, so that the principal calamity, and 
 
 crime, is to be poor. Now, not one of these sup- 
 positions is accordant with the word of God ; but 
 all are directly opposed to it, as the following 
 Scriptures sufficiently show. Rom. viii. 1. 
 "There is therefore, now no condemnation to 
 them which are in Christ Jesus." 1 John 
 i. 7. 9. " The blood of Jesus Christ His Son 
 cleanseth us from all sin."-«-«"If we confess our 
 sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our 
 sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 
 Rev. xiv. 13. "I heard a voice from heaven say- 
 ing write, blessed are the dead that die in the 
 Lord from henceforth, yea saith the Spirit that 
 they may rest from their labours." Picherellus, 
 one of your doctors of the Sorbonne, confesses 
 that " St. John, by this last mentioned Scrip- 
 ture, hath put out forever the fire of Purga- 
 tory." 
 
 And again, "There is no fuel in Scripture, either 
 to kindle or maintain the fire of Purgatory." 
 (In Massa.) Matthew v. 22. " Whosoever shall 
 say unto his brother, thou fool, shall be in danger 
 of hell fire.' 1 ' 1 There is no such thing as a little sin 
 mentioned in all the word of God ! See also Heb. 
 i. 3. Matt. x. 8. Rom. iii. 24, and viii. 32. Colos. 
 ii. 13. 2 Cor. v. 1. 8. Isaiah lvii. 1. Luke xvi. 
 22. Jesus said, even to the thief upon the cross, 
 '■'■this day shalt thou be with me in paradise;" 
 and he says to all men every where. (John v. 
 24.) " He that believeth my word and believeth 
 on hirn that sent me, hath everlasting life and 
 shall not come into judgment, but hath passed 
 from death unto life.'''' On the other hand he 
 hath also said, (John viii.- 21.) "I go my way 
 and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins; 
 whither I go ye cannot come." As to the pas- 
 sage in Matthew xii. 32. Bellarmine owns that 
 " Purgatory cannot by any rule of logic be 
 proved from it, as the sin there mentioned was 
 never to be purged, being damnable." Maldonat 
 acknowledges that " Purgatory cannot be proved 
 from Matth. v. 25, 26., as the prison there spoken 
 of is Hell and not Purgatory." Peter de Soto 
 allows, "it cannot be proved from 1 Cor. iii. 15. 
 as it is not persons but vain doctrines called wood, 
 hay, stubble, which some well meaning but mis- 
 taken teachers add to the true, that shall in the 
 day of judgment be tried by fire and be burned, 
 and themselves shall hardly escape, even as one 
 escapeth out of the fire." This novel and un- 
 christian doctrine, as the Greek Protestants quoted 
 above, justly intimate, relaxes the efforts of men 
 in fleeing from the wrath to come, and criminally 
 holds forth the vain hope that their future suffer- 
 ings will have an end. You have often, alluded 
 in your letters to the doctrine of the Universal- 
 ists; and I agree with you in thinking them un- 
 scriptural, and destructive. But for all practical 
 purposes, in deluding and destroying mens' souls, 
 the doctrine of Purgatory is equally efficacious ; 
 it is even less consistent ; and from the extent of 
 your communion (though a profitable fable to the 
 priesthood in this world,) it spreads a far wider 
 ruin than the other doctrine. Against this dread- 
 ful doctrine, enthroned as it is in the standards 
 of your church, and hedged about with terrible 
 
195 
 
 anathemas, we protest, and pronounce it incapa- 
 ble of defence. 
 
 Here then are four other cardinal doctrines of 
 the church of Rome, which, if the Bible contains 
 the Christian religion, are as unlike to Christianity 
 as they are to the Koran, and are far more like the 
 religion of heathen Rome than that of Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 My two previous letters remain unanswered, 
 and very much unnoticed by you. This of course 
 is the 3d in the series. By this time it must 
 be seen by all, that you feel the safety of Roman- 
 ism to lie in its seclusion from the public eye. 
 If after attacking the Protestant rule of faith, and 
 withholding your own, you can manage to attack 
 the Protestant religion also, so as, to withhold 
 your own, we must concede to you the palm of 
 adroitness at least, especially when you also 
 manage to appear the person standing on the de- 
 fensive against the attacks of a disputant who has 
 challenged you. Honesty however is the best po- 
 licy, and as I met your attack on our rule of faith, 
 so will I even in anticipation of the time, meet your 
 attacks on the Protestant religion ; for I plainly 
 perceive that you are not disposed to meet'me in dis- 
 cussing the peculiarities of Romanism. The fol- 
 lowing passage, which you /e//us incloses a grand 
 dilemma, is noticed chiefly to gratify yourself. 
 " In my last letter I reduced the question to the 
 simplicity of a dilemma, from which I defy you 
 to escape. It is this : Either the Protestant reli- 
 gion is a religion differing from the religion of 
 Christ; and by this admission you give up the 
 question; or else, the religion of Christ was not 
 professed by any society of Christians previous to the 
 time of Luther. And in that case the religion of 
 Christ is only three hundred years old ! ! To 
 which of these alternatives do you wish to cling ? 
 for one of them is inevitable. To this argument, 
 you oppose the 4 defence' of silence. Not a 
 word of authority; not a word of reasoning! Si- 
 lence only, prudent silence." Now I must beg 
 pardon for passing it by before; but like the "pa- 
 thetic part" of the young advocate's speech, of 
 which he gave the jury notice, when coming to it, 
 I should never have known it, if you had not told 
 me that it was a dilemma. Our religion existed 
 so long before the days of Luther'as the Bible ex- 
 isted. It is distinctly taught by the early Chris- 
 tians, Martyrs and Confessors of the first three 
 centuries; it is recorded clearly in the earliest 
 creeds down to the days of Athanasius; it was 
 taught and defended in the earliest councils; it 
 was established in the first ages in Jerusalem and 
 other parts of Palestine, in Asia, Greece, Egypt, 
 and Rome herself; it was afterwards corrupted 
 by that same church of Rome ; and we have 
 " left the rust and kept the metal.'''' The Reforma- 
 tion is of the errors, not the true religion, Jbuhave 
 left Christ, not we. We have been driven from 
 and left you, not Christ: the Reformation is sub- 
 sequent to the errors it reforms, otherwise it were 
 not a reformation but an unchristian change. 
 Sound Christianity was primitive : to it we return. 
 If any honest inquirer taking the natural sense 
 of language (and can your authority justly give 
 
 any other sense 1) will examine the word of God, 
 and all these various early documents to which 
 we refer, and compare them with the Protestant 
 religion properly so called, he will find it in all 
 its simplicity and fulness therein recorded. But 
 if on the other hand, you choose to ascend, we 
 can show you our religion " professed by so- 
 cieties of Christians" long before the days of 
 Luther. The Magdeburg Centuriators, Vol. 3. 
 Cent. 12. chapter 8. tell us of a people whom 
 your church in vain sought to destroy, pro- 
 fessing such articles of faith as these. "The 
 Sacraments of the church of Christ are two, 
 Baptism and the Supper of the Lord : Mass- 
 es are impious, and it is madness to say them 
 for the dead : Purgatory is an invention of 
 men : the invocation and worshipping of dead 
 saints is idolatry : the Pope has not the primacy 
 over all the churches of Christ, neither has he the 
 power of both the swords : Vows of celibacy are 
 inventions of men, and occasions of Sodomy : 
 the marriage of Priests is both lawful and neces- 
 sary : the reading and knowledge of the holy 
 Scriptures is open to all : commemorations of the 
 dead, pilgrimages, &c, are diabolical inven- 
 tions." See also two "confessions of their faith" 
 furnished by John Paul Perrin ; see also Reine- 
 rius Sacco, and jEneus Sylvius, Claudius Sies- 
 selius, all Papal writers in proof of the Protestant 
 doctrines of the Waldenses, ages before Luther. 
 Reinerius thus writes: "Among the sects (he 
 says) which still are, or have been, there is not 
 any more pernicious to the church, than that of 
 the Leonists (Waldenses); and this for three rea- 
 sons, the first is because their opposition has been 
 of very long continuance. Add to which that this 
 sect has become very general, for there is scarcely 
 a country to be found in which this heresy is not 
 planted. And, in the third place, because while 
 all other sects beget in people a dread and hor- 
 ror of them on account of their blasphemies 
 against God, this, on the contrary, hath a great 
 appearance of godliness ; for they live righteous- 
 ly before men, believe rightly concerning God in 
 every particular, holding all the articles contain- 
 ed in the (Apostles') creed, but hating and revil- 
 ing the church of Rome, and on this subject they 
 are readily believed by the people." (Reinerius 
 contra Waldenses in Perrin, b. 2. ch. 1.) Thuanus 
 the historian, book 6, bears the same testimony 
 to the Protestant doctrines of the Waldenses. So 
 also Mazery says of these heretics, " avoient a- 
 peu,pres mesmes opiniones que ceux qu' on nom- 
 me au jourd' huy Calvinistes." "They had al- 
 most the same opinions as those who are now 
 called Cahinists" Let it be remembered that 
 these are Roman Catholic Historians. Again, the 
 Greek church which you own to be an ancient 
 church, also protests against your half-commu- 
 nion, Purgatory, merits (human,) supererogation, 
 worship of images, concealing the Scripture in 
 an unknown tongue, extreme unction, sale of 
 masses, and infallibility. The ancient Arminian 
 church, rejects the Supremacy of the Pope, Tran- 
 substantiation, and Purgatory, and excommuni- 
 cates those who worship images. The Jacob- 
 
196 
 
 ites, the Syrian, the Egyptian, and Abyssinian 
 Christians also reject nearly all the Romish errors 
 against which we protest. 
 
 How plain it is then from these testimonies, 
 that the Protestant religion was professed, not 
 only ages before the days of Luther, but existed 
 from the beginning, and descended for centuries 
 even in your own church, until she corrupted it 
 and made it an anti-christian Papacy. The di- 
 lemma then reverts to you, and that on your own 
 principles. Either the Roman Catholic religion 
 differs from the religion of Christ (and by this 
 admission you give up the question) or else the 
 religion of Christ did not exist for many centuries 
 after the death of its author. 
 
 So much for your dilemma. Now the posture of 
 the question between us is this. Here is the 
 Bible; you and I differ as to the best'mode of 
 finding out what it means; but we both agree 
 that its meaning, when gotten at, is God's will and 
 truth, and therefore consonant to the religion of 
 Christ. We have for some time been discussing 
 the best means for finding out its contents ; but 
 surely it is easy to say whatare the doctrines which 
 we actually have deduced from that book. This 
 discussion relates to those doctrines. Now the 
 Church of Rome deduces certain doctrines; Protes- 
 tants also, certain doctrines; the question is not how, 
 but luhat are they ? In some points we agree. This 
 you admit in your last letter when you say " touch- 
 ing what are called ' orthodox' tenets among Pro- 
 testants, J have to observe that they are all found 
 in the Catholic Church. These doctrines always 
 existed in the church, and the Reformers in go- 
 ing out from the church, carried them forth, etc." 
 Then it follows that they are our doctrines and 
 yours, and as to them there is no dispute. So far 
 therefore as the agreed points go, if your church 
 is the church of Christ, so is the the Protestant 
 church. 
 
 Now as to disputed points against which 
 we protest, you hold that they also are a part of 
 the religion of Christ. These disputed tenets, I 
 stated at large in my definition of the Protestant 
 religion ; and I have exposed many of them in 
 this and in former letters. Since then you hold 
 these disputed points to be part of the religion 
 of Christ, it is your business to prove that they 
 are so. If I have not stated them to suit you, 
 tell us what they are, and having stated, prove 
 them. This you entirely decline to do, and 
 shrinking from it, undertake to prove a negative, 
 viz. that the Protestant religion is not the reli- 
 gion of Christ. While you cling to this absur- 
 dity, and shrink from the fair and manly meeting 
 of the question, your cause is abandoned. 
 
 Again, according to the state of the question, 
 you must go further, and show that these disput- 
 ed tenets are such essential parts of the religion 
 of Christ, that not to hold them is to unchurch 
 us. Until you have done this, no reason appears 
 why we may not hold the religion of Christ, and 
 yet reject them. This is so incumbent upon you 
 in the discussion of this question, that until you 
 have done it, you may abuse the Reformers and 
 laud the Papacy without measure, and yet no de- 
 
 monstration is given that the Protestant religion 
 
 is not the religion of Christ. 
 
 Still further, if these disputed points are so es- 
 sential, that if true we must hold them before we 
 can be a church of Christ, (or our religion be His 
 religion); then, on the other hand, it follows, that 
 if false they are so essential that all who hold 
 them are truly unchurched, and their religion is 
 not the religion of Christ. This reasoning isnot 
 only conclusive, but it is so by your own show- 
 ing. It follows, therefore, not only that ours is a 
 true church and our religion the religion of Christ, 
 but (Mr. Hughes being judge) ours is the only 
 true church and religion, unless you can prove these 
 exclusive points. How strangely then must you. 
 appear to the community of readers, when time 
 after time you refuse to touch these disputed 
 points, and leaving the only ground upon which 
 the question can be settled, rove through decla- 
 matory pages, and garbled extracts from the wri- 
 tings of the Reformers, in order to prove a nega- 
 tive. Let me still further illustrate this subject. 
 Take the doctrine of human merits, or the wor- 
 ship of the Host, or the doctrine of purgatory, or 
 any of the leading points upon which we differ. 
 These points are so fundamental, that you de- 
 nounce us as heretics for rejecting them ; and we 
 protest against you as anti-christian for holding 
 them. In so far as we agree with you, ours is 
 the religion of Christ if yours is, by our holding 
 the agreed points; but if your church he -wrong 
 in those fundamental points which we reject, 
 then ours is a true church, and yours is not; 
 whereas if we are right in holding what your 
 church rejects, then still ours is a true church and 
 yours is not. If, therefore, you will not come up 
 to the discussion of the points on which we dif- 
 fer, and on which the question turns, I must pur- 
 sue the line of my argument as already begun, 
 and the tenets in which you are interested, must 
 be considered incapable of defence. 
 
 Your first question, viz: " Did there ever 
 exist a society of Christians (previous to the Re- 
 formation,) agreeing in doctrines with any sect of 
 Protestants'?" has been answered at large, in this 
 letter, in my exposure of your fanciful dilemma. 
 As you ask however, " a categorical answer," to 
 your dogmatic questions, I answer without hesita- 
 tion, Yes. When, however, you include Socinus 
 among Protestants, I refer you for answer to Si- 
 mon Magus the father of Papal Simony and In- 
 dulgences. His system revived in your church, 
 was one of the articles for reformation. For the 
 parentage of celibacy, I refer you to the Mani- 
 chees : for the worship of the Virgin Mary, I re- 
 mind you of the Collyridian idolators from whom 
 (see Epiphanius) it is derived by your church. 
 
 " 2d Question. Take the Reformers as they 
 have been described by themselves, is it clear that 
 they were the men whom God would have se- 
 lected to purify his church V 
 
 Answer. From the caricature which you have 
 given, in clipped extracts, of their character and 
 doctrines, no just conception can be formed of the 
 one or the other. This shall be shown to your 
 own confusion, and in part even in the present let- 
 
197 
 
 ler. But allowing them to have been all that your 
 injustice has ascribed to them, I ask, if they were 
 unfit men to reform, what were the Popes to sustain 
 a religion ? Let us take a glance at the thirteenth 
 schism which disgraced the Papacy in the days 
 of Formosus and Sergius. Formosus, A. D. 890, 
 gained the Pontificate by bribery. Sergius his 
 rival was expelled by royal power. Stephen, the 
 successor of Formosus, unearthed the dead body 
 of Formosus, had a mock trial of him, and having 
 cut off his head and fingers threw his body into 
 theTyber, and declared all his acts and ordinations 
 invalid. The Romans soon after expelled Stephen 
 from the Hierarchy. Baronius tells us that he 
 entered like a thief, and died by the rope. Bruys 
 says he was as ignorant as he was wicked. In 
 the nineteenth schism Benedict, Sylvester, and 
 John, reigned in one filthy triumvirate at the same 
 time, (who then was Pope ]) They occupied in 
 Rome St. Mary's, the Vatican, and the Lateran. 
 Binius VII. 221, and Labbeus II. 1 180, called them 
 " a three headed monster rising from the gates of 
 Hell infesting in a most woful manner the most 
 Holy chair of Peter." Triceps bestia ab infero- 
 rum portis emergens sanctissimam Petri Cathe- 
 drum miserime infestavit. A clever link, this, 
 in the sacred and unbroken chain of Pontifical 
 succession ! The great western, or twenty-ninth 
 schism, which lasted for fifty years, broke to 
 atoms the Pontifical succession, and exhibited to 
 an astonished world, a holy war for half a century, 
 amidst a band of ruffians, calling themselves 
 the vicegerents of the Prince of Peace. I need 
 not dwell here, nor point you again to the fifty 
 popes called by your historian " apostate rather 
 than apostolicul.'''' But this brief sketch may suf- 
 fice to show that the Reformers, however bad, 
 were at least as well fitted to reform, as such 
 popes to head and sustain a religion. 
 
 Again, we never set up these Reformers as the 
 vicegerents of God, but only as leaders in Reform 
 to which every Christian is in his measure not only 
 competent, but also bound by o his duty to God and 
 to the church. For such a wgrk miracles are not re- 
 quired. Such a work was often accomplished in 
 the Old Testament church, of which it is written, 
 "now for a long season Israel hath been without 
 the true God, and without a teaching Priest and 
 without law." 2 Chron. xv. 3. 
 
 "Question 3d. Does the religion of Christ teach 
 the doctrines of Protestantism, from the highest 
 point of Episcopalianism, down the descending 
 scale to the farthest verge of Unitarianism 1 if not, 
 the Protestant religion is not the religion of 
 Christ." 
 
 Answer. You have unwittingly, but satisfacto- 
 rily, answered this question for me, when you 
 say in your last letter, " touching what are called 
 orthodox tenets among Protestants, I have to observe 
 that they are all found in the Catholic church." 
 Unitarianism, Universalism, &c, are not found 
 in the Bible, and therefore make no part of the 
 Protestant religion, "which is exclusively de- 
 rived from and consistent with the word of God." 
 Ours is not a religion of " opinions," as you 
 mean by the word, (which however is an absurd 
 
 and unphilosophical use of it,) but of evangelical 
 doctrine. Our Bible does not teach any thing, 
 and every thing, though you say it does out of 
 your hands ,■ and those who unite with you in 
 saying that it does, are with you, detainers of the 
 Bible, and as to truth, heretics. You are hardly 
 a stranger to the innumerable sects which have 
 arisen up in your churOh. The Pope once signed 
 the Arian Creed and the body of the church fol- 
 lowed him. There is not a heresy of modern 
 times that did not exist before the Reformation; 
 in the days of Epiphanius they had increased to 
 eighty, and in the time of Philaster to one hun- 
 dred and fifty. Flagellism, Convulsonianism, 
 and the Festival of the Ass, I must hereafter in- 
 troduce to your notice. I now assert, and shall 
 hereafter^arove, that no church on earth has had so 
 many vamLtions in doctrine, and so many heresies in 
 its bosom, as the church of Rome. 
 
 Your 4th question regards the Reformers' min- 
 isterial authority, and your 5th the transmission 
 of that authority. I here answer in a word, that 
 whatever authority your church possessed in this 
 way was imparted to them ; so that theirs is the 
 same: and their abundant reasons forreform, and for 
 separating from your church, when she refused v. 
 Reformation, fully justify them in disregarding 
 her deposition ; and render their " unfrocking" 
 (as you are pleased to call it,) as vain as the au- 
 thors of it were coriupt. 
 
 I close the present letter (too long already), by 
 exposing as a specimen of your quotations, the very 
 adventurous and self-convicting way in which you 
 have tortured the writings of Luther. Your first 
 and second citations, do not appear after some 
 search, in the places to which you refer. (I hope 
 for your own sake you have not depended upon 
 some of the slanderous excerpts of the Je- 
 suits.) The third you thus give : " Let this be 
 your rule in interpreting the Scriptures; when- 
 ever they command a good vjork, do you under- 
 stand that they forbid if; — and you say, "is this 
 the religion of Christ? Oh, what a task you 
 have undertaken !" In the previous paragraphs, 
 Luther had been recommending the performance 
 of good works without relying on the merit of 
 them, with great zeal, clearness and force, as 
 the fruit of faith, and to the glory of God; and says 
 they should be gratuitous, abundant and sponta- 
 neous. He next proceeds to show what good 
 works truly are. That I may do you no injus- 
 tice, I will give the original latin and the transla- 
 tion in parallel columns, and show in italics how 
 your garbled extract comes in. 
 
 r 
 
 " Opera vere bona." 
 Qui isto modo bona ope- 
 ranlur. non sibi, sed Deo, 
 tanquam instrumentum Dei, 
 operanlur, nihil in his sibi 
 arrogant, solo Dei contenti, 
 in quo sperant ; qui non 
 sic operanlur. simioe sunt 
 sanctorum virorum. Adco 
 Becesse est superstilionem 
 fieri e# omnium sanctorum 
 vita, nisi Patrem coalestem 
 in his didicerint glorificare. 
 
 " Works truly good." 
 Those who perform good 
 Works in this manner work 
 not to themselves, but to 
 God, and as instruments of 
 God, not arrogating any 
 ihi g to themselves, bul as 
 cribing ciil l" God, in whom 
 i Ik- \- i ii i -. s Those « bo 
 not perto tn good works in 
 this manner are but the 
 apes of holy men : so that 
 the unavoidable cons*- 
 
198 
 
 Recto ergo dicitur. " Uni- 
 versse vise Domini miseri- 
 cordia et Veritas ;" id est, 
 tuDC opera fieri bona, quan- 
 do Ipse solus totus ac total- 
 iter ea facit in nobis, ut 
 operis nulla pars ad nos per- 
 tineat. Quare hie tibi sit 
 canon, ubi scriptura prcece- 
 pit bonum opus Jieri, sic in- 
 tetligas, quod prolubeat te 
 facere bonum opus, cum id 
 non possis sed, ut Sabba- 
 tum, Deo sanctitices. mor- 
 tuussit et sepuhus, sinasque 
 Deum in te operare. At 
 hoc autem non pervenies 
 unquam, nisi per fidem, 
 spem et caritaiem, id est 
 per tui morlificationem et 
 omnium operum tuorem. 
 Operatio in Psalmum V. 
 Opera. Zom.UI.fol. 111. 
 
 quence is, that "superstition 
 will be produced in the lives 
 ofhoty men, unless they in 
 these things glorify their 
 Father in heaven. It is 
 therefore rightly said, "all 
 the ways of the Lord are 
 mercy and truth;" that is, 
 good works may then be 
 said to be performed, w hen 
 ^He alone, totally and eh'-' 
 lirely works thein in us. so 
 that no part of the workTie*- 
 longs to ourselves. Where- 
 fore let this be your rule, 
 when the Scripture com- 
 mands a good work to be 
 done, you are to understand 
 it as prohibiting you from 
 doing the good work, since 
 you are not able to per- 
 form it, but thaApu sanctify 
 a rest to God,Hid become 
 as dead and buried, and > 
 permit God to work in you.. 
 
 But to this you will never 
 
 come unless by faith, hope 
 
 : and charity — that is by the 
 
 '. mortification of self, and of 
 
 1 all your own works. 
 
 I suppose you remember my allusion (on the 
 extract you made from Tertu'lian in this same 
 style) to the man who proved from the Bible that 
 there was no God, by dropping- half the verse ! 
 So here the half verse makes Luther talk like a 
 libertine as to morals, and a fool as to inlerpreta- 
 tation, while the whole passage is designed to 
 recommend good works, to purify them by grace, 
 to derive them from God, to destroy self, and glo- 
 rify God by active obedience, and mortification ! 
 strange ! strange liberties ! With such a pair of 
 scales we can weigh the characters given to the 
 Reformers by you ; and see how much they 
 gain when as you say, you give their opinions in 
 their oion words. Yours, &c. 
 
 John Breckinridge. 
 
 X 
 
 % 
 
CONTROVERSY N°. 25. 
 
 Is the Protestant Religion the Religion of Christ? 
 
 Philadelphia, July 19, 1833. 
 To the Rev. John Breckinridge. 
 
 Rev. Sir, — The question is about " the Protes- 
 tant Religion," and not about Transubstantiation 
 or Purgatory. But I foresaw, and even pre- 
 dicted, that you would evade the subject at issue. 
 You had repeatedly told us, that you had demol- 
 ished the doctrines of the Eucharist, Purgatory, 
 Indulgences, &c. &c. &c, and if so, why did you 
 waste Jive columns of your last letter in doing 
 what you had so frequently and so effectually done 
 before 1 If you betray such want of confidence 
 in your own assertions, you must not be surprised 
 at the jocund incredulity with which they are re- 
 ceived by your readers. 
 
 In my last letter I gave you what you had pre- 
 viously called for — " manly arguments;" couch- 
 ed in genteel language, except perhaps the quo- 
 tations from the writings of the " Reformers," 
 for which I must decline all responsibility. 
 How have you met these arguments'? You have 
 not met them at all. No man, Catholic or Pro- 
 testant, liberal or even bigoted, will say that your 
 last letter is, or deserves to be called, an answer 
 to mine. You had undertaken to prove that 
 "the Protestant Religion is the Religion of Christ,-" 
 and, knowing that you would respect the tuitness- 
 es, I gave you the testimony of the Reformers 
 themselves, to prove that it is not. I gave their 
 doctrines, by which they set forth that man has 
 not free will, but is a. mere machine ; and that 
 God is an omnipotent tyrant, condemning his 
 creatures for violating precepts, which he knew 
 in imposing them could not be accomplished ? 
 And all this, as they taught, according to the 
 Bible ! I gave you their characters, as drawn by 
 themselves, and if they spoke the truth, it would 
 be difficult to find materials for a darker picture. 
 I gave in their own ivords, the immoral effects of 
 the Reformation ; and to all these things there is 
 no reply. I confronted the defender of the Refor- 
 mation, with its authors; and apparently sur- 
 prised that such evidence should have been de- 
 rived from such a quarter, the confessions of the 
 clients seem to have chained the tongue of the 
 advocate. Still he has written a letter, called 
 it No. XXIV., and under the heading of the 
 " Protestant Religion," he has given, at consid- 
 erable length, his " views," on the Catholic doc- 
 trines of the Eucharist, and Purgatory ! ! He 
 had disproved these doctrines several times, if he 
 can believe himself; and in order to strengthen 
 his faith, I had even indulged him with the con- 
 cession for argument' sake, that so it was : but it 
 seems he would believe neither of us ; and be- 
 hold, he is demolishing transubstantiation again ! 
 
 Who will say after this, that Protestants do not 
 believe in works of supererogation 1 And then 
 the conclusiveness of his logic ! "Transubstan- 
 tiation, says he, is as young as 1215," therefore, 
 the religion of the Reformation, (viz : all the 
 sects of Protestantism) is the Religion of Christ." 
 Mahomedism is wrong, therefore, according to 
 this new species of logic, Presbyterianism is 
 right. 
 
 But pray, Rev. Sir, did you place so low an 
 estimate on the intelligence of our Protestant 
 readers, as to suppose that the dullest vision 
 would not see through all this 1 Do you imagine 
 that their confidence in the divinity of your reli- 
 gion will stand unshaken, when they see their 
 minister — after having bound himself by a written 
 agreement, to show " that the Protestant Religion 
 is the Religion of Christ," — flinching from the 
 task he had assumed, and returning to his " la- 
 bour of love," in aspersing doctrines which do 
 not belong to the Protestant Religion ? You could 
 not, nor can you now, give me a definition of 
 the Protestant Religion. But after having taken 
 six months for reflection, you come out with 
 the discovery that it is "the Religion of the 
 Reformation ! !" As I had promised to " res- 
 pect" your definition, I proceeded to the foun- 
 tain head ; and detailed the result of the inves- 
 tigation in my last letter. It seems to have 
 taken you by surprise ; and your silence as to 
 the facts and authorities, sufficiently indicates 
 that even yau were unacquainted with the whole 
 truth, as respects the doctrines and authors of the 
 Religion of the Reformation. They agreed in 
 rebellion, but in nothing else. Each accused the 
 other of receiving his doctrines by the inspiration 
 of the Devil. Luther acknowledges that from 
 this tutor, he first learned the arguments for the 
 overthrow of the sacrifice of Mass. But still he 
 admitted the real presence of Christ in Euchar- 
 ist; this Calvin denied; wielding against the 
 Eucharist those arguments and objections, of 
 which your last letter is but the feeble echo ! 
 Calvin's successors found, that by applying the 
 same kind of interpretation, they could get rid of 
 all the other mysteries of Revelation, and for the 
 credit of their philosophy, the children have com- 
 pleted the work of desolation which the father 
 had begun. 
 
 In the commencement of your letter you charge 
 me with having maintained, in this discussion,' 
 principles injurious to the holy Scriptures. And 
 after having invented for me a set of conse- 
 quences which I disclaim, you go so far as 
 to say, " this is Deism, barefaced Deism." I 
 am certain there is not another man in the 
 
200 
 
 community, besides yourself, that can discover 
 Deism in the principles which I have sup- 
 ported during this controversy. I have indeed, 
 shown that Deism necessarily flows from the 
 principles of Protestantism; The very last defi- 
 nition you give of the Protestant rule of faith, is 
 pregnant with that consequence. You say 
 "the Bible is the rule; and common-sense in- 
 terpretation the way to find the sense of the 
 rule." Your " common-sense interpretation," 
 tells you, that transubstantiation is absurd and 
 impossible — another's "common-sense interpreta- 
 tion" tells him that the incarnation and the deity of 
 Christ are absurd and impossible — a third man's 
 " common-sense interpretation," tells him that 
 the book itself is a book of contradiction, as 
 plainly appears by the contradictory " common- 
 sense interpretations" which Protestants give of 
 it, and that therefore, revelation is absurd and im- 
 possible. Thus it is, that starting from a false 
 first principle, reason evolves consequences, one 
 from another, until having begun with " the Pro- 
 testant rule of faith" it terminates with " Deism, 
 barefaced Deism." I merely pointed out these 
 consequences by showing that Protestantism is 
 essentially inconsistent in itself, and with all the 
 principles which usually govern the human mind. 
 You deny that you had changed your defini- 
 tion the Protestant rule of faith. Did you not 
 say in our agreement that it was "infallible?" 
 Did you not in your very first letter defend 
 " private interpretation" as a part of " this infal- 
 lible" rule? Did you not in letter No. 18, give 
 it up, as an "abuse]" Did I not congratulate 
 you on this sensible but " unexpected" concession 1 
 And in letter No. 20, did you not take up the 
 word with a note of admiration " Unexpected ! 
 Strange language at the close of adiscusion, when 
 in the first column of my first letter five months 
 ago, I gave this definition of our rule of faith, viz. 
 'The word of God as contained in the Scriptures of the 
 Old and New Testaments." You then charge me 
 ■with having " evaded" the real Protestant rule, 
 and "argued against its abuses alone." What 
 are these " abuses," but private interpretation ? 
 And yet, it is the verykey you put into the hands 
 of every man, woman and child whereby to unlock 
 the meaning of the Scriptures — " honest com- 
 mon-sense interpretation is, you tell us, the way to 
 ascertain the true sense of the rule." It seems that 
 Unitarians and Universalists and Swedenbor- 
 gians are not Protestants. And why 1 Because 
 
 the only mystery, then, indeed, Mr. Breckinridge 
 might do the with of the infidel, by arraigning it at 
 the tribunal of "common siense." The language 
 of your first notice of this doctrine, Rev. Sir, brought, 
 you, as you may recollect, into such sympathetic 
 harmony of reasoning with the infidel Volney, that 
 one would suppose you had both studied theology 
 in the same school. But since then, it seems you 
 have discovered a secret, which proves that, in phi- 
 losophy at least, you have a decided superiority over 
 the author of " Ruins." The old puzzle about 
 " the essense of matter" is solved at last. For- 
 merly, it was considered that the senses judge 
 only of appearances, and accordingly it was be- 
 lieved, that by the power of God, the body and 
 blood of Christ might exist under the appearances of 
 bread and wine. You, however, have found out that 
 the properties and appearances of a thing, and the 
 substance of which it is composed, are the same, 
 and that the senses determine both. Of course 
 you do not believe that the " tongues of fire" 
 which rested on the apostles were any thing 
 more than tongues of fire. You do not believe 
 that the " dove" which descended on the Redeem- 
 er at his baptism in the Jordan could be any 
 thing more than a dove, which happened to be 
 passing that way. It seems that rationalism is 
 not confined to the ministers of Germany and of 
 Geneva. The Unitarians and Deists, Rev. Sir, 
 will make a whip of your logic. 
 
 Speaking of the mode in which certain Protes- 
 tant controversialists treat the doctrine of the 
 " real presence," Mr. Stanley Faber, author 
 of the " Difficulties of Romanism," remarks, 
 " While arguing on this subject, some persons, 
 I regret to say, have been far too copious in 
 the use of those unseemingly terms, impossi- 
 bility and absurdity. To such language, says 
 he, the least objection is its reprehensible want of 
 good manners. The doctrine of transubstantiation, 
 like the doctrine of the trinity, is I contend, a ques- 
 tion not of abstract reasoning, but of pure evidence." 
 It was on the supposed overthrow of the 
 eucharist, that Socinus calculated on the des- 
 truction of the Trinity. Having shown, like 
 you, Rev. Sir, that the doctrine of the eucharist 
 is the grossest idolatry,. he goes on to say, "So 
 also we hope that the shocking fictions concern- 
 ing God and his Christ, which at present aie 
 supposed to be sacred and worthy of the deepest 
 reverence, and to constitute the principle myste- 
 ries of our religion, will, with God's permission, 
 
 says Mr. Mr. Breckinridge, although they have 1 be so laid open and treated with such scorn that 
 the " real Protestant rule," yet they have not j every one will be ashamed to embrace them 
 " honesty and common sense," to make the right or even pay any attention to them." (Tom. 1.) 
 
 use of it. Then, Rev. Sir, what will you say of 
 the " honesty and common sense," of the Qua- 
 kers, Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, and 
 Shakers of Lebanon, &c. &C.] You are all provid- 
 ed with the " real Protestant rule of faith." But 
 which of these denominations is so happy as to 
 possess " honesty and common sense" for the 
 right interpretation of the real rule ? 
 
 The mysteries of Revelation have always been 
 subjects of scoffing to the sceptic. If the real 
 presence of Jesus Christ in the eucharist were 
 
 There is another book, which I shall not men- 
 tion, in which your arguments or rather cavils 
 against the mystery of the eucharist, are brought 
 out in still bolder relief, as applied to the trini- 
 ty. " But when, (says the impious author,) 
 according to the Christian trinitarian scheme 
 one part of God is represented by a dying man, 
 and another part called the Holy Ghost, by a fly- 
 ing pigeon, it is impossible that belief can attach 
 to such wild conceits." Such are the consequen- 
 ces of your unhappy reasoning % 
 
301 
 
 Thus, Rev. Sir, you perceive that the weapons 
 with which Calvin and his associates combated 
 the real presence of Christ, in the mystery of the 
 euckarist, have passed from hand to hand until 
 they are now wielded by the Deist, against the 
 mystery of the Holy Trinity itself. Now please, 
 in mercy to that Christianity, of which you pro- 
 fess to be a minister, review your argument drawn 
 from reason and the "testimony of the senses;" 
 and instead of borrowing wisdom from Pagans, 
 for the explanation of the Christian mysteries, ask 
 your own reflection whether the objection is not 
 equally strong against the "real presence" of the 
 Holy Ghost under the " appearance" of a Dove, 
 or of" fiery tongues'?" Infidelity, be assured, is 
 already making rapid strides, and you should leave 
 to hands less sacred than your own, the task of 
 furnishing her with implements of destruction 
 against Christianity. The doctrine of the eucha- 
 rist, believed by the vast majority of Christians, 
 at the present day; believed by all the genera- 
 tions of the church previous to Luther, and so fre- 
 quently inculcated in the Holy Scriptures of the 
 New Testament, is entitled to, at least, reverential 
 notice. Your manifest ignorance of the doctrine 
 and of its evidences, I shall expose in due 
 season. 
 
 When you charitably insinuate, that masses are 
 sustained by the love of money in the Priesthood, 
 you certainly cannot expect to obtain credit for 
 the sincerity of your charge. If we were wicked 
 enough to have our consciences for sale, we are 
 at least learned enough, to know that a higher 
 price mav be obtained in the Protestant market. 
 We would embrace the Reformation, share in the 
 spoils of the Bible and other societies, and stand 
 our chance for " a call," to two thousand a year, 
 as well as the best of you. It is true we are priests 
 and " we have an altar, whereof they have no 
 power to eat who serve the tabernacle," or belong 
 to the Reformation ; and it is true that " to offer sa- 
 crifice," is the chief official business of the priest. 
 But still he does not neglect the other pastoral du- 
 ties. He preaches, exhorts, encourages, consoles 
 the distressed, and whenever he has money or bread, 
 he divides with the orphans who have neither. He 
 instructs the children in their religious and moral 
 duties, he attends at the bedside of the sick and 
 the dying, and inhales the corrupted atmosphere 
 of pestilence, whilst his happier brethren of the 
 Reformation are enjoying the bliss of domestic and 
 connubial felicity, and laughing at his round of 
 popish superstition. Still, it is true as your 
 " astonished friend" has informed you, that the 
 celebration of the sacrifice of mass is the chief 
 business of the Priest. 
 
 Might I be permitted to ask who this " friend" 
 is? Is Mr. Burtt at work again ? Surely it can- 
 not be the Presbyterian clergyman who has re- 
 cently honoured me with an occasional visit. The 
 allusion indeed, reminds me of a conversation 
 with him ; but still I cannot imagine that he would 
 descend to such a course as you intimate, of tale- 
 bearing, or that, if he had, you would be imprudent 
 enough to expose him by publishing his " re- 
 ports." I believe I always treated him politely, 
 
 because I thought him not unworthy of it. But 
 your allusion seems to shed a little light on the 
 object, or at least the use he made of his visits. 
 Be pleased then to let us have a little more, just 
 enough to clear away, or confirm the suspicion 
 which you have awakened. 
 
 Now for " the question." You say the Protes- 
 tant religion existed before Luther. But where did 
 it exist? " In the Bible," you reply. But how 
 comes it that for 1500 years, no one had been able 
 to discover it in the Bible, which as you say, is so 
 easily understood. In answer to this you tell me 
 after the Magdeburg Centuriators, that " a peo- 
 ple" had discarded several doctrines of the church, 
 previous to the reformation ; leaving me to guess 
 who this "a people" were. But hold; the 
 " Waldenses" are mentioned. The Protestants 
 in claiming the " Waldenses" for their religious 
 progenitors, are able to climb the tree of antiqui- 
 ty, only as high as the year 1160. This alone 
 is fatal to the doctrine of both. But were the 
 doctrines of both the same? So you admit and 
 assert. But where is the proof? Did the Wal- 
 denses deny free will, with the Reformers? Did 
 they hold that God hy his hidden counsels is the 
 author of sin? I say they did not. But this is 
 not the only difference. The Reformers in trying 
 to strengthen their party by the accession of the 
 Waldenses, stipulated for certain changes in the 
 doctrine and practice of the latter which shows 
 the difference between them. " They were re- 
 quired to assist* no longer at mass, to abstain 
 from all the papal superstitions, and to reject 
 the ministry of the 'Catholic clergy." (Hist, 
 des Egl. Ref. de Pierre Gilles, c. v.) It 
 seems that your Protestant ancestors, therefore, 
 before the Reformation, were in the habit of at- 
 tending at mass! But besides they believed in 
 the sacraments, auricular confession, absolution, 
 in the real presence and even horrible to relate, 
 transubstantiaton itself! — except when the priest 
 happened to be in mortal sin, and then, they kind- 
 ly allowed any layman in the state of grace, to 
 pronounce the words of consecration. When the 
 Reformers, Bucer and (Ecolampadius, undertook 
 to make protestants of the Waldenses, the latter, 
 by the proposed terms of union, were required to 
 believe " 1. That a Christian may lawfully give 
 evidence on oath. 2. That auricular confession 
 is not commanded. 3. That a Christian even 
 among Christians may lawfully exercise the office 
 of magistrate. 4. That a minister may lawfully 
 be possesed of property sufficient to support his 
 family. 5. That Jesus Christ has ordained only 
 two sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist." 
 (Idem, ibid.) 
 
 These testimonies, Rev. Sir, show that when 
 you wished to search for the genealogy of 
 Protestantism beyond Luther, you have missed 
 your way, in tracing it to the Waldenses. But 
 they protested against some of the doctrines of 
 the Church of Rome. Yes ; and so did the 
 Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, Pelagians, Mon- 
 tanists, Manichaeans, and their spiritual descend- 
 ants — the Albigenses — not to name the 10001 
 athor sects who protested in the same manner. 
 
30$ 
 
 Here then, you are fast — and from the dilemma 
 not all the ingenuity of man can extricate you. 
 "Either the Protestant religion is a religion differ- 
 ing from the religion of Christ, or else the reli- 
 gion of Christ was not professed by any society of 
 Christians, previous to the time, of Luther. To 
 which of these alternatives will you cling'? one 
 of them is inevitable.'''' Will any Protestant then, 
 having the least concern for his soul's salvation, 
 risk his eternity, on the chance of a religion which 
 " no society of Christians, (either orthodox or 
 heterodox) have ever professed, from the days 
 of Jesus Christ till the coming of Martin Luther 
 and John Calvin'? I say boldly, that in that 
 whole interval, there never existed such a society, 
 and I challenge you to name it, if there did. 
 Therefore the Protestant religion is only three 
 hundred years old, and consequently cannot be 
 the religion of Jesus Christ. Now, Rev. Sir, 
 meet this argument if you can. As a clergyman 
 you are supposed to be acquainted with eccle- 
 siastical history — and if you can name any socie- 
 ty of Christians professing the doctrines held by 
 any sect of the Reformation, I hereby pledge my- 
 self, either to prove that you are mistaken, or else 
 give up the contest. But if you cannot, then, 
 from a principle of conscience, you, and all Pro- 
 testant ministers, should cease to delude your- 
 selves and the people, by pretending that there 
 were persons, who held your doctrines before the 
 Reformation. Never ; in the whole universe ! 
 
 But, then, says my Rev. opporfent, " the Greek 
 church which yon own to be an ancient church, 
 z\so protests." This is nothing to the purpose — 
 I make you a present of the various "protests" of 
 all the heretics and schismatics of antiquity, be- 
 ginning with Ebion and Cerinthus, and ending 
 with Jerome of Prague — and even this cannot ex- 
 tricate your proposition from its difficulties. Do 
 the Protestants, or any sect of Protestants agree 
 in doctrines with any society of Christians pre- 
 vious to the Reformation ? This is the question. 
 This is the knotty point. Let us see, then, whe- 
 ther your appeal to the Greek church can aid you. 
 The Greeks believe in seven sacraments, in the 
 real presence, in transubstantiation, the sacrifice 
 of mass, prayers for the departed, and even the 
 invocation of saints. Wiese are Mr. Breckin- 
 ridge's Protestants previous to the Reformation — 
 and no sooner has he named them, than he ex- 
 claims, " how plain it is then, that the Protestant 
 religion was professed ages before Luther. It is 
 not so plain, especially when we recollect that 
 the Greek church anathematised the heresy of 
 Protestantism as decidedly as the Council of 
 Trent. When the patriarch, Cyril Lupar, was 
 detected holding correspondence with the leaders 
 of the Reformation in Germany and Holland, and 
 it was ascertained that, he had imbibed a par- 
 tiality for their novelties, the consequence was, 
 that for this he was deposed and disgraced. His 
 successor summoned a council of twenty-three 
 bishops, including the patriarchs of Jerusalem 
 and Alexandria, in which Cyril and his protestant 
 doctrines were condemned, in language as vigor- 
 ous as that of Leo X. The same took place in a 
 
 subsequent council of twenty-five bishops, in- 
 cluding the Metropolitan of Russia. Again, in 
 1672, Dositheus, patriarch of Jerusalem, held a 
 third council at Bethlehem, which expressly con- 
 demned the doctrine of Cyril Lupar and the Pro- 
 testants. (See Perpet. de, la Foi vol. 4. liv. 8.) 
 
 Thus, it is manifest, that whilst you acknow- 
 ledge the necessity of finding the Protestant reli- 
 gion somewhere, previous to Luther, you fail in 
 every attempt. But really it is too amusing to 
 see a Protestant clergyman point to the Greek 
 church, and exclaim — look theie — " How plain it 
 is that the Protestant religion existed before Lu- 
 ther ?" — arid then with great complacency — " so 
 much for your dilemma." Was the Protestant 
 religion professed by any society of Christians before 
 Luther P If jt was, give me the name of that so- 
 ciety — the name of that precious society ; when 
 did it exist? where did it dwell? vho speaks of 
 it? the name and the proof are all I require. But 
 if you will do neither, then the matter is ended — 
 and Martin Luther and John Calvin have the 
 glory of being the first men that ever professed the 
 religion of Christ. Can you meet this argument? 
 
 I cannot stop, Rev. Sir, to expose in detail, the 
 twisting efforts of your letter to evade "the ques- 
 tion," by embroiling it with doctrines which be- 
 long exclusivsly to the Catholic Church. But 
 the spirit of your writings may be represented in 
 a little dialogue between us, in which justice 
 shall be done to your defence of the Protestant 
 Religion. 
 
 Catholic. Good morning Mr. B. How do you 
 do? 
 
 Presbyterian. Good morning Sir ; — a little fa- 
 tigued, from riding in the stage-coach, but still 
 able, by the grace of God, to defend the Bible, 
 and the Protestant Religion. 
 
 C. O dear ! who has ventured to attack the 
 Bible? 
 
 P. W T hy you, Sir; you would have all to 
 think alike in Religion, and "this is Deism, bare-' 
 faced Deism." (See commencement of Mr. B's. 
 last letter.) 
 
 C. But let me explain, did not Christ in mak- 
 ing a revelation require that men should believe 
 it? 
 
 P. Certainly ; but look at your doctrine of 
 Purgatory ! 
 
 C. But that is not the question, if Christ re- 
 quired men to believe his revelation, did he not re- 
 quire them ipso facto, to think alike in religion ? 
 And is this Deism? 
 
 P. In vain have I exposed your doctrine of 
 Purgatory, I can get no reply. 
 
 C. I will reply, I assure you, when we shall 
 have settled the present question. But pray have 
 I written against the Bible ? 
 
 P. You have written against the Protestant 
 Religion, which is the same thing. We take the 
 Bible alone. Surely God can speak plainly in 
 his written word. And then, transubstantiation 
 is as young as the year 1215. Indulgences are 
 a bundle of licences to sin. (See Doctor Clag- 
 got.) 
 
 C. But if the Bible alone be the rule of faith, 
 
303 
 
 and God speak plainly in his word, how is it that 
 Protestants are divided into as many systems 
 as there are sects; and opinions, as there are 
 heads? 
 
 P. So then, you would have all men to think 
 alike! " Deism, barefaced Deism." And then, 
 look at your persecutions of Heretics, by the in- 
 fallible Popes, and the doctrine of human merits 
 derogatory to the merits of Christ; and the 
 church setting herself up above the word of God. 
 
 C. All this is irrelevant, it seems to me, and 
 does not belong to the question. Why are Pro- 
 testants so divided if they are taught by the Bi- 
 ble? besides the Bible alone, is the Bible on the 
 shelf. 
 
 P. Profound logic! My God, my Bible and 
 my mind are supposed in my rule of faith. 
 
 C. But according to this, the mind is the in- 
 strument of interpretation, acting on the Bible, 
 and, as every man's mind is different from that 
 of his neighbour, so there must be those differ- 
 ent interpretations by which Protestantism is di- 
 vided. Does the Bible contain them all? 
 
 P. Will you say, then, that the Holy Spirit 
 cannot speak plainly in the written word of God? 
 " Poor Bible, what a transgressor thou hast 
 been!" And look at your own rule of faith, De- 
 crees of Councils, Bulls of Popes, Apochryphal 
 Books, Consent of the Fathers, through all those 
 immense folios you have to wade before you can 
 tell what is your rule of faith. 
 
 C. Excuse me Sir; my rule is much more sim- 
 ple. "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church." 
 This is my rule. I agree in belief, by this rule, 
 with all the millions of Catholics that live, or 
 have lived, from the days of Christ ; and am se- 
 perated by it from all the heresies of modern as 
 well as ancient times. Whereas your Protestant" 
 rule introduces heresies, as for example, Univer- 
 salism, and Unitarianism, and leaves you unable 
 to refute them. What do you say to this ? 
 . P. In vain have I called on you to defend your 
 doctrines. I have proved that Transubstantia- 
 tion is as young as 1215, that Purgatory is an in- 
 vention of men, and that Masses are a way for 
 the Priests to get money. (See Epiphanius.) 
 To all these proofs, not a word. But you charge 
 on the Protestant rule, the errors of extreme here- 
 sies. The Bible is the rule. Interpretation is 
 the use of the rule. If men "abuse it," that is 
 not the rule. Are we ever to pass from this 
 question ? 
 
 C. I am happy, my dear Sir, to perceive that 
 at length you have acknowledged private inter- 
 pretation, as an " abuse." You are almost — on 
 this point, altogether — a Catholic. We may now 
 pass to the second topic, having closed this one, 
 by your unexpected declaration. 
 
 P. " Unexpected '." Strange language this ! 
 After five months discussion, you admit then, 
 that you have evaded the real Protestant 
 rule, the Bible, and argued against its " abuses 
 alone." And to this, day you have not told us 
 what your own "rule of faith" is. But I shall 
 proceed to the second question. From the lan- 
 guage of Romanists themselves, it is clear that 
 
 a great many immoralities and iniquities were 
 committed, and this among the clergy as well as 
 laity of the church. (See letter from the three 
 Bishops at Bononia.) Therefore a Reformation 
 was necessary. 
 
 C. As you have confirmed your first admission, 
 of private interpretation's being the " abuse" of 
 the Bible ; I now follow you to the second ques- 
 tion. The Catholics, indeed, desired a reforma- 
 tion ; but it was of morals, and not of doctrine. 
 They held that the doctrine of the church was 
 pure and holy, but that men had departed from 
 its sanctity by the wickedness of their lives. 
 But pray what is "the Protestant Religion?" 
 
 P. " The Religion of the Reformation." And 
 here I stand ready to prove that it is the Religion 
 of Christ. 
 
 C. Of course then, it comprises the whole fa- 
 mily of sects, of which the Reformation was the 
 parent ? Are they all the Religion of Christ? 
 
 P. You have not answered my arguments 
 against transubstantiation and the other doctrines 
 of your system. And now I shall show, by the 
 grace of God, that your doctrine of transubstan- 
 tiation is not the Bible, and that if it be true 
 Christianity may be false, since it invades the 
 testimony of our senses. (See Scotus and Bellar- 
 mine.) 
 
 C. ,But stay, my dear friend the question is of 
 another subject. And in order that we may reach 
 it at once, let us admit that every doctrine rejected 
 by the Reformers was erroneous. Let that be con- 
 sidered as granted, and now show me that " the 
 Protestant religion is the religion of Christ." 
 
 P. Ah! sir, I see through your Jesuit policy. 
 You wish me to show that the Protestant religion 
 is the religion of Christ. But as I have begun, so 
 I shall continue to expose your system. And as in 
 my last I showed that transubstantiation was 
 promoted into a doctrine, A. D. 1215. So, now 
 I shall prove that is absurd to say that a priest 
 can make his God and eat him. (See Cicero, and 
 Averroes the Arabian philosopher.) Besides the 
 doctrine of intentions, and masses in honour of the 
 saints. 
 
 C. But this is not the question. Was there 
 ever any society previous to Luther professing 
 the doctrines of any sect of Protestantism? 
 
 P. Yes : the Centuriators of Magdeburg, speak 
 of " a people," who did not agree with the Catho- 
 lic church. And again look at the Waldenses 
 and the Greek church which you admit to be an 
 ancient church. 
 
 C. And as to the Reformers, is it clear, that they 
 were the men whom God would have selected to 
 reform his church? 
 
 P. Why have ycu clipped their doctrine and 
 character by your broken extracts. But look at 
 your Popes, Sergius and Formosus, were they 
 better than the Reformers? 
 
 C. Indeed it seems not. But the Reformers 
 were religion-makers, by profession, whereas the 
 Popes could change nothing of Catholic doctrine; 
 however much they might degrade their station 
 by personal vices. And besides if you meant to 
 compliment the Reformers, the worst of our Popes 
 
304 
 
 should not have been selected for the compa- 
 rison. 
 
 P. But look at the Popes, called by your own 
 
 historian Apostate rather than apostolical 
 
 And then your doctrines of intentions, &c. 
 
 It is useless, Rev. Sir, to prosecute the dialogue. 
 It shows the spirit and the manner of your pen. 
 You have confused the questions, by the intro- 
 duction of extraneous matter, as if the hope of 
 your cause, depended on the jumble of topics and 
 the mystification of argument. In all this, however, 
 there is no merit of originality. It has been the 
 custom of all your predecessors. 
 
 Zanchius, one of the reformers, describes the 
 controversial spirit of his reforming colleagues, 
 in the following candid language. "lam indignant, 
 says he " when I consider the manner in which 
 most of us defend our cause. The true state of 
 the question we often, on set purpose involve in 
 darkness, that it may not be understood : we have 
 the impudence to deny things the most evident : 
 we assert what is visibly false: the most impious 
 doctrines we force on the people as the first prin- 
 ciples of faith, and orthodox opinions we con- 
 demn as heretical : we torture the Scriptures till 
 they agree with our own fancies; and boast 
 of being the disciples of the fathers, while we re- 
 fuse to follow their doctrine: to deceive, to calum- 
 niate, to abuse, is our familiar practice : nor do we 
 care for any thing, provided we can defend our 
 cause, good or bad, right or wrong. O ! what 
 times what manners." (Zanch. Ad. Storm. T. 
 vii. Col. 828.) But if possible, let us come again 
 to the point. Answer me the following questions, 
 and they will decide the matter. They are sup- 
 ported by the reasoning and authorities of my last 
 letter, to which I refer the reader. 
 
 1st Question. Did there exist previous to the 
 Reformation, a society of Christians, in any part 
 of the world, professing the doctrines of any sect 
 of Protestantism] Prove that there did and I 
 give up the argument. But if there did not, then, 
 Protestantism is any thing but the religion of 
 Christ. Solve this, will you I 
 
 2d Question. Reviewing the doctrines and 
 character of the Reformers, as stated in my last 
 letter, from their own writings; viewing the con- 
 sequences of the Reformation on the morals of 
 the people ; is there any, the smallest evidence 
 that the Spirit of God, had aught to do with it] 
 If it had, then please to account for the manner 
 in which they spoke and wrote of each other. 
 
 3d. " Does the Religion of Christ teach the 
 doctrines of Protestantism, from the highest 
 point of Episcopalianism, down the descending 
 scale to the farthest verge of Unitarianism ! If 
 not, the Protestant Religion is not the Religion 
 of Christ." For all these belong to Protestantism. 
 
 But in answer to this it seems that " Unita- 
 rians, Universalists, &c," are not Protestants. 
 But why not ] Have they not their " God, their 
 Bible, and their mind," as well as Presbyterians. 
 Have they not " honesty and common sense" to 
 interpret the Scriptures ; >and what more is re- 
 quisite according to your own showing ] Please 
 then, Rev. Sir, to tell me what denominations 
 
 are to be considered " Protestants ;" for if Dr. 
 Channing and the faculty of Cambridge, be 
 not entitled to the appellation, I am at a loss 
 to know who are. Are the Friends Protestants. 
 The Shakers, Swedenborgians, Baptists, are 
 they Protestants] In a word, tell em what deno- 
 minations constitute what you understand by 
 " the Protestant religion." It is not for me to 
 determine, among such learned people, which 
 denomination is right and which is wrong. 
 Show me the boundaries of the Protestant reli- 
 gion," and I shall not transgress them. Narrow 
 your definition to whatever limits you please — • 
 and then prove that the religion professed by 
 those whom it encloses, and the religion of 
 Christ are the same thing. If you will not do 
 this, you had better give it up. 
 
 4. " Had the Reformers themselves, and if not, 
 could they transmit to their successors any min- 
 isterial authority ]" To this you give answer 
 " that whatever authority our church possessed 
 in this way was imparted to them." But our 
 church recalled this authority, in their suspension 
 and excommunication, and a new supply was ne- 
 cessary. Whence was it derived ] And if not 
 derived at all, it follows on your own admission, 
 that the protestant clergy differ from the laity 
 only in the colour of their dress and the diversity 
 of their occupation. Will you clear up this 
 point] Can you do it ] 
 
 When you insinuate that I have misquoted the 
 Reformers, you should be prepared to sustain the 
 charge. Your lengthened quotation from Luther 
 does not alter the sense of mine, which was to 
 show that he denied free will in man, denied the 
 possibility of keeping the commandments, or of 
 doing good works. But his own writings indicate 
 his doctrine much more correctly than any com- 
 mentary of those who, ashamed of it, would ac- 
 cuse me of perverting his meaning. " A person, 
 says he, that is baptised cannot though he would, 
 lose his salvation by any sins how grevious 
 soever, unless he refuses to believe. For no sins 
 can damn him, but unbelief alone." (Cap. Bab. 
 Tom. 2. fol. 74. 1.) 
 
 Again " the Papists teach, that faith in Christ 
 justifies indeed, but that God's commandments 
 are likeivise to be kept. Now this is directly to 
 deny Christ, and abolish faith." (Tom. 5. Witt, 
 ed. fol 311.) 
 
 Is this passage designed to recommend good 
 works ] It requires greater penetration than I am 
 possessed of, to discover any such meaning, either 
 in this or the passage quoted at the close of your 
 last letter. Now Rev. Sir, be pleased to meet the 
 arguments and authorities of this, and my last 
 paper on the question of " the Protestant reli- 
 gion." In this it is made clear that your attempts 
 to derive the Protestant religion from Christ by the 
 channel of the Waldenses'and the Greek Church is 
 as unprofitable to you, as it is amusing to the reader. 
 Another effort, however may be more successful, 
 and we shall wait patiently to see what your 
 next pen will bring to light. 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
 John Hughes. 
 
CONTROVERSY N°. 26. 
 
 Is the Protestant Religion the Religion of Christ? 
 
 Philadelphia, July 26th, 1833. | and call aloud for answer, where is the true 
 To the Rev. John Hughes, i rule 1 What is the true rule 1 Why do you 
 
 Rev. Sir, — Busaeus, the Jesuit, gives this sage | withhold it] 
 counsel to his disciples, " avoid, if you can, con- As you lay so much stress on private inter- 
 troversy with an heretic on the articles of faith /" ' pretation, it may be well briefly to say something of 
 This wily apothegm has been the pole star c»f all your system on this subject. And here let me 
 your discussions. On the first great question, present the memorable admission, unconsciously 
 the rule of faith, after all your promises, you did made, in your last letter by which all my charges 
 never once define the Roman Catholic rule of , of Deism are fairly confirmed. "You say 'the 
 faith ; and even now the public know not (by | Bible is the rule ; and common-sense interpreta- 
 any thing you have said,) what your rule is, ex- i tion the way to find the sense of the rule.' Your 
 cept that it is not the Bible ; and not the Protes- I common-sense interpretation tells you, that tran- 
 
 tant rule of faith. You began the controversy 
 by requiring me to prove the canonical authority 
 of the Bible. This was taken for granted, in the 
 very terms of our debate ; and it was puerile, 
 deistical, and foreign to the question for you to 
 insist on such a course. Yet I followed you 
 again and again over the ten heads .• and when 
 they wax so frail and so weary that they die 
 away, lo, you charge me with giving up our rule 
 of faith, because I still insist that the Bible is our 
 only rule. As if conscious of the very defence- 
 less condition in which you left your rule, you 
 continue to revert to the subject from letter to 
 letter. Now if you are afraid to go forward with 
 the present question, I will still meet you on your 
 rule of faith, and give you an opportunity to defend 
 your neglected friends " Unwritten Traditions," 
 " the Apochryphal Books," and " the unanimous 
 consent of the Fathers." Without this it is 
 useless farther to notice your clamour on this 
 subject. What takes away all apology from you 
 is this, that you have admitted the Bible to be a 
 rule; but you deny that the Bible alone is a suffi- 
 cient rule. Even the vilest heretics have, as you 
 allow, been so far respectful towards revelation, 
 as to receive it as the true and sufficient rule of 
 faith. But to the church of Rome belongs the 
 disastrous distinction of refusing to the word of 
 God its proper rank as our exclusive and infalli- 
 ble guide in matters of religion. You have, 
 however, admitted that it is a rule. Here, then, 
 we agree.- but we differ in this, that you would 
 add something to it to make it perfect. Surely, 
 then, the duty lay on you to exhibit and to prove 
 what that something is without which the rule is 
 not complete. We well know what that some- 
 thing is, but I have striven without effect to bring 
 you out in the defence of it. In vain then do 
 you insist that I have given up the Protestant 
 rule, when I aver that the Bible is that rule, and 
 that private interpretation is only the method of 
 its use. But supposing the Protestant rule to be 
 abandoned, the questions still return upon you, 
 
 substantiation is absurd and impossible ; anoth- 
 er's ' common-sense interpretation,' tells him that 
 the incarnation and the deity of Christ are absurd 
 and impossible ; a third man's ' common-sense 
 interpretation,' tells him that the book itself is a 
 book of contradiction, as plainly appears by the 
 contradictory ' common-sense interpretations,' 
 which Protestants give of it, and that, therefore, 
 revelation is absurd and impossible." Now is 
 not this to say that to " common-sense" the 
 Bible has no meaning 1 We as Protestants hold 
 that men may err and do err in the interpretation 
 of the Bible, as of other books : but that like 
 other books it has a meaning, which is to be 
 reached, as the meaning of other books is reached. 
 But you allow that " common-sense" may teach 
 any thing from the Bible ; and may from the 
 Bible prove the Bible false ! How strange that 
 you by private interpretation insist so zealously 
 for the fixed and clear meaning of Bellarmine, 
 and yet thus treat the holy book of God ! 
 
 With all the claims of the Church of Rome to 
 be the exclusive and infallible interpreter of the 
 word of God, there is not to be found in the cir- 
 cle of human productions such crude, silly, and 
 profane commentaries as those given by the Ro- 
 man oracle. They have been for ages the alter- 
 nate sport and wonder of the world. I will give 
 a specimen, which may at once inform and amuse 
 the reader. 
 
 In the Decretals of Pope Gregory the 9th is the 
 following commentary on Genesis I, 16: "Pope 
 Clement the 3d to the most illustrious Emperor 
 of Constantinople, c. 6. Besides you ought also 
 to have known that God made two great lights 
 in the firmament of heaven, the greater light to 
 rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night; 
 each of them great, but one the greater of the two. 
 For the firmament of heaven, therefore, viz. the 
 universal church, God made two great lights, that 
 is he appointed two dignities, which are the Ponti- 
 fical authority, and the kingly power. But that 
 which rules the day, that is to say, the spiritual, is 
 
206 
 
 the greater, and that which rules the carnal, the 
 less; so that the same difference may be discern- 
 ed between the Popes, and the kings as between 
 the sun and the moonV Then follows this in- 
 fallible and learned gloss! "Since, therefore, the 
 earth is seven times greater than the moon, and 
 the sun is eight times greater than the earth, there- 
 fore the Pontifical dignity i s forty-seven times 
 greater than the regal dignity." After such arith- 
 metical skill, such reach of astronomic science, 
 such a profound and perfect commentary on the 
 size and significations of the sun, moon, and fir- 
 mament, can any man wonder at Mr. Hughes's 
 devotion to the interpretation of the holy see; or 
 dispute the propriety of Gallileo's imprisonment 
 by the Pope, because he held that the earth was 
 circular, and moved around the sun ? 
 
 Again as if to reduce this subject to the last 
 absurdity, the church of Rome have a Standing 
 Committee, to regulate and announce the legi- 
 timate meaning of the decrees of the Council 
 of Trent. The difficulty of the case is this. 
 The decrees were to be interpreted after they 
 were published. Who was to do if? Not the 
 Council and Pope united, which (you say) are 
 necessary to constitute infallibility; for the Coun- 
 cil was then dissolved, and near three centuries 
 have passed, and no other has met. The Pope, 
 you say, is not infallible; nor is any individual 
 Priest? Who then shall interpret] The best 
 approach to it is the standing Committee at Rome, 
 headed by the Pope, and appointed by the Coun- 
 cil to interpret its decrees. It still exists and sits 
 statedly at Rome. A collection of its '■'•sentences" 
 has recently been published in eight vols, quarto 
 by D. Zamboni. Now, query, are its interpretations 
 fallible or infallible'? They are not infallible, for 
 you have distinctly told us that none but a Gene- 
 ral Council confirmed by a Pope can decree or 
 interpret infallibly. But this committee is not a 
 General Council ; therefore its decisions are fal- 
 lible. Yet they are binding. Here then is pri- 
 vate interpretation, {the radical delusion of Pro- 
 testantism) in the last resort, and after all the 
 outcry against i*, adopted and, used by the church of 
 Rome J Then fallible interpretation is, and has 
 been, the exclusive guide of your church since the 
 Council of Trent, that is, for two hundred and se- 
 venty years ; and still worse, this has always 
 been its guide, except during the sessions of the 
 Councils, and as soon as they rise, their decrees, 
 like the Bible, pass over to the " radical delusion 
 of Protestantism, viz. to fallible interpretation. 
 
 I said that you were true to the maxim of Busaeus, 
 to avoid controversy on the articles of faith. If you 
 did it much on the rule of faith, you do it more on 
 the second question, now before us. In it, as in 
 the other question, there are some points on which 
 we are agreed. These of course, we are not cal- 
 led to discuss. There are other points in which 
 we differ. Against these I protest. To these 1 
 have directed my first attention. I have already 
 enumerated them, and exposed your errors, on a 
 number of them. This I have done by right, and 
 in order. But though you still shrink from the dis- 
 cussion of them, on them the question turns ; and 
 
 to them you must come, or your own church will 
 exclaim that you have betrayed her interests. 
 Why is it that you decline such a course ? When 
 you refused (in settling the terms of the contro- 
 versy) to discuss this question, Is the Roman 
 Catholic religion the religion of Christ ? did you 
 mean to keep the Roman Catholic religion entire- 
 ly out of view ? Was that your design when you 
 accepted the present form of the question and re- 
 fused the other? When it became my privilege 
 to introduce the 2d question, and when you called 
 on me to define the Protestant religion, did you 
 imagine that your religion would be left untouch- 
 ed, and that I would allow the very end for 
 which I engaged with you, to be frustrated by 
 a Jesuit's arts ? If you did, you will now find that 
 such adroitness will not avail. If you did not, 
 you will expect me to pursue the plan of argu- 
 ment already begun, and with some efficacy, if 
 we may judge from your strong dissatisfaction. 
 
 I. In the order of discussion for the present let- 
 ter, I proceed to expose Extreme Unction as a dar- 
 ing invention of the Church of Rome, which is not 
 a sacrament of Jesus Christ, is a novelty in the church, 
 and ruinous to the souls of men. The decrees of 
 the Council of Trent are to this effect. (Session 
 14. Chap. 1. Coun. Trent.) "This sacred unc- 
 tion of the sick was instituted, as it were, a true 
 and proper sacrament of the New Testament by 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, hinted at,, indeed, by Mark, 
 but recommended and preached to the faithful by 
 the Apostle James, brother of our Lord. ' Is any 
 man,' saith he, ' sick among you ? Let him bring 
 in the Priests of the church, and let them pray 
 over him, anointing him with oil in the name of 
 the Lord ; and the prayer of faith shall save the 
 sick man; and the Lord shall raise him up; and if 
 he be in sins they shall be forgiven him.' James 
 v. 14. 15. Chap. 2d. " The power and effect of 
 this sacrament are explained in the words, ' the 
 prayer of faith shall save the sick man ; and the 
 Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins they 
 shall be forgiven him.' For this power is the 
 grace of the Holy Spirit ; whose unction cleanses 
 away sins, if any remain to be expiated, even the 
 last traces of sin." " And he sometimes obtains 
 the restoration of his bodily health, if the same 
 shall further the salvation of his so;*/." Canon I. 
 "If any shall say Extreme Unction is not truly and 
 properly a sacrament instituted by Christ our Lord, 
 and preached by the Apostle St. James; but that 
 it is a human invention. — Let him be accursed." 
 Canon II. " If any shall say, that the holy anoint- 
 ing of the sick doth not confer grace, nor remit 
 si?is, nor relieve the sick ; but that it hath long 
 since ceased, as if the grace of healing existed 
 only of old — Let him be accursed." 
 
 Having explicitly stated the doctrine of your 
 church on this subject, I now assert: 1. That 
 Extreme Unction is not a sacrament of Jesus Christ, 
 but a daring innovation of the Church of Rome. 
 
 Dr. Challoner, (a standard writer in your 
 church) in his ^Catholic Christian," pp. 3, 4, thus 
 defines a Sacrament. Question. " What are the 
 necessary conditions for a thing to be a Sacrament? 
 Answer, 1st. It must be a sacred, visible or sen- 
 
S07 
 
 sible sign. 2d. This sacred sign must have a 
 power annexed to it of communicating grace to 
 the soul. 3d. This must be by virtue of the in- 
 stitution of Christ." And he adduces the very 
 words of Christ for the institution of the Lord's 
 Supper and Baptism. Now will any candid 
 reader take up the only two passages of the word 
 of God, referred to for authority, and say that there 
 is the least foundation for a Christian Sacrament 1 ? 
 In Mark vi. 13. it is written, " And they (the 
 twelve Disciples) cast out many devils, and an- 
 nointed with oil many that were sick and healed 
 them." Here was, plainly, a miracle by the use 
 of oil. But it was to heal the sick, not to anoint 
 them for death: and was no Sacrament. Christ 
 was not present to institute it a Sacrament ; the 
 Apostles had no authority to do it ; and not a 
 word is said about a Sacrament. Indeed the 
 Council of Trent seemed fully aware of this, for 
 they say in the decree, " Being first hinted at by 
 Mark vi. 13 ;" and " as it were instituted." Is 
 not the very language expressive of the con- 
 sciousness of" fraud, and of the absence of autho- 
 rity ] Is this the Religion of Christ? Is this 
 your holy and infallible church'? The other pas- 
 sage from (James v. 14-15.) quoted above, is 
 equally silent about the institution of a Sacra- 
 ment. The unction referred to, was for the heal- 
 *mg of the sick,- the effect was peculiar to the 
 days of miracles; and the whole intention, di- 
 rectly opposed to your decree on this subject, by 
 which you make it extreme unction, or " the Sa- 
 crament of the dying." Now, the decree ac- 
 knowledges that James did not institute, (as none 
 but Christ could,) a Sacrament, in this unction : 
 but that he only " recommended, and published 
 it.' 1 ' 1 The same decree also owns, that in Mark 
 vi. 13, it was not instituted but only "hinted at." 
 It results then that Christ did not institute it, 
 therefore, it is not a Sacrament. And yet, -your 
 infallible church, gravely tells us, that the re- 
 commendation, by an Apostle, of a thing which 
 never existed, gives it existence ,- and that a hint in 
 one place, and an allusion in the other, are suffi- 
 cient authority, for a Christian Sacrament. Who 
 then, instituted this Sacrament 1 ? the Church of 
 Rome ; and the act by which she performed it, 
 is a rebellious innovation. The Rhemish transla- 
 tors, in their notes on Mark vi. 13, confess that 
 Christ did not institute it, when they say " It 
 was a preparative to the Sacrament of Extreme 
 Unction ;" and they refer us to its completion, in 
 James v. 14-15. 
 
 2. We next notice an insuperable dilemma, into 
 which you are brought by this pretended Sacra- 
 ment. The Council of Trent says, (session 22d, 
 c. 1.) " that it was not tiir the last supper that 
 our Lord ordained the Apostles to be Priests of 
 the New Testament." But the same Council 
 decreed (Sess. 14. c. 3.) "that Bishops or Priests 
 properly ordained by them, are the proper min- 
 isters of the sacrament of extreme unction." 
 Then the Apostles were not Priests when they 
 applied unction to the sick, Mark vi. 13.; and of 
 course, it was no sacrament. Therefore, the coun- 
 cil has erred. But if you say they were Priests, 
 
 then the Council still ha3 erred, for it says they 
 were not Priests till the last supper. So that 
 either way the church has erred. Is this your 
 infallible church, which cannot err in an ar- 
 ticle of faith 1 Does not the Council curse all 
 who reject it, (Canon 1. Sess. 7.) " Whosoever 
 shall affirm that the sacraments of the new law 
 were not all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, 
 or that they are more or fewer than seven, name- 
 ly, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Pen- 
 ance, Extreme Unction, Orders, and Matrimony, 
 or that any of these is not truly and properly a 
 sacrament: let him be accursed." How strange, 
 does this profane anathema appear in contrast 
 with the declarations of Augustin, " that the 
 Doctors of this (6th) age, acknowledge only two 
 Sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper." 
 Duo tantuin Sacramenta theologi hujus aetatis 
 agnoscunt. 
 
 3. This pretended Sacrament and Purgatory, can- 
 not, on your own principles, subsist together. The de- 
 cree, as quoted above, declares, " that the power 
 of this Sacrament is the grace of the Holy Spirit, 
 whose unction cleanses away sins, if any remain 
 to be expiated, even the last traces of sin ;" and 
 also, " that Christ has fortified the close of our 
 existence with the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, 
 as with a most secure defence." The Catechism 
 of the Church, also stales the same, at large; and 
 tells us that " while penance is for the remission 
 of mortal sins, the grace of this Sacrament remits 
 venial sins; and is not to be administered until the 
 penitent has confessed and has received" («. e. 
 the Eucharist.) But Purgatory, as we showed 
 in Letter No. 24, is for the cleansing away of just 
 such sins as these; as, for example, "from that 
 part of the church which is in Purgatory," (Bel- 
 larmine.) Now if Extreme Unction does the 
 work at death, what need of Purgatory 1 ? Why 
 atone over and over again; 1. by the blood of 
 Christ; 2. by Extreme Unction ; then 3. by Pur- 
 gatory] Hence to say Masses for those who 
 have died under Extreme Unction, may make 
 money for the Priests, but is deceiving the people. 
 And if it be to make it more certain, then is not 
 Extreme Unction an uncertain thing, and useless? 
 Do they not destroy each other 1 
 
 4. " But there is a greater cheat than this in 
 the doctrine of Extreme Unction. Such, it is pre- 
 tended, are the intention, efficacy, and virtues of 
 this rite that, if it be necessary to the salvation of 
 the person who is anointed, that he should recov- 
 er, he will; but if this be not necessary, he will 
 not. Hence it follows: 1. That if the person 
 recovers, he was in a state of damnation, after he 
 was anointed. 2. That if he does not recover, 
 he died in a state of salvation. Therefore, no- 
 body was ever damned that was anointed at the 
 hour of his death. Therefore, also, nobody that 
 recovers had benefited by any Sacrament he re- 
 ceived before the unction ; otherwise he would 
 not have been in state of damnation. Upon the 
 whole then, it is plain, as this Sacrament, like the 
 rest, is said to operate, (ex opere operato, by its 
 own power,) whoever has a mind never to die, needs 
 only be in a state of damnation whence is anointed" 
 
30 8 
 
 5. One of the awful features of this invention 
 of the Church of Rome is, that it encourages de- 
 lay of repentance till the hour of death, and holds 
 out at the grave, delusive and destroying hopes 
 of heaven. At death, our great business is to 
 die, not to prepare for it : that is the business of 
 life. But by this institution, the dying sinner is 
 encouraged to depend upon the last act of a Priest 
 for the salvation of his soul. Baptism, as the 
 Catechism of the Council of Trent informs us, 
 remits original sin ; Penance, remits mortal sins ; 
 and Extreme Unction remits venial sins ; it also 
 says that in this, as in the other Sacraments, the 
 Priest is the representative of Jesus Christ ; (See 
 6th Chap.) and the Council of Trent, (Canon 
 8th on the Sacraments,) declares, " that grace is 
 conferred by the Sacraments of the new law, by 
 their own power." Put these doctrines together, 
 and it results, that the Sacraments of the Church 
 of Rome, in the hands of any Priest, are in and 
 of themselves, sufficient to fit a man to die. 
 Hence the work of the Spirit of God on the 
 heart is wholly put aside ; the object of faith is 
 not Christ, but, as Mr. Hughes himself informs 
 us, "the Holy Catholic Church," i. e. the Priest- 
 hood of the Church : the regeneration of the 
 heart is not required, or if it be, it is wrought 
 by the Priest and the Sacraments : and thus 
 without saving faith or personal holiness, with- 
 out repentance and the knowledge of the Sa- 
 viour, the departing soul is absolved by the 
 Priest, and by the application of oil to the body, 
 his soul is dismissed a safe and fit candidate for 
 heaven ! 
 
 6. This institution is an utter novelty in the 
 Church of Christ. The very language of the 
 decree owns it to be an invention of men. Pope 
 Innocent the 1st, calls it a kind of sacrament. 
 Cardinal Cajetan, Chemmitius, Hugo, Peter 
 Lombard, Alexander, Cassander, not to mention 
 Augustine, and other Fathers, deny that it is a 
 sacrament of Jesus Christ, and thereby show that 
 it is a novelty in the church. 
 
 7. In fine, this article of faith entirely ex- 
 plodes your infallibility as a church. This 
 is proved in the dilemma stated above. But 
 still more, the Rev. Dr. Manning, a celebrat- 
 ed defender of your faith, in his " short me- 
 thod with Protestants," (pp. 29. &c.) thus 
 writes : " The Church of Christ can only be 
 that which believes wholly and entirely the doc- 
 trine that was taught by Christ, and delivered by 
 his apostles. That church that would teach any 
 one point of doctrine contrary to the revealed 
 word of God, which I call heresy, would not be 
 the chaste spouse of Christ, but an harlot and the 
 school of Satan, and the gates of hell would pre- 
 vail against her." Mr. Hughes also, has said 
 (Letter No. 1.) "that the doctrines of Christiani- 
 ty have been regarded by the Catholic Church 
 from the beginning as fixed stars in the firmament of 
 revelation." Then, as this doctrine was not from 
 the beginning, the Roman is not the Catholic 
 Church ; and, by your own and Dr. Manning's 
 showing, she is heretical, she is an harlot, and 
 the gates of hell have prevailed against her ! 
 
 II. The Church of Rome is grossly idolatrous. 
 The Church of Rome worships, and commands 
 the worship (not only of the consecrated bread, 
 as we have already showed, but) of the cross of 
 Christ, of the Virgin Mary, of the Saints, of re- 
 lics and images. I have already proved in 
 former letterrs that the Catechism of the Coun- 
 cil of Trent has omitted that part of the se- 
 cond commandment which forbids the mak- 
 ing and worshipping of images. Though you 
 have disputed this, you have not denied that 
 the versions used in various countries, either 
 wholly drop, or criminally suppress the offen- 
 sive parts. Indeed the very edition printed by 
 Mr. Cummiskey in this city, recommended by 
 four Arch-Bishops, and used, probably, in St. 
 Johns, ivholly omits it. If not it is easy to dis- 
 prove it. These are expressive erasures. But 
 we have decrees of Councils for idolatry. The 2d 
 Council of Nice established idolatry by law. How 
 stoutly its acts were opposed, in the bosom of 
 the church, at that day, I need hardly inform 
 you ; and I suppose you also know that when 
 the emperors would have put down idolatry, the 
 Popes would not permit it ; but enthroned ido- 
 latry in the heart of the church. The Council of 
 Trent has reduced this worship, (though with 
 some caution) to a system. Thus, (25th Sess.) 
 it is said, " It is a good and useful thing, sup- 
 pliantly, to invoke the saints, and to flee to 
 their prayers, help and assistance ;" " that 
 veneration and honour are due to the relics of 
 the saints, and that it is a useful thing for the 
 faithful to honour these and other sacred monu- 
 ments, and that the memorials of the saints are 
 are to be frequented, to obtain their help and as- 
 sistance ,-" " that the images of Christ, of the 
 Virgin, mother of God, and of other saints, are 
 to be had and retained especially in churches, 
 and due honours and veneration rendered them ; 
 that we are to kiss then, uncover our heads in their 
 presence, and prostrate ourselves ,•" "that great ad- 
 vantages are to be derived from all sacred ima- 
 ges, — because of the divine miracles performed 
 by the saints ;" " that new miracles are to be ad- 
 mitted, and new relics to be received, with the recog- 
 nition and approval of a bishop," &c. It is remarka- 
 ble, that the very language, word for word, in 
 which the heathen, both of ancient and modern 
 times, excused their idolatry, is used by the 
 church of Rome. And what is still more remark- 
 able, their worship of idols and Saints, and their 
 abounding ceremonies, are derived in chief part 
 from the ancient Pagans. Let any intelligent read- 
 er take up "Middleton's Letter from Rome, show- 
 ing the exact conformity between Popery and Pa- 
 ganism, or the religion of the present Romans de- 
 rived from that of their heathen ancestors," and if 
 he does notarise from its perusal a Protestantin his 
 opinions on this subject, at least, if he can in any 
 sort escape the conviction of modern Rome's 
 heathenism and idolatry, he must be something 
 of a stock himself ! 
 
 The church of Rome worship the cross of Christ. 
 Thomas Aquinas (your divine doctor) tells us, 
 " that the cross of Christ is to be adored with divine 
 
S0» 
 
 adoration „•" " if we speak of the very cross on 
 which Christ was crucified, it is to be worshipped 
 with divine worship.'''' (Aquin. 3. p. q. 25. Art. 
 4.) The following is the authorised worship of 
 the cross in the church of Rome : it is taken from 
 the Breviary, the book which contains the daily 
 service of the church, i. e. their Book of Common 
 Prayer, sanctioned by the Popes ; of universal use 
 in the church ; compiled by order of the council 
 of Trent; and enjoined with great strictness upon 
 all who enjoy any ecclesiastical revenue, upon all 
 the regular orders of Monks and Nuns ; upon sub- 
 deacons, Deacons, and Priests, to repeat either in 
 public or private, the whole service of each day 
 from its pages. The omission of any one of the 
 eight portions of which that service consists, is 
 declared to be a mortal sin. This book contains, 
 the following idolatrous worship page 330. 
 
 The English translation in 
 the office of the holy week, is 
 this: 
 
 Hail cross of hopes the most 
 sublime, 
 
 Now is the mourning pas- 
 sion time, 
 
 Improve religious souls in 
 
 grace. 
 The sins of criminals efface! 
 
 O crux Av«! spes unica! 
 Hoc passionis tempore, 
 Auge piis justitiam, 
 Reisque dona veniam, 
 
 JpRlptjgimeiis of idolatry equally direct may be 
 ^fathered also from the Missal, or Mass-Book of 
 the church, not to mention the profuse exam- 
 ples which are found in your standard-writers. 
 And observe this worship is given to the cross it- 
 self, yes to the very wood, the senseless matter. 
 There are probably more relics of the real cross on 
 which Christ was crucified, now exhibited and 
 worshipped in the church of Rome, than would 
 build a ship ! 
 
 The Virgin Mary is also worshipped; not only 
 honoured, but worshipped. I observe you recog- 
 nise this as a part of the religious education of 
 your collier, (letter No. 5.) Father Crasset 
 (pages ' 60. to 128) says " being truly our Sa- 
 viour's mother, as well in heaven as she was 
 on earth, she still retains a sort of natural au- 
 I thority over his person, over his goods, and over 
 his omnipotence ; so that, as Albertus Magnus says, 
 ^ /by her motherly authority she can command him. 
 j She preserves from heresy and error, she defends, 
 j" comforts, procures a good death for her followers, 
 has brought souls out of purgatory ,• we ought to 
 render her religious honour ; also the same to her 
 images, as the many miracles done by them re- 
 quire."" 
 
 In the " offices of the blessed Virgin," is this 
 prayer. " Let Mary and her son bless us /" 
 V Confession is made " to Almighty God, and the 
 VJilessed Virgin Mary," &c. &c. Absolution (see 
 Ritual) is made in the name of " the passion of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, and the merits of the bles- 
 sed Virgin, 1 " &c. &c. Bellarmine closes the dis- 
 cussion on this very topic with this idolatrous doxo- 
 logy. Laue Deo Virginique matri Mariae: " Glory 
 be to God and the Virgin Mary his mother." In 
 the Breviary (office of the blessed Mary,) she is 
 hailed and worshipped, as the gate of heaven,- she 
 is implored to loose the bands of the guilty, to give 
 
 light to the blind, to establish their peace and 
 drive away all evil ; to make them holy, and to 
 guide them safely till they see Jesus on high ! 
 She is called the glorious mistress of the earth, 
 and the queen of Heaven ! And this not by a tran- 
 sient fanatic, but in the book of common prayer, 
 in which the daily exercises of the Roman church 
 are performed ; which Mr. Hughes and every 
 Priest is bound to use ; the standard book of wor- 
 ship, and the guide of the " universal'''' church. 
 Is not this gross unqualified creature-worship 1 
 Could more be said to God 1 ? Can He do more than 
 is thus attributed to a mere creature ? 
 
 The worship of Images in the Church of Rome is 
 clearly idolatrous. But for want of room I omit 
 the proof now, yet will return to it when you 
 please. 
 
 Jls to relicts it seems almost incredible to what 
 an extent superstition and idolatry have been car- 
 ried. These, as will be seen in the decree copied 
 above, are to be religiously honoured, in plain 
 English, worshipped. 11000 are preserved in one 
 church in Spain; some of these are "several pieces 
 of the most holy cross, on which Christ suffered; 
 thirteen thorns from the crown He wore; a piece 
 of the manger in which He lay ; a piece of the 
 handkerchief with which the Holy Virgin wiped 
 her eyes at the foot of the cross; a thigh of St. 
 Lawrence; and the nails, and lance, and other in- 
 stiuments of Christ's passion, &c.&c. They show 
 at Rome the heads of Peter and Paul, a lock of the 
 Virgin's hair, a phial of her tears, some of the 
 sponge, the rod of Aaron, and part of the ark of 
 the covenant, though the latter the Jews never 
 could find after the Babylonish captivity. The 
 emerald dish on which our Saviour was said to 
 have eaten his last supper, was taken to Paris by 
 the ungracious French troops; and the "Institute," 
 on trial, found it a piece of green glass. They 
 swear by these relics, they worship them avowed- 
 ly, (as in the case of the cross) they consecrate 
 them, dedicate them to God, and churches to them, 
 and even trace miracles to them. I will not pur- 
 sue the humiliating detail. But, surely, when the 
 authority of the church enjoined, and the people 
 practised such idolatry and superstition, it was 
 time for protests to sound, and Reformation to be- 
 gin. On this whole subject the Council of Constan- 
 tinople, and the 2d Council of Nice, were directly 
 at issue, though in close succession one after the 
 other. They cannot both' be right. One said 
 Images must not be put in the churches, nor hon- 
 oured by the people. The other rescinded their de- 
 cisions, anathematized them, and erected and wor- 
 shipped with new zeal the images which they had 
 broken down. Which was right 1 Surely not 
 both? If either was wrong, your infallibility per- 
 ishes ! 
 
 III. The Church of Rome is an enemy to human 
 liberty, and has done all in her power to stij\€~" 
 When you defined the Reformation to be '•''the re- 
 ligion of free thinking about the meaning of the 
 Bible; the religion in which every man has a right 
 to judge for himself'' (Letter 21.) you unwittingly 
 disclosed the doctrine and spirit of your commu* 
 nion, viz. that no man has a right to judge for him" 
 
210 
 
 self, but must receive what he is commanded to 
 believe in implicit faith. The spirit of oppres- 
 sion begins in your church as soon as the child is 
 born, and ends only with death — nay, if he will 
 not submit, his "seal after death is devoted" as in 
 the case of John Huss, " to infernal devils" The 
 7 Sess. 14 Can. Coun. Trent, thus lords it over the 
 souls of men : " Whoever shall affirm that when 
 these baptized children grow up, they are to be ask- 
 ed whether they will confirm the promises made by 
 their godfathers in their name at their baptism ; 
 and if they say they will not, they are to be left to 
 their own choice, and not to be compelled in the 
 mean time to lead a Christian life, by any other 
 punishment than exclusion from the Eucharist 
 and the other sacraments, until they repent : let 
 him be accursed." Then, is not every person 
 baptized in your communion liable to force, 
 (where it will be tolerated) by punishment, be- 
 sides exclusion from the sacraments, if he'willnot 
 submit.' Surely! where, then, is his liberty? 
 Is he not the slave of spiritual despotism wheth- 
 er he will or not ! Baptism thus becomes, as it 
 has been truly said, an indellible brand of slavery ,- 
 and the church claims her slaves wherever she 
 finds them, and condemns them to perdition when 
 they will not submit ; and being the " only true' 1 '' 
 church, they are to be forced into her communion, 
 or damned out of it. And as this is a canon of 
 the church, involving an article of faith, so every 
 true Catholic must believe it without doubt or 
 faultering, viz. that punishment is to he applied to 
 compel belief. Again : suppose the unhappy 
 subject, (say in Italy or Spain,) when "he. grows 
 up" resolves that he will not " confirm the promi- 
 ses made in his name by his godfather at bap- 
 tism," we have practical demonstration of the 
 treatment he endures. The inquisition is at 
 hand. I have always failed to fix this aye sore 
 ■ on your vision ! You will not see it. But the 
 public will. The Inquisition is a court of which 
 the Pope is head ; it is his tribunal, and is esta- 
 blished throughout the world, wherever there are 
 Roman Catholics, and where the government 
 will tolerate it. These bloody tribunals arrest 
 and punish, and torture, and condemn to death 
 for error of doctrine ,■ not for transgressions of 
 civil law, for they are professedly spiritual courts, 
 and have to do with " heretical pravity." Yet 
 they apply force from first to last. The interior 
 of an inquisition is hell on earth. Not only have 
 some of their victims escaped to tell us, but they 
 have been thrown open by invading armies ; and 
 military leaders, more merciful than the ruthless 
 inquisitors, have exposed to the gaze of an as- 
 tonished world the scenes of alternate butchery 
 and debauch, in which the ghostly fathers have 
 glutted, as they respectively arose, their zeal and 
 their lusts. The Bishop of Aire talks of " inno- 
 AJcent victims whose numbers have been greatly 
 f exaggerated !" But who is an innocent victim ? 
 one who is not a heretic ? Then if a man be a 
 heretic, he ought to be punished ! Yes — this is 
 the conclusion necessarily. And then of the 
 150,000 who suffered in the Inquisition during 
 fifty years, some were innocent victims? Does 
 
 not this very defence establish my position, viz. 
 that there is no real liberty of person or of con- 
 science under the Roman Catholic Relio-ion ? 
 that to dissent is to be a guilty victim ? And 
 the alternative is submission to, or oppression by 
 it ? What is conclusive proof that the holy. See 
 sustains and approves the Inquisition is this, that 
 it never has uttered one word or taken one step to 
 put it down, though one word w T ould have done 
 it. Nay, so far from this, it has been the parent 
 and the patron of it. 
 
 The spirit of Romanism is a spirit of persecu- 
 tion. This is necessary to its nature. This I 
 have shown at large heretofore, and you have 
 struggled in vain through many a captious and 
 artful page to avert the testimony of bulls, de- 
 crees, and historical evidence to that effect. 
 
 The Church of Rome is the avowed enemy of the 
 freedom of the press. I have proved this from the 
 Pope's circular letter. You have not denied this. 
 I have showed its restrictrons on the translation, 
 printing, sale, and perusal even of God's holy 
 word. I have pointed you to the Standing Com- 
 mittee at Rome who vmtch and purify the press. 
 But you find safety in silence. Let me present 
 to you a decretal by the Lateran Council held 
 at Rome. (Sess. 10. A. D. 1515, Leo X. pres 
 ing.) 
 
 " In the same session a decretal was issuec 
 concerning the printing of books, in the following' 
 form. viz. By order of the holy Council, we in 
 fine, ordain and decree, that no person shall pre- 
 sume to print, or cause to be printed, any book or 
 other writing whatsoever, either in our city (Rome) 
 or in any other cities and dioceses, unless it shall 
 first have been carefully examined, if in this city, 
 by our Vicar and the master of the holy palace, 
 or if in other cities and dioceses by the Bishop or 
 his deputy, with the inquisitor of heretical pravity 
 for the diocese, in which the said impression is 
 about; to be made and unless also it shall have 
 received, under their own hand, their written ap- 
 proval, given without price and without delay. 
 Whosoever shall presume to do otherwise, besides 
 the loss of the books, which shall be publicly 
 burned, shall be bound by the sentence of excom- 
 munication." (Caranza, page 670.) By author 
 rity of the council of Trent, this decretal and all| 
 others of a like kind are thus confirmed viz. 
 Rule 1. "Ml books condemned by the supreme 
 pontiffs, or general Councils, before the year 1515, 
 and not comprised in the present Index, are, never- 
 theless, to be considered as condemned." The 
 creed also, as adopted by every Roman Catho- 
 lic, requires all " to receive undoubtedly, all 
 things delivered, defined, and declared by the 
 sacred canons and General Councils, and particular^ 
 ly by the holy Council of Trent." These decre- 
 tals, rules &c. of Popes, and of Councils having 
 been thus finally confirmed by your last and great 
 Council of Trent, are now in full force; they 
 bind every Roman Catholic upon earth ; they 
 involve an article of faith, and must be be- 
 lieved; they announce infallible law and must be 
 obeyed; to reject them is heresy; to obey them 
 brings ruin to civil liberty; yet to the present 
 
211 
 
 hour they are in full operation wherever the Pope 
 has sway. Now you have this alternative, dis- 
 claim these decrees, and you are not a Roman Ca- 
 tholic; defend them and you are a traitor to your 
 country. Will you defend the dogmas of infalli- 
 bility and Papal supremacy at such a price 1 
 
 To make this despotism over thought complete, 
 and conscious that truth and testimony were 
 against the " Mother church" the Holy See has 
 applied its pruning knife to trim down the works 
 which were allowed to appear, and even the wri- 
 tings of the " Fathers" have been erased, and 
 amended to bring them into harmony with your 
 doctrines and decrees. Evidence on this sub- 
 ject is both abundant and strong. Some of it 
 I have adduced already; more is at hand,, if 
 you will meet me on this point. Why you 
 entirely evade this whole subject the public 
 must, by this time, clearly understand. As it 
 is a painful and delicate topic it might almost 
 seem a matter of mercy to let it slumber. 1 
 must be permitted, however, to name it to you as 
 an item which convinced the Reformers that truth 
 was not your friend ; that free inquiry would be 
 the ruin of your Church ; and that liberty was to 
 be sought in retiring from her iron grasp. At 
 your pleasure we will examine this topic fully. 
 
 Once more, civil liberty cannot flourish under the 
 influence of the Church of Rome. It is to the Re- 
 formation we owe, under God, all the liberty now 
 in the world. If you take the map of the world, 
 and strike from it those states which are now 
 eminently Protestant, how much civil liberty will 
 remain? How much is therein Spain? How 
 much in Austria? How much in Portugal? 
 How much in Italy? In this our age the power 
 of the Pope is broken : his political consequence 
 is gone ; and no wonder, (as is said in a letter 
 lately written from Rome) it is currently fore- 
 boded in the eternal city that the present will be 
 the last Pope. But where he reigns, and while 
 he reigns, men cannot be free. It is impossible. 
 Hence be must soon finally and irreparably fall ; 
 for he will not change, and the system cannot 
 long survive that inextinguishable love of liberty 
 and growing light of knowledge, which the God 
 of providence and truth is sending forth upon the 
 nations. 
 
 Here then are three leading errors in the doc- 
 trine as well as the practice of the Church of 
 Rome, showing her manifest departure from the 
 religion of Christ, and calling aloud for Reforma- 
 tion, justifying, nay, forcing a protest from every 
 friend of truth. I suppose your discretion will 
 pass these by, as you have done the long cata- 
 logue of cognate errors already exposed in my 
 previous letters. But our readers will not pass 
 them ; nor will your suffering cause find shelter 
 in your silence. 
 
 I now proceed to notice your attack on the 
 " Protestant Religion." 
 
 And 1st. You have admitted fully (Letter No. 
 23.) "that what are called 'orthodox' tenets 
 among Protestants are all found in the Catholic 
 Church;" and "that the Reformers in going out 
 from the Church carried them forth," such as 
 
 " the doctrine of the Trinity and divinity of the 
 Son of God, the doctrine of original sin, and the 
 atonement through the death of Christ." (See 
 your Letter, No. 23.) And (in the same letter) 
 " you admit, for argument sake, that the Religion 
 of Christ, established in its purity by the Apos- 
 tles, gradually became corrupt ; and was finally 
 restored to its primitive purity by the event called 
 the Reformation :" you say " starting even from 
 this extravagant supposition, you will find it a 
 difficult tssk to prove that the Protestant Religion 
 is the Religion of Christ." Now by the first ad- 
 mission Protestants are " orthodox" in certain 
 "tenets," and in such, they agree with your 
 Church, for " they brought them out from her." 
 By the second admission, the other tenets of your 
 Church being errors, it follows as an irresistible 
 consequence, on your own principles, that " or- 
 thodox," " Protestants" are the only true Chris- 
 tians in the world. For you admit that all we 
 hold, of the truth, we got from you ; that all you 
 hold which we refused to bring away is false,- 
 therefore, we hold all that is true, and what we 
 reject is false; hence the discussion, on your part, 
 is at an end. 
 
 2. As to the character of the Reformers, your 
 reasoning is absurd. 
 
 If all you say of them is true, the case stands 
 thus : They were fallible men ; so we hold them 
 to have been ; and emerging from the long night 
 of darkness and death which the Papacy had 
 spread over Christendom, no wonder if they had 
 faults, and errors too. They are not our guides, 
 but the Lord, and his Apostles, speaking in the 
 Bible. They were Reformers such as often ap- 
 peared in the Old Testament Church, not to give 
 a new Religion, but to restore the old. We call 
 no man "Father," ar.d only follow them so far as 
 they follow Christ. Suppose they had all the de- 
 fects you falsely charge on them, and held some 
 opinions which were not true ; yet as the Refor- 
 mation was necessary, and the religion of Pro- 
 testants looks to the Bible as the only infallible 
 rule of faith and practice, it affects us not. But 
 with your Church it is far otherwise. A large 
 party in it believes in the Pope's infallibility. 
 This is especially the system of the Jesuits, 
 and of Italy at large. Now on their principles 
 your Church is irreparably ruined. Fifty apos- 
 tate Popes in one long black line, are men- 
 tioned, by one of your writers; many Popes,. 
 Baronius tells us, were elected and ruled by 
 strumpets; divers others came in by Simony; 
 others still filled with their bastard progeny, 
 the highest offices of the Church ; some dealt 
 in poison and sorcery; one sacrificed to idols; 
 several Popes reigned at once ; a woman it is 
 said once filled the Papal Chair; and incest, 
 debauchery, civil war. and unnumbered crimes 
 characterized the holy See for more than a cen- 
 tury. And, now, pray tell me, where was the 
 infallible Head of the Church, and what sort of 
 a Church was that which sustained, and followed 
 such monsters of iniquity ? But if you say the 
 Pope -was not infallible, (as surely you must,) 
 what becomes of your argument under the second 
 
£1$ 
 
 question, viz : " reviewing the doctrines and 
 characters of the Reformers* is there any^ even 
 the smallest evidence, that the Spirit of God had 
 aught to do with it?" Yet this is your great ar- 
 gument against the Reformation ! On your own 
 showing then, the Church of Rome does not hold 
 the religion of Christ; to protest was a right; 
 and Reformation was a duty. 
 
 3. But you have grossly slandered the Reformers. 
 
 In the first place, it is very remarkable, that in 
 many cases you studiously omit all references by 
 which your quotations can be identified and ex- 
 posed. In the next place, where you give the re- 
 ferences, I have tried in vain to find some of the pas- 
 sages to which you refer. From this I cannot doubt 
 that you quote second hand from Jesuit authors, 
 with whom it is a duty to falsify when ecclesias- 
 tical utility requires it. In the third place, your 
 glaring perversion of Luther, which I exposed at 
 the close of my last letter, is a living monument 
 from which we learn how little reliance is to be 
 placed on your quotations. I say this with re- 
 gret; but what follows proves it necessary. In 
 your Letter No. 23, you made Luther say, " let 
 this be your rule in interpreting the Scriptures ; 
 whenever they command a good work do you un- 
 derstand that they forbid it ;" that is, Luther's 
 rule was, to contradict Scripture and encourage 
 bad works ! Such was the language you made 
 him hold. I quoted in answer, (to which I refer 
 the reader,) the whole passage, when lo, we find the 
 disjointed member of the sentence taking its place, 
 honestly, and making Luther urge good works in 
 God's strength, according to God's word, and to 
 God's glory ! Pressed by the exposure, you ven- 
 ture in the last Letter (No. 25,) to give a new ver- 
 sion of your quotation from Luther, and tell us 
 " the sense of my quotation (from Luther) was to 
 show that he denied free will in man, denied the 
 possibility of keeping the Commandments, or of 
 doing good works." This, truly, is strange self- 
 conviction ! You first pervert his meaning, and 
 then deny your own statement. Such is the pro- 
 cess by which you would expose the Reformation! 
 Luther was but a man, and yet such a man as no 
 slander can pull down. It is well for truth that 
 he had other historians besides my Rev. opponent. 
 Erasmus says, (see Tom. 3. in Epist. ad Albert) 
 " if I favour him, it is because he is a good man, 
 a thing his very enemies acknowledge. This I 
 observe that the best men are the least ofTended 
 with his writings." Frederic, Duke of Saxon, said, 
 " Erasmus did truly point out Luther's two chief 
 faults, that he meddled with the Popes crown and 
 the Monks bellies.'''' Guiccard (His. Ital. 1. 13. 
 p. 380.) tells us, " many conceive that the trou- 
 bles raised against Luther, had their origin in the 
 innocency of his life and the soundness of his doc- 
 trine, rather than in any thing else." Sir James 
 M'lntosh says, of Luther, (see Hist, of England, 
 chap. 5. vol. 2.) "Martin Luther was of a charac- 
 ter thoroughly exempt from falsehood, duplicity, 
 and hypocrisy — it was fortunate also that the 
 enormities of Tetzel, found Luther busied in the 
 contemplation of the principle which is the basis 
 of all ethical judgment, and by the power of which 
 
 he struck a mortal blow at superstition, viz: i men 
 are not made righteous by performing certain ac- 
 tions which are externally good ; but men must 
 have right principles in the first place, and then 
 they will not fail to perform virtuous actions :' 
 the general terms which are here used, enunciate 
 a proposition, equally certain and sublime, the 
 basis of all pure ethics, the cement of the eternal 
 alliance between morality and religion. From the 
 promulgation of this principle may be dated the 
 downfall of superstition.'''' And now shall we be- 
 lieve the illustrious historian or the interested 
 priest 1 It were easy in the same way to defend 
 the other honoured names, which 'you have held 
 up, so falsely, to public infamy. We give the 
 above only as a specimen, and design hereafter 
 to do justice to their characters and writings. 
 
 4. Your four questions are assuming the place 
 of your ten heads, and are progressively meet- 
 ing their fate. You seem to have no ideas be- 
 yond them, and by repeating them again and 
 again, even after they are all answered, make it ap- 
 parent, that you intend no defence of your doc- 
 trines, while you have little to say against our 
 own. As to the Greek church, which is as an- 
 cient as your own, I did not, as you know, claim 
 her as agreeing with ourselves in all points ; but 
 stated, what you also know, that she protested 
 against purgatory, human merits, supererogation, 
 forbidding the use of the Scripture, worshipping 
 images, the sale of masses, extreme unction and 
 infallibility. So far you will allow she was a 
 Protestant. Your remarks on the Waldenses, are 
 not worthy of notice. They entirely evade the 
 abundant testimony brought by me, from your 
 own writers. They contain nothing; and ex ni- 
 hilo nihil fit. The dialogue with which you 
 amuse your readers is unanswerable. You must 
 have been reading Corderius's Colloquies, or the 
 " Courtship of Cock Robin and Jenny Wren," 
 when its fine conception was first imparted to 
 your mind ! 
 
 5. The doctrinal unity of the Reformed, as ex- 
 pressed without collusion, and almost simulta- 
 neously is one of the most remarkable events in 
 the history of the church. If, instead of cavilling 
 over garbled extracts from individual writers, you 
 will take up these Formularies, which were pub- 
 lished over Europe at the commencement of the 
 Reformation, you may see in them the Protestant 
 Religion. No less than twelve of these, contain- 
 ing essentially the same doctrines, are now extant. 
 They are the Augustan, the Tetrapolitan, Polish, 
 Saxon, Bohemian, Wittemberg, Palatine, Helve- 
 tian, French, Dutch, English and Scotch Confes- 
 sions. They issued at the call of God, from mil- 
 lions of minds in Germany, Switzerland, France, 
 Holland, England, and Scotland. In due time, 
 (and though you ridicule the sentiment which 
 it conveys, yet let me say,) if God permit, I 
 propose to show the essential harmony of many 
 of these confessions with the word of God, with 
 the earliest creeds, councils, and fathers, and also 
 with each other; and thus to display the Chris- 
 tianity, antiquity, and umty of the Protestant reli- 
 cion. In contrast with this shall be made to ap- 
 
213 
 
 pear, still more, the total novelty of your peculiar 
 doctrines, and the abounding variations of Popery 
 for 1200 years. 
 
 I terminate this letter with Bishop Jewel's 
 famous challenge, which he often uttered but 
 which never was accepted- " If any learned 
 man of our adversaries, or all the learned men 
 that be alive, be able to bring any one sufficient 
 sentence out of any old Catholic doctor, or father, 
 or general council, or Holy Scripture, or any 
 one example in the primitive church, whereby it 
 may clearly and plainly be proved, during the first 
 six hundred years, 1. that there were at any time 
 any private masses in the world : 2. or that there 
 was then any communion ministered unto the peo- 
 ple under one kind : 3. or that the people had 
 their common prayer in a strange tongue that the 
 people understood not : 4. or that the Bishop of 
 Rome was then called an Universal Bishop, or head 
 of the Universal Church : 5. or that the people 
 were then taught to believe that Christ's body is 
 really, substantially, corporally, carnally, or na- 
 turally present, in the sacrament : 6. or that his 
 body is or may be in a thousand places or more 
 at one time : 7. or that the priest did then hold up 
 the sacrament over his head : 8. or that the people 
 did fall down and worship it with godly honours : 
 9. or that the sacrament was then, or ought now 
 to be, hanged up under a canopy : 10. or that in 
 the sacrament after the words of consecration 
 there remained only the accidents and shows, 
 without the substance, of the bread and wine : 
 11. or that then the priest divided the sacra- 
 ment in three parts, and afterwards received him- 
 self alone : 12. or that whoever had said the sa- 
 crament is a figure, a pledge, a token, or a remem- 
 brance of Christ's body, had therefore been ad- 
 judged for an heretic : 13. or that it was lawful 
 
 then to have thirty, twenty, fifteen, ten, or five 
 masses said in the same church in one day : 14. 
 or that images were then set up in the churches 
 to the intent the people might worship them : 15. 
 or that the lay-people were forbidden to read the 
 word of God in their own tongue : 16. or that it 
 was then lawful for the priest, to pronounce the 
 words of consecration closely, or in private to 
 himself: 17. or that the priest had then authority to 
 offer up Christ unto his Father: 18. or to communi- 
 cate and receive the Sacrament for another, as they 
 do: 19. or to apply the virtue of Christ's death 
 and passion to any man by means of the Mass : 
 20. or that it was then thought a sound doctrine 
 to teach the people that Mass, ex opere operato, 
 (that is upon account of the work wrought) is 
 able to remove any part of our sin : 21: or that 
 any Christian man called the Sacrament of the 
 Lord, his God : 22. or that the people were then 
 taught to believe that the body of Christ remain- 
 eth in the Sacrament as long as the accidents of 
 bread and wine remain there without corruption : 
 23. or that a mouse, or any other worm or beast, 
 may eat the body of Christ, (for so some of our 
 adversaries have said and taught) : 24. or that 
 when Christ said hoc est corpum meum, (this is 
 my body) the word hoc (this) pointed not to the 
 bread, but to an individium vagum, as some of 
 them say : 25. or that the accidents, or forms, or 
 shows, of bread and wine be the Sacraments of 
 Christ's body and blood, and not rather the very 
 bread and wine itself: 26. or that the Sacrament 
 is a sign or token of the body of Christ that lieth 
 hid underneath it : 27, or that ignorance is the mo- 
 ther and cause of true devotion — The conclusion 
 is, that I should then be content to yield and sub- 
 scribe." Yours, &c. 
 
 John Breckinrjdgb, 
 
CONTROVERSY NP. 27. 
 
 Bs the Protestant Religion the Relfcion or Christ? 
 
 Philadelphia, August 2, 1833. 
 To the Rev. John Breckinridge. 
 
 Rev. Sir, — I have just read your last letter. It 
 is remarkable for nothing, except a repetition of 
 special pleading, petty sophistry, and, as usual, 
 the evasion of the question at issue. It is supe- 
 rior, however, in style and good manners, (if not 
 in argument) to most of its predecessors from the 
 same quarter. When I saw myself again address- 
 ed by " Rev. Sir," which you had so long denied 
 me, and marked the absence of deistical objec- 
 tion and flippant personality, I was tempted, for 
 a moment, to question the identity of authorship. 
 But this suspicion vanished from my mind the 
 moment I read your classical allusion to the 
 " courtship of Cock Robin and Jenny Wren." 
 
 It must have, long since, become manifest to 
 every candid and sensible reader, that you utterly 
 disregard the rules of this controversy, to the ob- 
 servance of which you were bound by your sig- 
 nature. How far this is honourable, I shall not 
 take upon me to say. In the world, the man who 
 makes an agreement and then violates, systemati- 
 cally, all its conditions, enjoys no enviable fame. 
 " The rule of faith" and then the " Protestant reli- 
 gion" were the questions to be discussed, succes- 
 sively. " And the parties agree respectively, to 
 adhere strictly to the subject of discussion for the 
 time being, and to admit no second question until 
 the first shall have been exhausted." If, as ap- 
 pears, you did not intend to fulfil this part of the 
 agreement, I am at a loss to account for your 
 having entered into it. As it is, however, no as- 
 sertion of mine is necessary to show that you 
 have given up your rule of faith, and that you 
 shrink from the defence of the Protestant religion. 
 On the former topic, the amount of your six 
 months labour is this, that the Bible is the infalli- 
 ble rule to all those who are fortunate enough to 
 arrive at the true sense of it. But that private in- 
 terpretation, when it extracts from the sacred 
 volume a ivrong meaning is an " abuse." And 
 that relatively to all who are guilty of this abuse, 
 even the Bible is not an infallible rule! ! Thus 
 the infallibility of the Bible itself as a rule 
 is made to evaporate under the chemical influ- 
 ence of your arguments. Every peculiar sys- 
 tem of Protestantism looks upon itself as being 
 the system of the Bible, and whilst each 
 Tetorts upon the other the abuse of the writ- 
 ten word of God, Mr. Breckinridge, pleading in 
 the name of all, bears testimony that those who are 
 guided by the true sense of the Bible are " in- 
 fallibly right," but that those who with equal sin- 
 cerity miss the true sense, are infallibly wrong. 
 
 Still he assert that the Bible alone, interpreted 
 by each indiTiual for himself is " the infallible 
 rule of faith apointed by Christ." 
 
 As to the otsr question, it also, has been vir- 
 tually abandoTd. The reader must have observ- 
 ed that you Id yourself unable to answer my 
 questions. I sked you to define the Protestant 
 religion; and 'ou could not tell me what it is. 
 Arguments ar authorities were adduced to show 
 that it could it be the religion of Christ, and no 
 attempt has fen made to refute the arguments 
 or question tlauthorities taken from the writings 
 of the Refonrs themselves. You say you can- 
 not find the otations, and insinuate that they 
 are spurious This inclines me to believe that 
 they were n to you, and that you are not so 
 conversant ih the theological discoveries of the 
 16th centuns I had supposed. But if you will 
 only take tltrouble to designate the particular 
 passage quid in my letters which you cannot 
 find, and cit spurious, I shall have great plea- 
 sure in rnang the page and leaving the origi- 
 nal work :he Coffee-house or any other public 
 place for | inspection and that of the public. 
 
 In the itn time, I shall place my unanswered 
 questionsiching the pretended divinity of the 
 ProtestarJligion on record, and keep them as a 
 standing vertisement. If they cannot be an- 
 swered, testants whose love of truth, is great- 
 er than V hatred of the Catholic religion will 
 see howseless is the fabric of their belief. 
 They weflect how dangerous is their position, 
 since thcan find no Christians agreeing with 
 them iioctrines, from the days of Christ un- 
 til the ong of Luther, and very few since. 
 
 Mr. Mnridge says that " the Protestant is the 
 religionhrist." 
 
 If so, lupon him 1st. To tell me what the Protes- 
 religion is ? 
 2. U upon him to say what society of Chris, 
 s ever taught this pretended " religion of 
 '■<" previous to the Reformation ? 
 3/8 upon him to say, whether Christ revealed 
 the doctrines of the Protestant religion, be. 
 ningwith the best image of his church, Epis- 
 ilianism, and terminating ivith the most con- 
 ent of Protestant sects, the Unitarians ?— 
 I if not, hoio many denominations out of the 
 ole belong to the true Protestant religion, 
 religion of Christ ? 
 
 call upon him to show whether the Reformers 
 •-eived any new ministerial authority, after 
 e withdrawal of that which they had received 
 om the church ? 
 
 call upon him, in case no suck new authority 
 as received, to show that the Protestant clergy, 
 
2i*r 
 
 so called, have any divine ripht to exercise the 
 Christian ministry, more then other educated 
 laymen 1 
 These are the questions by which the touch- 
 stone of truth will be applied to the divinity of 
 the Protestant religion. If it can stand this test, 
 you will gain the point, but if no<, it will be im- 
 possible to conceal the deception. 
 
 Let Princeton, and all the clerg r set about the 
 solution of these difficulties; wlich stand be- 
 tween the Protestant Religion and the Religion 
 of Christ. They are too well fomded, as you 
 cannot but know, in the principle of Christian 
 theology to be overturned by ridicfl*. You can- 
 not take them up one after anotherknd give that 
 unequivocal reply, which would safety any mind 
 seriously disposed to inquire for thl truth. And 
 as long as you will not attempt t, then they 
 stand, cutting short the claims of j Protestant 
 Religion to be what you said it \i ; the Reli- 
 gion of Christ. To allow you tirri to ruminate 
 on these difficulties of your positioi [ shall now 
 proceed to show that the fioctrine the Eucha- 
 rist as held in the Catholic Church,! an integral 
 part of the Christian Religion ; andhat Protes- 
 tants in rejecting it, have deprived linselves of 
 the last and best pledge of a Reciter's i ove 
 This Sacrament, which by Protests 
 the Lord's Supper, was instituted on 
 •which he was betrayed, the eve of 
 as if he would select that moment, 
 sublime exercise of his Divine chari _ 
 otence. Is it then an article of Christ! Revela- 
 tion that the body and blood of ChriL-e con- 
 tained in the Catholic Sacrament of ^Eucha- 
 rist ] This is the question; for as to mnystert/ 
 of doctrine it is not greater than thoseUhe In- 
 carnation, Trinity, or Deity of Jesijphrist 
 Has it been revealed ] In answer to 
 tion we will have to examine the evide 
 It is remarkable, that among Protest; 
 sects whose founders had never been 
 the order of Priesthood in the Catholi 
 were the most disposed to reject the 
 Christ's presence in the Eucharist 
 maintained this doctrine till his death . 
 bishops and clergy of the English Go» ne nt 
 Church, maintained, or at least prete!] t„ 
 maintain it, in like manner. Whereas Kin, 
 who, though brought up a Catholic, wit a 
 Priest, rejected it from the first, consci^hat 
 the priestly ordination was necessary to co: 
 the species. Still, Rev. Sir, even in y 
 byterian Confession of Faith, which ha 
 "amended" since the year 1821, there i 
 mystery and much to impress upon the ur 
 communicant an idea that he is receiving 
 thino- more than mere bread and wine. " O 
 Jesus, in the night wherein he was betray 
 , stituted the Sacrament of his body and blood 
 (page 124.) " Worthy receivers, outward 
 takers of the visible elements in this Sacr 
 do then also inwardly by faith, really and i 
 yet not carnally and" corporally, but spiri 
 receive and feed upon Christ crucified, an! 
 benefits of his death : the body and blood of ' 
 
 is called 
 
 i night on 
 
 passion, 
 
 |the most 
 
 pmnip 
 
 ques- 
 
 being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or 
 under the bread am* wine ; yet as really, but spi- 
 ritually, present to the faith of believers in that 
 ordinance, as the elements are, to their outward 
 senses." (Page 127-8.) 
 
 On the same page it is said, that unworthy re- 
 ceivers » are guilty of the body and blood of the 
 Lord to their own damnation" — and that with- 
 out great sin they " cannot partake of these holy 
 mysteries.'''' 
 
 Here then is a strange compound of double- 
 meaning language "outward elements" — "body 
 and blood of Christ"— " spiritual feeding"— " not 
 discerning the body of the Lord"— "holy myste- 
 ries" — connected with what? With the belief 
 of a real presence 1 not at all ; but with a piece 
 of bread and a cup of wine, over which 'an unau- 
 thorised minister has pronounced an abortive 
 benediction ! ! The blessing flf the minister pro- 
 duces no change whatever, and if I understand 
 the language of your creed, the bread and wine, 
 received with the same dispositions any where, 
 are as much the Sacrament of the body and blood 
 of Christ, as they are after a fruitless and inopera- 
 tive blessing in the Presbyterian church or meet- 
 ing-house. ' The communicant is taught thai he 
 receives nothing but bread and wine ; and yet, 
 that in being guilty of bread and wine, he is guilty 
 of the body and blood of Christ ; for not discern- 
 ing what has no existence, viz : the body of the 
 Lord in bread and wine ! ! What is the meaning 
 then of all this strange language? This affecta^ 
 tion of a real presence, with the simultaneous de- 
 nial of it, and the positive doctrine of a real ab- 
 sence. But take it altogether, I find it quite as 
 unintelligible as the Catholic dogma of the Eu- 
 charist. 
 
 The same kind of mysterious double-meaning 
 hangs round the sacramental bread and wine of 
 all the other Protestant denqminations. The 
 people generally, imposed upon, by this lan- 
 guage, have a vague idea, in spite of their teach- 
 ers, that, in receiving the Sacrament of the Lord's 
 Supper, they receive something more than mere 
 bread and wine. 
 
 When the Reformation, as it is called, of the 
 16lh century set about rending the seamless and 
 unbroken garment of tht Church, (which amidst 
 the corruptions of the age, the vices of the peo- 
 ple, and the scandals of degenerate ecclesiastics, 
 still preserved the " one Lord, one faith, and one 
 baptism," which she had received from her divine 
 founder,) the work of sacrilege was carried on 
 with such daring irregularity, that even the form 
 of "casting lots" was dispensed with. Luther 
 first raised the standard of error; and set the 
 whole Christian world at shameless defiance. 
 His example and doctrines encouraged others to 
 bolder innovations ; and it was not long after his 
 attempt to drag the Pope, from the seat of his spiri- 
 tual supremacy, when a brother Reformer under- 
 took, by a similar license to drag the Saviour of 
 the world from the throne of his divinity. But 
 the denial of the real presence, had escaped the 
 father of the Reformation, and was reserved for 
 tire ijinous or rather infamous Carlostadius. 
 
217 
 
 He began by teaching that when Christ said, 
 " this is my body," he pointed to himself as lie 
 sat at the table ; and not to the eucharistic spe- 
 cies which he gave to the Apostle3. On this, he 
 quarrelled with Luther; married a woman ; made 
 war on education; joined himself tor a time to 
 the fanatical Ana-baptists under Nicholas Stork ; 
 wandered -about through Germany for several 
 years, and finally died at Basle in 1541. Me- 
 lancthon describes him as an impious and brutal 
 fellow, and testifies that he broached this error, 
 out of jealousy and hatred of Luther. (In Epist. 
 ad Mycon.) Zuinglius embraced the doctrine 
 of Carlostadius, and fought the battles of his 
 patty against the " Ecclesiastes of Wittemburg," 
 with great fury and success. Hence it was that 
 Luther declared by way of funeral oration on 
 his brother Reformer ; " Zuinglius is dead and 
 damned, having desired like a thief and a rebel 
 to compel others to follow his error," viz : the 
 denial of the real presence in the Eucharist. In 
 fact Zuinglius draws a terrible character of him- 
 self. " I cannot," says he, " conceal the fire that 
 burns me, and drives me on to incontinence, since 
 it is true that its effects have already drawn' on 
 me but too many infamous reproaches among the 
 churches." (In Parenses. ad Helvet. Tom. 1. d. 
 113.) 
 
 The controversy about the real presence be- 
 tween the Lutherans and Zuinglians was in this 
 fervid condition when a new personage made his 
 appearance on the theatre of the Reformation. 
 John Cauvin, or Calvin, born in 1509, and in- 
 structed in Protestantism by his teacher of Greek, 
 Wol mar, was destined to throw Zuinglius in the 
 shade, and to rival if not eclipse the great Lu- 
 ther himself. He published the text book of 
 Calvinism, called the "Institutions," at Basic, 
 near the grave of Carlostadius. He denied the 
 "real presence." Becoming master at -Geneva, 
 his disciples denied it also — for Calvin was a 
 man whose infallibility was not to bs disputed, 
 except at the risk of the stake and faggot. It 
 was from Geneva that the church of England 
 derived her present doctrine on the eucharist, 
 during the golden days of her " Calvinistic arti- 
 cles" to which Doctor Miller alluded, as quoted in 
 a former letter, with such triumphant rei'erence — 
 telling us that they (the Calvinistic articles) had 
 kept the English church almost pure, for nearly one 
 hundred years. Wise men, however, sometimes 
 see the same objects in very different aspects. 
 Bishop Bancroft, in reference to the same Cal- 
 vinistic derivation of doctrine, says, " Happy, a 
 thousand times happy our island, if neither English 
 or Scot had ever put foot in Geneva, if they had 
 never become acquainted with a single individual 
 of these Genevese Doctors." (Survey of pretend- 
 ed Holy Discipline.) 
 
 Here then is the course and brief history of the 
 Protestant doctrine — rejecting the real presence 
 of Christ in the eucharist. From America we 
 trace it to England; from England to Ceneva; 
 from Geneva to Basle ; from Switzerland to Ger- 
 many, where, according to Melancthon, it originat- 
 ed with the "brutal fellow" Carlostadt, who 
 
 broached it ouiof pure hatred to Luther.. The 
 circumstances ruder which this warfare was 
 commenced, J the Black Bear, where Luther 
 lodged, are siiisgraceful and profane, that I 
 shall pass thfi over in silence. The curious 
 reader may tfsult the recent work of Thomas 
 Moore, chaptl xlyi. page 241, where the refer- 
 ences arc gi*. The war of the sacrament be- 
 ing once declid among the Reformers, became the 
 source of defy strife, duplicity, stratagem, and 
 intrigue amc r the belligerents. "In vain," says 
 the writer, ti 'horn I have just referred, " did Bu- 
 cer by tricks *d evasions, and it is painful to add, 
 Melancthon sceeded in maintaining, for a time a 
 false andfe\pi truce between the parties. But 
 arts so gross aid not long continue to deceive; all 
 compromise -s found to be hollow and hopeless, 
 and, at last e three great eucharistic factions, 
 the Luthera Calvinistic, and Zuinglian, all 
 broke loose heir respective directions of heresy 
 —each bran again subdividing itself into new 
 factious disitiqns, under the countless names 
 of Panarii,cidentarii, Corporarii, Anabonarii, 
 Tropistos, famorphistce, Iscariotistce, Schwen- 
 kenfeldiansc. &c. &c. till, to such an extent did 
 the caprice private judgment carry its freaks, 
 on this osolemn subject, that an author of 
 Bellarminitime counted no less two hundred 
 different rions on the words, " This is my 
 body." It the Protestants in attempting to 
 escape thhard saying," which gave offence to 
 the Caplnites, found themselves unable to 
 agree on ' other explanation. Hence the du- 
 plicity (he language in which it is ex- 
 pressed iost of the Protestant formularies, of 
 which yiConfession as amended in 1821 furn- 
 ishes noan specimen. 
 
 Protets therefore can trace their doctrine of 
 the sacrnt, in which according to their books, 
 Christ jsally present, and really absent at thol 
 same ti-as far back as 1524 to Carlostadt, tof 
 whom Hgs the glory of having originated it/ 
 Beyond, all believed in the real presence c$ 
 Christ the Eucharist. You have been bol/[ 
 enough. Sir, in utter ignorance, or in uttef 
 conterff Christian antiquity and the testimony 
 of innrable writers, to assert that our belief 
 was iiuced in the 13th century, A. D. 1215. 
 Even > however, shows that it was the gene- 
 ral i for 300 years before the Reformation 
 Rut If see whether the doctrine had not beer 
 belie in every aire from the days of Chrisl 
 Nowfr. Sir, if this doctrine of the Real Pres- 
 ence! transubstantiation, be " as young," \> 
 V1 se °wn language, as 1215, how does it ha<- 
 pen Berengarius wrote against it, nearly tvo 
 nun years before it was born ? How doent 
 hapthat Scotus Erigenus had written agaiist 
 it, »e reign of Charles the Bald, some wo 
 hui' years before Berengarius 1 — And thatthe 
 soivtical held it before their separation iom 
 thiirch in the 0th century— and contime to 
 hq to. this day 1 ? How comes it that the 
 pian Heretics of Jhe 7th century rejected 
 tj-JStantiation, if as you learnedly assert, 
 u-bstantiation was not known in the church 
 
218 
 
 fro- 
 
 until the year 1215] How was it that the Mani- 
 chseans rejected this doctrine in the 3d century] 
 And approaching nearer still to tie pure fountain 
 of Christian faith, how is it, that the Gnostic he- 
 retics denied it in the very first age of the church ? 
 These heretics professed tp believe in Jesus 
 Christ, and his doctrine, propounded by their pri- 
 vate judgment. They hold that Jems Christ suf- 
 fered only in appearance, and that it was not his 
 real flesh but a fantastical body, vhich suffered 
 and bled on the cross. It seems hat they also 
 had an unaccountable aversion to tb doctrine of 
 the real presence of Jesus Christ in|ie Eucharist, 
 and this too, if we may believe Mr.Jheckinridge, 
 1200 years before that doctrine wa introduced ! 
 St. Ignatius says of them in the veriest century 
 " they abstain from the Eucharist afi from pray- 
 er, because they do not acknowledged Eucharist 
 to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus irist, which 
 suffered for our sins, and which theither by his 
 goodness resuscitated." Rejecting jerefore this 
 gift of God, they die in their dispis. (Ep. ad 
 Smyrn. p. 36. Tom. ii. P. P. Apostlmstelceda- 
 mi 1724.) Here, the father makeSie flesh of 
 our Saviour Jesus Christ, in the EuWist to be 
 identically the same, which suffered I the cross, 
 and arose from the dead. Jesus Chriiad equal- 
 ly identified his flesh in both. "Vis is my 
 body, which is given for you- •••Thisimy blood 
 of the New Testament, which shall \ shed for 
 many. It was not bread that was gi 
 was it wine that was shed for many. 
 Gnostics would not have abstained 1 
 testant Eucharist of mere bread and w 
 is nothing in it, that would have offe 
 But they were offended at the Catholi 
 of the real presence of the flesh of Chi in the 
 sacrament. It clashed with their hek and 
 therefore they abstained from it. How t Rev. 
 Sir, could you have exposed yourself soV as to 
 assert that our doctrine on this subject olnated 
 in the 13th century, when even the wandlgs of 
 the human mind in the mazes of heresy dig- all 
 the preceding ages of the church prove lexis- 
 tence from the very origin of Christian! and 
 since it is known to every man acquainkvith 
 ecclesiastical history that in rejecting it,V] s- 
 tadt only renewed the errors of the Docland 
 other branches of the Gnostic heresy broachmd 
 branded in the Apostolic age itself. To ih e 
 resy we are indebted for the evidence thus fish 
 ed of the primitive belief of the real pre 
 Christ in the mystery of the Eucharist, 
 must be heresies," said the Apostle " th 
 also who are approved among you may b 
 manifest." (1 Cor. xi. 19.) 
 
 To the same cause we are indebted, for a 
 brilliant but apparently accidental testimo! 
 the second century. St. Irenseus who was 
 ed in the doctrine of the Redeemer, by St. 
 carp, the disciple of St. John, uses the rea 
 sence of Christ in the Eucharist, as an argi 
 against other heretics of his time, who denie 
 resurrection of the flesh. He compares it witl 
 manner in which the vine and wheat are prop 
 ed, to furnish the matter of the Eucharist b 
 
 neither 
 iw these 
 he Pro- 
 There 
 them. 
 >ctrine 
 
 >A of 
 
 the consecration." And as, says ha, a section of 
 the vine laid in the earth produces fruit in due 
 season, and in like manner the grain of corn is 
 multiplied, by the blessing of God, which after- 
 wards is used for the benefit of man, and receiv- 
 ing on it the word of God, becomes the Eucharist, 
 which is the body and Mood of Christ .- so our bo- 
 dies, nourished by that Eucharist, and then laid 
 in the earth, and dissolved in it, shall, in due time 
 rise again." (Iren. Adver. Har. L. V. c. 11. p. 395, 
 397, 399.) Tertullian in like manner, says " our 
 flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ, 
 that the soul may be nourished with God." (De 
 Resurrectione Carnis, chap. viii. p. 569.) In the 
 3d century, Origen speaking of the doctrine of the 
 church, says, "In former times, baptism was ob- 
 scurely represented in the cloud, and in the sea ; 
 hut now regeneration is in kind, in water and 
 the Holy Ghost. Then, obscurely, manna was 
 the food ; but now in kind, the flesh of the word 
 of God is the true food; even as he said, my flesh is 
 meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." (Horn, 
 vii. in Num. Tom. ii. p. 290.) 
 
 In the 4th century among a hos£ of others, take 
 St, Cyril of Jerusalem : " the bread and wine, 
 says he, which before the invocation of the adora- 
 ble Trinity, were nothing but bread and wine, 
 become, after this invocation the body and blood 
 of Christ." (Catech Mystag. L. N. 4. p. 281.) 
 Shall I multiply these quotations ] It is unneces- 
 sary, but I will give you the testimony of the 
 great first Reformer himself to show the " unani- 
 mous consent of the fathers." on the subject of the 
 Eucharist, and to show the extent of the delusion 
 under which Protestants, and perhaps their min- 
 isters, labour when they ascribe the origin of this 
 doctrine to your famous epoch, " 1215." 
 
 He is defending his own opinion against those, 
 who, making use of the liberty, which he had 
 promulgated, of expounding the Scriptures by 
 their pwn judgment, denied the real or corporeal 
 presence. "That no one among the Fathers," 
 says Luther, " numerous as they are, should 
 have spoken of the Eucharist, as these men do, 
 is truly astonishing. Not one of them speaks 
 thus : there is only bread and wine ■ or, the body 
 and blood of Christ are not present. And, when 
 we reflect how often the subject is treated and 
 repeated by them, it ceases to be credible ; it is 
 not even possible ; that, not so much as once, 
 such words as these should have dropped from 
 some of them. Surely it was of moment that 
 men should not be drawn into error. Still, they 
 all speak with such precision, evincing that they 
 entertained no doubt of the presence of the body 
 and blood ! Had not this been their conviction, 
 can it be imagined that, among so many, the' 
 negative opinion should not have been uttered on' 
 a single occasion 1 On other points this was not 
 the case. But our sacramentarians, on the other 
 hand, can proclaim only the negative or contrary 
 opinion. These men, then, to say all in one- 
 word, have drawn their notions neither from the 
 Scriptures nor the Fathers." (Defensio verbo- 
 rum— Ccenae,Tom. VIII. p. 391. Edit. Wittemb. 
 1557.) i 
 
£10 
 
 Such is the testimony of Martin Luther, who 
 elsewhere speaks of the Eucharist as the "adora- 
 ble Sacrament." He tried with all his might 
 to discard this belief, chiefly, as he tells us* be- 
 cause by so doing he should greatly vex the 
 Pope. " If Carlostadt, or any one else, says 
 he, could five years ago have convinced me, that 
 in the sacrament there is nothing but bread and 
 wine, he had wonderfully obliged me ! For with 
 great anxiety did I examine this point, and la- 
 bour with all my force to get clear of the diffi- 
 culty ; because by this means I very well know 
 that I should terribly incommode the Papacy. 
 But I find I am caught without hopes of escap- 
 ing. For the text of the Gospel is so clear and 
 strong, that it will not easily admit of a miscon- 
 struction." (Epist. ad Amic. Argia. Tom. 7. p. 
 502. Witt. Ed.) 
 
 What is this text of the Gospel by which Lu- 
 ther " found himself caught without hopes of es- 
 caping?" We may suppose in the first place 
 the language of St. Paul, who received his doc- 
 trine of the Eucharist by a special revelation 
 from Jesus himself, after the ascension ; which 
 would have been unnecessary if it merely taught 
 him the Protestant mystery, viz : that bread and 
 wine, are bread and wine. He taught that men 
 by the unworthy reception of the sacrament were 
 guilty of judgment, or damnation to themselves ; 
 " not discerning the body of the Lord." (1 Cor. x. 
 16, and following verses.) Now if the body of 
 Christ was not in the Sacrament, how could men 
 « discern" it there ? Again it is to be admitted 
 that Jesus Christ would not be guilty of dupli- 
 city in the teaching of his doctrines. When, 
 after the miraculous multiplication of the loaves 
 and fishes, he introduced (John vi.) the doctrine 
 of the bread from heaven, even his own flesh and 
 blood, to be miraculously multiplied for the life 
 of the world, the Protestants Who heard him, 
 were scandalised ; they exclaimed then, as they 
 exclaim still, " this is a hard saying, and who 
 can hear it.... and many of them then, as now on 
 account of it, " went back and walked no more 
 with him." He declared that he would give 
 them his flesh to eat; they understood him to 
 mean his flesh ; and in the unbelieving spirit of 
 Protestantism they inquire "how can°this man 
 give us his flesh to eat." This was the moment 
 for the Son of G<*1 to have undeceived them, by 
 telling them that he did not mean his flesh, but 
 merely some bread and wine. This doctrine 
 would not have surprised them. But instead of 
 softening it, by explanation, he confirmed the first 
 declaration by adding "Amen, Amen, I say unto 
 you ; unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, 
 and drink his blood, you shall not have life in 
 you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my 
 blood, hath everlasting life : and I will raise him 
 up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed ; 
 and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth 
 my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, 
 and I in him," (verses 54, 55, 50, 57.) Now if 
 those Protestant disciples who were scandalized 
 at this language of our Lord, had misunderstood 
 his meaning, was he not bound to remove from 
 
 their minds the erroneous impression which his 
 own words had produced ? Did he use this lan- 
 guage to drive them away from him? Did he, 
 Who Would leave the ninety-nine in the desert to 
 go after the one which had been lost ; did he, I 
 say, banish the sheep already in the fold, from 
 the pastures of life, by spea"king of " flesh and 
 blood," (to be communicated in a mysterious 
 manner which as yet he had not revealed,) and 
 allowing them to understand "flesh and blood," 
 if he meant only " bread and wine ?" Protes- 
 tants are obliged to admit that he did ; and this 
 admission, so injurious to the character of Jesus 
 Christ, is the first implement borrowed by the 
 Deists to sap the foundations of Christianity. 
 If Christ's meaning had been that which Carlos- 
 tadt invented for the Protestants, would he not 
 have removed or explained the difficulty about 
 " giving his flesh to eat," instead of confirming 
 it, with the emphasis of repeated and solemn af- 
 firmation? Would he not have said, "Amen, 
 Amen, I say unto you, unless you eat the bread 
 of the Son of man and drink his tuine, you shall 
 not have life in you. He that eateth my bread 
 and drinketh my wine hath everlasting life : and 
 I will raise him up at the last day. For my 
 bread is meat indeed, and my wine is drink in- 
 deed. He that eateth my bread and drinketh my 
 wine, abideth in me and I in him." If he had said, 
 or meant thl, we should not have heard of those 
 Protestant dsciples "who went back and walked 
 no more with him." In almost every verse of the 
 chapter he reproaches them, not for misunder- 
 standing his words, but for the want of belief. 
 But they would have misunderstood him, if his 
 meaning had been bread and wine, and in that 
 case too W3 are unable to conceive how faith is 
 necessary, to believe that bread and wine, are 
 bread and wine. He spoke of his flesh and 
 blood ; he meant his flesh and blood ; all that 
 heard him, understood him to have spoken of 
 his flesh aid blood ; and when the Protestants of 
 that day frightened by the "how can this man 
 give us his flesh to eat," " went back and walked 
 no more tvith him ;" he turned to the twelve and 
 " said to them, will ye also go away?" And Si- 
 mon Peter answered him (in the name of all) 
 Lord to whom shall we go? thou hast' the words' 
 of eternil life. And we have believed, and have/ 
 known that thou art the Christ the Son of the 
 living £od." (68, 69, 70.) Peter understood 
 the mistery of the Eucharist proposed in this di 
 course of Christ, as little as the rest, but he 
 lieved, is Catholics do, that Christ could not 
 ceive,- and therefore he withstood the "horn 
 commm-sense interpretation, lauded by my ReJ 
 opponant, and urged with great plausibil' 
 against Jesus Christ himself, by the Protest^ 
 of Capharnaum. 
 
 Wiat was spoken in this chapter, is acti 
 acconplished in the institution of the 
 euchirist. " And whilst they were at suj 
 Jesu; took bread, and blessed and brokeJ 
 gave to his disciples ; and said ; Take yj 
 eat, This is my body. And taking the! 
 lice he gave thanks; and gave to then/ say- 
 
sao 
 
 ing : Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood 
 of the New Testament, which shall be shed for 
 many for the remission of sins." (Math. xxvi. 
 26, 27, 28.) " And whilst they were eating, 
 Jesus took bread and blessing broke, and gave to 
 them, and said : Take ye, this is my body. And 
 having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave 
 it to them and they all drank of it. And he said 
 to them : "This is my blood of the New Testa- 
 ment, which shall be shed for many.'''' (Mark xiv. 
 22, 23, 24.) " And taking bread he gave thanks, 
 and brake, and gave to them saying : This is 
 my body which is given for you : Bo this for a 
 commemoration of me. In like manner the cha- 
 lice also, after he had supped, saying : this is the 
 chalice, the New Testament in my blood, which 
 shall be shed for you.'" (Luke xxii. 19, 20.) 
 " For I have received of the Lord, that also 
 which I delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, the 
 night in which he was betrayed,\took bread, and 
 giving thanks, broke, and said; take ye and eat : 
 This is my body which shall be delivered for you : 
 do this for a commemoration of! me. In like 
 manner also the chalice, after hi had supped, 
 saying : This chalice is the New Testament in 
 my blood : this do ye, as often as you shall driak 
 it, for a commemoration of me. Fpr as often as 
 you shall eat this bread and drink this chalice, 
 you shall show forth the death of the Lord, till 
 he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this 
 bread or drink this chalice of the Lor« unworthily 
 shall be guilty of the body and bloodof the Lord. 
 But let a man prove himself, and so Ut him eat of 
 that bread and drink of the chalice. k For he that 
 eateth and drinketh unworthily, eatetl and drink- 
 eth judgment to himself, not discerning the 
 Lord's body." (1, Cor. xi. 23, 34, 25,^6, 27, 28, 
 29.) 
 
 Now according to the Protestant doctine of the 
 
 eucharist, whenever the word " body aid blood" 
 
 occurs in these passages, we are to Understand 
 
 " bread and wine." Consequently, siqee Christ 
 
 spoke of the chalice as of the " bloWl, which 
 
 was to be shed for many for the remission of 
 
 sins," we are to understand that we mve been 
 
 redeemed by the giving of bread and the shedding 
 
 of wine. There is no escaping this consequence, 
 
 on the Protestant principle. Having shown 
 
 above that the Protestant doctrine of theleuchar- 
 
 ist, denying the real presence, originated in the 
 
 hatred and jealousy which the fame of Luther, 
 
 roused in the breast of his would-be rival, Carlos- 
 
 tadt, (as Melancthon testifies,) — having tehown 
 
 by the testimony of the holy Fathers, tnat the 
 
 Catholic doctrine of the real presence was held by 
 
 he church, and rejected by the heretics of the first 
 
 Te — that is 1 200 years before >he date assigned by 
 
 r. Breckinridge — I shall allude briefly to thiruin- 
 
 > bearing which the Protestant euchariat has 
 
 the divinity of Christ, and the whole system 
 
 Christianity. 
 
 Of all the wonders operated by Jesus ii the 
 
 ution of his religion the only one which a 
 
 creature deputed by God could not acqpm- 
 
 is that which subsists in the real preseice, 
 
 eucharist. This doctrine then is the shield 
 
 of his divinity. He might have accomplished 
 all the miracles that Protestants believe of him, 
 and yet be nothing more than what the Socinians 
 represent ; — but to accomplish the miracle which 
 we contemplate, not with the eye of the body, 
 but with the eye of faith, in the mystery of the 
 holy eucharist — he must have been God. To 
 creatures deputed by God, some power was given, 
 but to Christ all power both in heaven and on 
 earth — and it was in the eucharist alone that this 
 all power was exercised. This connexion be- 
 tween the real presence in ^he eucharist, and the 
 Divinity of " the word," was quoted by St. Irenaj- 
 us in the 2d century. (Adv. Hor. L. 4. c. 18. No. 
 
 2. Jesus Christ must have foreseen the terrible 
 consequence of the language he made use of in 
 reference to the eucharist. He must have fore- 
 seen the error, into which his immediate disci- 
 ples were about to fall, and which was to be en- 
 tailed on the church until the coming of Andreas 
 Carlostadius — who to reform the church, merely 
 invented a new gesture for Christ, making him 
 point to his own breast, when he said " this is 
 my body." Did Christ foresee this supposed 
 error of the real presence 1 If he did, it being 
 founded on his own express words, he was bound 
 by his promise to the church (Math, xxyiii. 19.) 
 to prevent it becoming general : — if he did not 
 foresee it — then goes his divinity by the board. 
 When the Unitarians urge this argument, how 
 can the other Protestants answer it 1 
 
 3. The Apostles warned the Christians of fu- 
 ture errors, such as the denial of the reality of 
 the flesh of Christ, his divinity, and the resurrec- 
 tion, &c. But against the supposed error of the 
 real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which 
 according to the acknowledgment, of eminent 
 Protestants was believed from the second cen- 
 tury, they take no precaution ; though according 
 to the Protestant doctrine of bread and wine, it 
 changed the Religion of Christ into a religion of 
 impiety. 
 
 4. According to the Protestant hypothesis, the 
 Religion of Christ became the falsest religion of 
 earth, and what he preached, was perverted into 
 a system of idolatry almost immediately after his 
 ascension into heaven. Did the eternal Son of 
 God, become man, to establish % religion so short- 
 lived, so degenerate, and so idolatrous as this 
 supposes. Christians adored Christ's body in 
 the Eucharist; and if the Eucharist were mere 
 bread and wine ; it follows, that from the begin- 
 ning the followers of the cross were idolaters. 
 Such are the destructive consequences, if the Pro- 
 testant doctrine were true. 
 
 But on. the other hand, admit the doctrine of 
 the church — bend the stubborn neck of what you 
 call " honest common sense interpretation," to 
 the yoke of faith, believe that Jesus Christ has 
 love to design and omnipotence to accomplish 
 what he declared— this is my body— this is my 
 blood — and you will escape the horrible conse- 
 quences of the Protestant system. Then you 
 will recognise "the hidden manna," in the sacra- 
 ment,— the wisdom of God, in mystery. Then 
 
 \ 
 
221 
 
 you will understand the meaning of "Christ, a 
 Priest forever according- to the order of Melchesi- 
 dec." Then you will understand the connexion 
 between this priesthood — communicated at the 
 last supper, " do this for a commemoration of 
 me," — and the " altar of which they have no 
 •ight to eat who serve the tabernacle ,•" — you will 
 jerceive the " clean offering," from the rising to 
 ;he setting of the sun, among the Gentiles, as 
 oretold by Malachy, (i. 10, 11,) and in the sacri- 
 ice of the mass, the death of the Lord, in the 
 anguage of St. Paul, shown forth till he come." 
 rhen you will find your faith according with the 
 anguage and institution of Christ, the apostle of 
 he Gentiles, the apostolical fathers, the whole 
 Christian church of all nations and ages, except a 
 ew straggling sects of heretics in the by-ways of 
 .ntiquity. Then order, beauty, consistency, and 
 tateliness will appear in the edifice of christiani- 
 y. But deny the Real Presence, and it will ex- 
 'erience the fate of Jerusalem — not a stone shall 
 e left upon a stone. Protestant Germany at the 
 resent day, is the sad proof that what I have here 
 sserted, is not speculation, but history. But who 
 an believe such a doctrine ? I answer, all those 
 r\io deem JesUs Christ worthy of belief. That 
 lfidels should disbelieve it does not surprise me. 
 >ut I cannot understand it 1 I answer, you can 
 nderstand it as well as you can the Trinity— or 
 re union of the divine and human nature in the 
 erson of Jesus Christ. When you study mathe- 
 latics you reason — but in revelation you believe. 
 fit is it possible that Jesus Christ can be seated 
 t the right hand in heaven, and yet be whole and 
 utire under each of the consecrated hosts in the 
 r orld ? I answer, Jesus Christ is God— he has 
 lid so, and therefore it is possible, and infallibly 
 jrtain. But think of the indignities to which he 
 i exposed 1 I answer, that they are not greater 
 lan those which he suffered when he was sold 
 y his disciple, buffeted and spit upon by his peo- 
 le, scourged, and crucified. His body in the 
 icrament can suffer no more — can die no more 
 
 is the glorified body of the cross, still offered 
 p to perpetuate the sacrifice of Calvary in a dif- 
 rent manner— to " show forth the death of the 
 ord till he come." But if an insect or reptile 
 msume the host 1 I answer, the consequence is 
 )thing more horrible than if an insect or reptile 
 rasumed some portion of the adorable blood 
 hich flowed from his wounds as he huno- upon 
 ie cross. But if arsenic be mixed in the ele- 
 ents of the eucharist they still remain after the 
 msecration 1 I answer, that Christ appointed 
 ;ead and wine, to be operated on by the words 
 
 consecration— and not arsenic. But Mr. Breck- 
 ridge says that this doctrine is " as young- as 
 eyear 1215? I answer, that if Mr. Breckin- 
 Jge says queer things, it is for himself and 
 ose who sympathise in his prejudices to see to 
 But he says also that if this doctrine be true, 
 b cannot believe our senses 1 I answer, that 
 . Ambrose refuted this objection 1 100 years 
 ;o, (De Initiandis cix. Tom. IV. p. 350, 351 )_ 
 ad that Mr. B. must have forgotten both his 
 tural philosophy and his New testament when 
 
 he repeated it. The senses judge only of appear- 
 ances— and wc read in a book which Protestants 
 profess to respect .that the Holy Ghost appeared 
 in the shape of a dove. 
 
 There is no end, however, to objections. Ob- 
 jections against the real presence, the Incarnation, 
 the resurrection of the body, the Trinity of per- 
 sons in the Godhead, and the immortality of the 
 soul are equally numerous, and equally plausi- 
 ble, if that every thing and nothing which my 
 Rev. opponent calls " honest, common-sense inter- 
 pretation," is to be the arbiter of belief. Who 
 can comprehend any of them 1 There are never- 
 theless one or two objections common araono- 
 Protestants from whom we might expect better 
 things, and which I shall here notice as well for 
 their want of truth, as their want of decency. 
 Catholics are represented as adoring bread and 
 wine in the Eucharist, which is expressed by 
 calling the sacrament a " wafer." This ungene- 
 rous trick of our opponents is unworthy of Chris- 
 tians. They know that we adore no " wafer," 
 that our adoration is directed to Jesus Christ, be- 
 lieved to be truly present under the appearances of 
 bread and wine. But I lament to have read in 
 the course of this correspondence the expressions, 
 " that we make our God and eat him," it sounds 
 like the buffoonery of Tom Paine. It is unworthy 
 of a Christian origin, and I leave it even to sensible 
 Protestants whether a doctrine resting on the ar- 
 guments of this letter should have been treated 
 of in language so coarse, and so indecent. How 
 many gross questions may not the infidels ask 
 touching the sacred person of Jesus Christ, by 
 imitating the licentious pen of a zealous, but in- 
 discreet, polemic. Such language shocks the 
 feelings, but does not touch the faith, of a Catho- ' 
 lie reader. It may make him weep to s^e Jesus 
 Christ insulted, as he conceives, on the sacrament 
 of his love, but it only binds him more intimately 
 to the object of his faith, and of his affection. He 
 knows that what Protestant incredulity calls "mak"-' 
 mg God," is the act which Christ commanded. 
 " Do this for a commemoration of me." He 
 knows that what Protestant prejudice or indecen- 
 cy calls " eating God," is the act of religious 
 obedience to him who said, unless you eat of the 
 flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you 
 cannot have life in you, and who said in like man- 
 ner " take ye, and eat, this is my body:' 
 
 Now, Rev. Sir, although I have been obliged 
 to pass over testimonies sufficient to fill a volume, 
 establishing the constant belief of the real pres- 
 ence in the eucharist, still, I make bold to assert 
 that all the ministers in America cannot furnish 
 as much positive evidence from all the docu- 
 ments in existence in support of the mere bread 
 and wine of the Protestant sacrament, as this let- 
 ter contains, imperfect as it is. They may say 
 that the word " signify" is not found in the He- 
 brew, and that Christ consequently used the 
 words "this is" instead of "this signifies myj 
 body." Zuinglius actually made this change in 
 the text. But what do they make of Jesus Christ/ 
 — when they represent him opening the door tc 
 supposed error, which he foresaw, merely because 
 
222 
 
 the Hebrew was a jejune language !! For want 
 of a suitable expression, the Son of God laid the 
 foundation of perennial idolatry in his church !!! 
 And after all the New 'Testament was written 
 in the Greek tongue, not the Hebrew. Truly 
 Protestants must be easily satisfied in their 
 doctrines. They may say that the Fathers often 
 applied the terms, figure, sign, symbol, antitype, 
 bread and wine, to the eucharist even after conse- 
 cration. It is true they applied these terms to 
 the exterior appearances — but this only proves 
 that under these signs, symbols, &c. they believed 
 the substantial existence of the thing signified, 
 viz: the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Hence 
 none were allowed to participate of the Eucharist 
 who did not first " adore." All the ancient li- 
 turgies, heretical as well as Catholic, with the 
 exception of some few sects, contain the doc- 
 trine of the Eucharist as it is believed at this 
 day in the Catholic church. That pf the Apos- 
 tles, those of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom, 
 the ancient Gallican liturgy, the Mozarabic, the 
 Nestorian, the Jacobite of Syria, the Copht, the 
 Ethiopian are all identically the same with the 
 Roman Missal, on that doctrine which you have 
 made to originate in the 13th century A. D. 1215 
 I will allow any gentleman who is a scholar, and 
 desirous to verify what I assert to compare them, 
 at my house. But where can the Protestant doc- 
 
 trine of mere bread and wine find testimony to sup- 
 port if? Would to God, that Protestants would 
 reflect in the soberness of genuine piety, on the 
 mutilated Christianity which their fathers in the 
 ardour of religious strife have bequeathed them. 
 They would not reject the substance for the sha- 
 dow as they have done. 
 
 However you have to prove that the Protestant 
 religion is the religion of Christ, and perhaps 
 you have furnished yourself by this time, with 
 the long expected arguments. You have closed 
 your last letter by invoking the aid of Bishop 
 Jewel, and quoting a list of requirements which 
 is long and arrogant enough. But you should re- 
 collect that his Panegyrist and Biographer, Dr. 
 Humphreys admits that the good Bishop " spoil- 
 ed himself and his cause" by the boldness of his 
 challenges. It might have been well if you had 
 seen this, before you issued yours. Besides Jew- 
 el, on his death bed, directed his chaplain to make 
 known after his decease " that what he had writ- 
 ten, he had done against his own knowledge and 
 conscience, only to comply with the state, and 
 that religion which it had set up." (Dr. Smith's 
 Prudential Ballance, published in 1609, page 54.) 
 In appealing to the Episcopalians, then, for aid, 
 you might have made a happier selection than 
 Bishop Jewel. Yours, &c. 
 
 John Hughes. 
 
zt? 
 
 CONTROVERSY N°. 28. 
 
 Is the Protestant SSeBigion the Itcfligioii of Christ? 
 
 Philadelphia, August 9th, 1833. 
 To the Rev. John Hughes, 
 
 Sir, — You complain for the second time, in 
 your last letter that I have "long denied you'''' 
 the title of "Rev'd Sir." I assure you, it was 
 as far from my intention to rob you of your hon- 
 ours, by omitting it, as it is now to flatter your 
 weakness and vanity, by inserting it. I have 
 uniformly addressed you thus, "the Rev. John 
 Hughes ;" and surely the repetition, (in imme- 
 diate succession) of " Rev'd Sir," is both a vio- 
 lation of good taste, and a useless tautology. I 
 see, however, that the little urchin at the press 
 who attached two j"f 's to your name, in my 
 last proof sheet, understood your wishes better 
 than I do. But I would respectfully admonish 
 you, that the title once written, frowns upon him 
 " who seeks honour of men :" and that it is not on 
 the number, or magnificence of our titles, but on 
 the spirit with which we fulfil our ministry, that 
 our supreme care should be bestowed. But per- 
 sonal arrogance is not the only characteristic of 
 the introduction to your last letter. The tone 
 of denunciation and bigotry seems to rise, as the 
 cause you advocate sinks ; and you supply the 
 defect of argument, with the increase of preten- 
 sion. You tell us " that no Christians agreed 
 with Protestants in doctrines, from the days of 
 Christ until the coming of Luther, and very few 
 since." It is no new doctrine with your Church 
 to consign all men, out of her communion, to eter- 
 nal woe. It is an article of jour creed, that 
 "none can be saved," who do not hold the Ro- 
 man Catholic faith : and " the Canon Law," 
 makes it "necessary to salvation for every hu- 
 man being to be subject to the Roman PontifF." 
 While the people stand amazed at the unparalleled 
 bigotry and intolerance of Romanism, they must 
 at least approve your candour, in applying these 
 doctrines to the unhappy millions of American 
 Protestants. 
 
 That this is the universal spirit of the system, 
 whenever it is honestly disclosed, or forced out 
 by controversy, may readily be gathered from the 
 monuments of the Papacy in every age and coun- 
 try where it has had a being. Take for example 
 the notes on the Rhemish translation of the New 
 Testament. The text is the same with the New 
 Testament of the Doway Bible, lately republish- 
 ed in this country. These notes have been pru- 
 dently suppressed in that edition. The follow- 
 ing are specimens. Note on Heb. v. 7. " The 
 Translators of the English (Protestant) Bible 
 ought to be abhorred to the depths of Hell." 
 Note on Gal. i. 8. Perverting and commending 
 
 a passage from Jerome, they say, "the zeal of 
 Catholic men ought to be so great towards all 
 Heretics, and their doctrines, that they should 
 give them the anathema, though they are never 
 so dear to them ; so as not even to spare their 
 own parents." Luke ix. 55, 56. The Samari- 
 tans had rejected Christ; and the indignant dis- 
 ciples asked Him, if like Elias they should 
 " command fire to come down from Heaven and 
 consume them." "But he turned and rebuked 
 them, and said, ye know not what manner of 
 spirit ye are of; for the Son of man is not come 
 to destroy men's lives, but to save them." 
 On these passages, and in direct contradiction 
 of our Lord, the commentary remarks : " Not 
 justice, nor all rigorous punishment of persons is 
 here forbidden, nor Elias-'s fact (conduct) repre- 
 hended ; nor the Church, nor Christian Princes 
 blamed for putting Heretics to death." Rev. xvii 
 6. " The blood of Heretics is not the blood of] 
 Saints ; no more than the blood of thieves, man- 
 killers, and other malefactors ; for the shedding 
 of which blood by order of justice no common- 
 wealth shall answer." Rev. ii. 6, 20, 22. " Of 
 all things Christian people, especially Bishops, 
 should hate Heretics, that is, their wicked doc- 
 trines and conditions. As Lutherans, Zuing- 
 
 lians, &c, &c. " He (Christ) warneth Bishops 
 to be zealous, and stout against the false Pro- 
 phets, of what sort soever, by alluding covertly 
 to the example of holy Elias that in zeal killed 
 four hundred and fifty false Prophets." John x. 1. 
 " Arius, Calvin, Luther, and all that succeed them 
 in room and doctrine, are thieves and murderers." 
 Acts xix. 19. "A Christian man is bound to 
 burn or deface all wicked books, of what sort so- 
 ever ; especially heretical books. Therefore the 
 Church, hath taken order against all such books." 
 
 This is the charity of Rome. These are the 
 doctrines upon oath, of every Roman Priest, 
 whatever be the honied words of liberality and 
 love which distil from his lips, or run from his 
 ready pen. And we may see what we have to 
 hope for in America, if by the skill of the Je- 
 suits, this last refuge of civil and religious liberty 
 shall be violated and controuled by the Pope of 
 Rome. 
 
 I proceed still further to exhibit the grounds of 
 our protest against the doctrines, corruptions, eye. 
 of the Church of Rome. And, <"""'>» 
 
 I. The abounding and shocking immoralities, 
 either tolerated by the Church of Rome, or di- 
 rectly produced by her institutions. 
 
 In a church where absolute subjection to her 
 supreme head, is the. very touch-stone of ortho- 
 
 ( 
 
c«- 
 
 221 
 
 doxy. 
 
 , authority cannot be wanting- to correct and 
 punish vice. By a single act, one Pope abolish- 
 ed the immense power of the Jesuits ; by another 
 act, another Pope has recently revived that infa- 
 mous order in all its force. Authority to reform 
 is therefore not wanting. And yet, as I have in 
 part already shown, in several unanswered letters 
 the church of Rome had become so corrupt in its 
 morals that the whole world was crying out for 
 several ages, for a Reformation. This too, was 
 not a temporary, local, or partial corruption. It 
 had existed for ages before the Reformation : it was 
 universal, extending to all parts of the world, and 
 to all orders in the church, beginning at the Popes 
 and Cardinals, Bishops and Priests : it was deep 
 and dreadful, striking at the foundation of morals ; 
 so that religion lay expiring on the altar, by the 
 hands of her priests. The history of the immo- 
 ralities of your Popes, Prelates and Priests alone 
 would fill a volume. We give (in addition to 
 those recorded in previous letters) only a few 
 examples. Erasmus (Ann. in. Epis. ad Tim. 
 c. 3) writes : " If any one consider the state of 
 these times, how great a part of mankind the mul- 
 titude of monks take up; how great apart the colle- 
 ges of Priests and clergymen ; and then consider 
 1 how few out of so great a number truly preserve 
 J chastity of life, with how great scandal most of 
 1 them are openly incestuous, and incontinent, into 
 I what kinds of lusts, innumerable of them degene- 
 rate, he will perhaps conclude it were conveni- 
 / ent that those who are not continent, may have 
 * the freedom of public marriage, which they may 
 ' purely and chastely, and without infamy, main- 
 t tain." Gerson (De vita Spirit. Animae Lee. 4.) 
 ', affirms "that unchaste Priests must be tolerated or 
 no Priests can be had." Clemangis (Ue Corrupt. 
 Eccl. stat. p. 15.) writes that the Priests openly 
 kept concubines at a stated price paid to the Bishop. 
 » In Germany this system was carried so far, 
 j that the licenses to do so, were forced even upon 
 j those who did not wish them, that the tax 
 ; might not be lost; and in Switzerland QSleidan 
 i Com. 1. 3.) every new Pastor was required to take 
 \ a concubine that he might not endanger the fami- 
 " lies of his charge. The Bishop of Saltzburg (Onus 
 Ecclesiac chap. 22) tells us that "the nunneries in 
 his time were as publicly prostituted as the com- 
 "■"•mon brothels." Sunt propatula ut ipsa loca vene- 
 ris. Thuanus (a Roman Catholic Historian, B. 
 37. p. 766, A. D. 1566) says, that when Pope Paul 
 5th, thought of putting down the public brothels in 
 Rome and expelling the courtezans the city, the 
 senate of Rome, instigated privately by the clergy in~ 
 terceded with him not to do it ': and they added this 
 reason, that if such a crowd of unmarried Priests 
 » were left in the city without these evil women, it 
 would be impossible to preserve the chastity of 
 their families." This shocking state of things 
 among the Priests of the Holy .city was nearly 
 half a century after the Reformation of Luther 
 ha°d begun. Nor let it be supposed that this was 
 done without approval. It was defended and sus- 
 tained by example, license, and even by publicly 
 avowed principle. It was tolerated when reform 
 was called for from every throne, and from all 
 
 parts of the world. It is notorious that the Pope 
 of Rome licensed brothels and built stews in the 
 city of Rome, and at one time he drew from them 
 an annual revenue of 20,000 ducats; the crowd 
 of such women in the keeping of the priests was 
 immense ; and the revenue collected week after 
 week, was taken from the chest in which the 
 price of iniquity ivas cast and divided equally be- 
 tween the houses, the women, and the Popes! 
 If you would have more full references, they are 
 at hand. Bellarmine, sustained by Coster, Pighius, 
 Cardinal Hosius, and Cardinal Campegius, does 
 not hesitate to declare " that it is a greater evil, 
 (i. e. under a vow of celibacy) so to marry than to 
 commit fornication. Est majus malum sic nubere, 
 quam fornicari. (Bel. b. 2. De Monachis c. 34.) 
 and the reason which he assigns for this is its own 
 best comment, viz. "because she who thus mar- 
 ries renders herself incapable of keeping her vow ; 
 but she who commits fornication is not incapable." 
 Quia quae ita nubit, redditse inhabilem ad votum 
 servandum; quod non facit, quae fornicatur. I 
 need not here remind you of the incest of Paul the 
 3d, the sodomies of Julius the 3d, and the vile com- 
 merce of Innocent the 10th with his brother's wife, 
 Otympia. Abbott Gualdi pronounces his amours 
 almost without a parallel for scandal and illicit love. 
 John Casa, Archbishop of Beneventum and legate of 
 the Pope, published an apology for sodomy ; and 
 Gualter Mapes complains that the Priests used to 
 suspend the salvation of females at confession, upon the 
 condition of yielding to their infamous wishes ! Hor- 
 ror and shame alternately possess me while I record 
 these enormities. But if the perusal makes us 
 shudder and blush, what must the ■perpetration of 
 them have been! 
 
 We said that these immoralities were in part, 
 produced by the peculiar institutions of the 
 church. We alluded to the monasteries, nun- 
 neries, vows of celibacy, and especially the celi- 
 bacy of the clergy. Strange as it may seem, 
 these institutions and vows, were professedly es- 
 tablished and enforced to advance piety, and se- 
 cure purity of life. But in this as in most cases 
 where men attempt to be wiser than God, the re- 
 sult has been of the most disastrous character. 
 We would not be understood indiscriminately to 
 condemn a life of voluntary celibacy. " Both vir- 
 ginity and marriage were states of innocence, and 
 of paradise. Christ has consecrated both, having 
 been born of a virgin, and yet of a woman who 
 was then betrothed and afterwards married." 
 The Council of Trent not only encouraged mo- 
 nastic vows, but enforced celibacy on the clergy. 
 This is both a novelty and an innovation in the 
 Church of God. The word of God declares 
 Heb. xiii. 4. " that marriage is honourable in ally 
 The church of Rome on the contrary forbids it to 
 her clergy. The word of God declares that " a 
 bishop must be the husband of one wife." Tit. i. 6. 
 The Church of Rome forbids it ; and dares to 
 put asunder what God hath joined together, se- 
 parating the priest or bishop from his lawful 
 wife, and anathematizes those who dissent from 
 her decree. Chrysostom on the last named 
 Scripture, makes this decisive comment : " the 
 
9£5 
 
 apostle prescribed this passage to this end, that 
 he might stop the mouths of heretics who re- 
 proached marriage ; declaring thereby that mar- 
 riage is no unclean thing, but so honourable that 
 a married man may be exalted to the sacred 
 throne of a bishop." (Horn. 2. c. 1. ad. Tit.) 
 It is very remarkable that the Apostle Paul in 
 immediate connnexion with his definition of a 
 Bishop's qualifications (among which he men- 
 tions that he must be the husband of one wife, 
 1 Tim. iii. 2.) predicts the coming of seducing 
 spirits who should depart from the faith, " forbid 
 to marry, and command to abstain from meats.'''' 
 I leave the application for yourself, reminding 
 you that the early heretics, viz : the Manichees, 
 Nicholaitans, &c. unite with the Church of Rome 
 and the followers of Joanna Southcote and Jemi- 
 ma Wilkinson in more modern times, in " forbid- 
 ding to marry." Radolpho Pio-di Carpo, an 
 Italian Cardinal in the Council of Trent, when 
 various princes pressed the propriety of the 
 priests marrying, told the Council in a speech, 
 " this inconvenience would follow from it, that 
 having house, wife, and children, they will not 
 depend on the Pope, but on the prince ; and their 
 love to their children will make them yield to 
 any prejudice of the church and they will seek 
 to make the benefices hereditary, and so in a short 
 time the authority of the Apostolic See will becon- 
 fined within Rome." (Hist. Coun. Trent. B. 5.) 
 It was the abounding corruptions of the church 
 of Rome, and especially of Rome itself, that 
 made the candid Roman Catholi* author of the 
 " Onus Ecclesiae" call Rome " the seat of the 
 Beast, the church of the wicked, the kingdom 
 of darkness, sustained by simony and ambition, 
 filled with covetousness, a gulph of crimes." 
 (Chap. 21.) 
 
 You have been pleased, entirely to overlook 
 the long extracts which I made, in letter No. 
 18, addressed to Pope Paul the 3d, by four. Car- 
 dinals, and four other distinguished Prelates at 
 his own request, containing a picture of the 
 church, drawn by the hands of its friends, which 
 for deformity and crime finds not a parallel in 
 the history of the world. I also gave you large 
 extracts, in Letter No. 20, from the address of 
 the Bishops at Bononia to Paul the 3d, and re- 
 ferred you, for this shocking but faithful sketch, 
 to Verjerius and Wolfius. I pointed you also to 
 the " one hundred grievances'" of the German 
 States, detailing the corruptions of the church 
 and calling for reform. But nothing can break 
 the profound and wise silence which you have 
 decreed upon this subject. Without further en- 
 larging upon it now, I would direct our readers 
 to the "Provincial Letters" of Pascal, in which, 
 though himself a Roman Catholic, he exposes 
 with the pen of a master, the casuistry of the 
 Jesuits in destroying the foundation of morak. 
 There, within a short compass, it is clearly 
 shown, how the order of the Jesuits, who are now 
 in high favour at Rome, make truth, and sacred 
 oaths, and loyalty, and justice, and chastity, and 
 principle, in all its forms, give way to their re- 
 fined interpretations and infamous doctrines. 
 
 And yet I find that on the last Sabbath day the 
 President of Georgetown College, District of Co- 
 lumbia, delivered in St. Joseph's church in this 
 city a Panegyric (according to public notice) on 
 St. Ignatius Loyola, founder of the society of Je- 
 suits.'.'.' How well has St. Chrysostom said, 
 (In 1 Tim. 1. hom. 5.) "When men lead corrupt 
 lives it is impossible they should keep them- 
 selves from falling into perverse doctrines." 
 
 II. We would next exhibit the forged, miracles, 
 the legalized, impositions of the Church of Rome. 
 
 We have already, in a previous letter, made 
 reference to the authority of the Breviary as the 
 book of common prayer in the Church of Rome. 
 The Latin edition of this work, now before me, 
 revised by three Popes and of unquestioned au- 
 thority, is a very fountain of the grossest frauds 
 and superstition. I find for example, under the 
 festival appointed for the 15th day of October 
 (pages 1011, 1012) in honour of the Virgin Saint 
 Teresa, the following narrative. " She burned 
 with so strong a desire for chastising her body, 
 that although disease seemed to deter from it, 
 she inflicted on herself the severest pains and 
 penalties by the use of hair-cloth, chains, prick- 
 ing-nettles, and likewise by most severe flagella- 
 tions ; and sometimes while rolling herself on 
 thorns, she would thus hold communion with 
 God; ' O Lord, I must afflict myself or die.'' Being 
 premonished of her death, she breathed out her 
 most pure soul to God in the form of a dove, 
 aged sixty seven, in the year 1502. Jesus 
 Christ appeared to her, as she was dying, sur- 
 rounded by bands of angels; and immediately a 
 lifeless and barren tree, which stood near to her 
 cell bloomed forth. Her body continues incor- 
 rupt until this day, (the 18th century) circumfus- 
 ed in a sacred fluid, and is worshipped with reli- 
 gious veneration. She was made illustrious by 
 miracles wrought by her, both before and after 
 death. Gregory the 15th has canonized her." 
 Here we see flagellation and other self-inflicted 
 punishments recommended, and the most notori- 
 ous frauds, gravely put upon the people, in their 
 standard prayer book, for real miracles. 
 
 It is related of Dionysius in the same booki 
 " that after he had been beheaded he took his 
 head in his arms, and carried it no less than two 
 thousand paces." (See Breviary 1007 p.) In tho 
 festival of August the 1st, in honour of the chains 
 of St. Peter (p. 877) is the following narrative. 
 " Eudoxia the wife of the Emperor Theodosius 
 the younger, being on a pilgrimage at Jerusalem 
 received among other presents, the chain with 
 which the Apostle Peter was bound by Herod. 
 Eudoxia with pious veneration, sent this chain to 
 her daughter who was then at Rome, who carried 
 it to the Pope, the Pope in return showed her 
 another chain with which the same apostle had 
 been bound by Nero. As soon the two chains 
 were brought together it came to pass, that they 
 instantly flew to each other, and the links formed 
 one chain as if welded by art." In honour of so 
 great a miracle the church instituted the festival 
 " ad vinculum In the proclamation of the jubi- 
 lee for 1825, the Pope expressly mentions this 
 
236 
 
 ain as an inducement to the faithful to visit 
 
 3me that they might kiss it, and secure the in- 
 
 llgences peculiar to such miracles and relics, 
 
 c. In pages 971 — 2 are recorded the feats 
 
 ■id miracles of St. Januarius livrng and dead. 
 
 Ve are seriously told on the authority of the 
 
 .1 fal 1 i b 1 e church, that "by means of his dead 
 
 ody which was preserved at Naples, an eruption 
 
 »f Mount Vesuvius that was spreading desolation 
 
 ar and wide, was miraculously extinguished. 
 
 What is still more illustrious, his blood, some 
 
 of which is preserved in a glass phial at Naples 
 
 E'n a coagulated state, when brought within reach 
 if the Martyr's head is immediately liquefied, 
 and hails up as if recently shed; and this miracle 
 may be seen even at the present linle. ,, That 
 there may be no question about this record I give 
 the original. Praeclarum illud quoque, quod 
 ejus sanguis, qui in ampulla vitrea concretus 
 asservatur, cum in conspectu capitis ejusdem Mar- 
 tyris ponitur, admirandum in modum collique — 
 fieri, et ebullire, perinde atque recens effusus. 
 Ad haec usque tempora cernitur. Great as is 
 this miracle, the chemist's test has been studious- 
 ly resisted. It would be easy to settle this question 
 by such a trial, and real miracles invite inquiry. 
 But the Pope is too wise to hazard an experi- 
 ment, and yet it is a miracle professedly of fif- 
 teen hundred years standing, and is at this day 
 sanctioned by the Roman Breviary and celebrated 
 in the public worship of the whole church. 
 When the French troops first occupied Naples, 
 this miracle, which is annual, failed to occur; 
 with the design of agitating the people and produc- 
 ing an injurious impression towards the French. 
 But the French general sent a positive order to the 
 saint to do his duty under the pain of making an 
 example of the priest if he failed. He promptly 
 obeyed : the miracle was immediately wrought/ 
 Once more : The translation of the house of 
 Loretto from Palestine to Italy, is recorded in 
 -'the collect of that festival, even in a direct ad- 
 *. dress to the Deity. It is pretended, that this 
 Jhouse, in which the Virgin Mary was born 
 ■ at Nazareth, was translated by angels in the 
 Jl3th century across the Sea into Dalmatia, and 
 afterwards into Italy, where it now stands under 
 the name of " our Lady of Loretto's Chapel." 
 When the question arises about the truth of the 
 miracle and the identity of the house, the Bulls 
 of Popes are adduced to confirm the faith of the 
 doubting. With such frauds are the bigoted and 
 deluded millions deceived, and by such attesta- 
 tions does the infallible Church confirm the truth 
 of her doctrines, and the holiness of her charac- 
 ter. The following prophecy, (2 Thess. ii. 3 — 
 10.) though penned in the first century, is as true 
 to the life, as if it had been written by an eye- 
 witness. " Let no man deceive you by any 
 means : for that day shall not come, except there 
 come a fulling away first, and that man of sin be 
 revealed the son of perdition ; who opposeth and 
 exalteth himself above all that is called God, or 
 that is worshipped ; so that he, as God, sitteth 
 in the temple of God, showing himself that he is 
 God. Remember ye not, that when I was yet 
 
 with you, I told you these things'? And now ye 
 know what withholdeth that he might be re- 
 vealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity 
 doth already work ; only he who now letteth, 
 will let, until he be taken out of the way, and 
 then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the 
 Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, 
 and shall destroy with the brightness of his com- 
 ing : Even him, whose coming is after the work- 
 ing of Satan, with all power and signs, and lying 
 wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighte- 
 ousness in them that perish ; because they re- 
 ceived not the love of the truth that they might 
 be saved." 
 
 Besides the false miracles thus attested by the 
 Church of Rome, the rites, ceremonies, and ob- 
 servances of the Church are characterized by the 
 grossest superstitions, and exhibit a ritual-wor- 
 ship derived directly from the Pagans. The cele- 
 biation of the Mass, the burning of tapers, the 
 whole system of processions, the use of holy wa- 
 ter, their exorcisms, beads, rosaries, &c, their 
 talismans, amulets, and Agnus Dei, their lustra- 
 tions, blessing of beasts, &c. &c, constitute one 
 deforming assemblage of heathenish superstition. 
 Look for example at the style of Baptism as con- 
 trasted with the simple institution of Jesus 
 Christ. "The Priest in the first place calls for 
 a lighted candle ; he then procures some holy 
 water, he next calls for salt, which has been ex- 
 orcised, some water, tow, the oil-box, &c; he 
 then prepares a solution of salt and water for the 
 aspersion of the child, much in the way in which 
 holy water is made, describing hieroglyphics 
 with his hand, and pronouncing at the same time 
 some cabalistic words in Latin. Next he com- 
 mences expelling the Devil from the child, he 
 then puts salt into its mouth, besmears the eyes, 
 nose, and ears of the child with spittle, and after 
 pouring water on the child's head, rubs sweet oil 
 on its crown and shoulders." 
 
 We spoke of talismans, amulets, &c, as sanc- 
 tioned by the Church of Rome. Take as a spe- 
 cimen the Agnus Dei, or little image of a Lamb, 
 made of a compound of virgin-wax, balm, and 
 consecrated oil, which they hang about the neck, 
 like the Heathen, to preserve them from diseases, 
 evil spirits, &c. The Pope consecrates the Ag- 
 nus Dei, in the first year of his Pontificate, and 
 afterwards every seventh year, on Saturday, be- 
 fore low Sunday, with many solemn ceremonies. 
 The preiended properties and virtues of these 
 talismans are described by Pope Urban V. (who 
 sent one of them to Constantinople to be presented 
 to the Emperor,) in the following inimitable 
 lines : 
 
 Balsamus et munda cera cum Chrismatis unda, 
 Conficiunt Agnum quod munus do tibi magnum. 
 Fulgura desursum depellit, onine malignum. 
 Peccatum frangit, ut Christi sanguis, et angit. 
 Pregnaus servalur, simul et partus liberalur. 
 Dona defert dignis, virtutem deslruit ignis. 
 Porlatus munde, de fluctibus eripit undae." 
 
 I refer these infallible and lofty lines for poe- 
 tieal rendering to the pen of your holy poet, ci- 
 devant, Tom. Moore. Our readers for the present 
 
227 
 
 must be satisfied with the following plain English 
 translation. " They prevent the ill effects of 
 thunder and lightning, they preserve pregnant 
 women from miscarriages, and procure a happy 
 delivery. They grant spiritual gifts to the worthy. 
 They extinguish fires and preserve from drown- 
 ing." 
 
 In the last pages of the Missal, whose leaves 
 you doubtless turn over every day as a Priest at 
 the altar, there are contained exorcisms and bene- 
 dictions for salt, and water, and for the mingling 
 of these, for sheep, for bread, for fruit and other 
 food, for candles, places, houses, beds, ships, sa- 
 cerdotal robes, &c. &c. We give as an example 
 the exorcism of water. " I exorcise thee O creature 
 of water, in the name of God f the Omnipotent 
 Father, and in the name of Jesus f Christ his Son, 
 our Lord, and by the virtue of the Holy j - Ghost; 
 that thou mayest become exorcised water, and may 
 prevail in chasing away the powerof the Evil one, 
 and be able to supplant and expel him and his 
 fallen angels, .by the merit of the same Jesus 
 Christ our Lord." The prayer of consecration. "O 
 Lord be present to bless our invocation and infuse 
 into this element, thus prepared by many fold pu- 
 rifications, the virtue of thy Benefdiction : that 
 this thy creature made subservient to thy myste- 
 ries, may have the effect of divine grace in expel- 
 ling devils and diseases : that in whatever houses 
 or' places of the faithful this water may be sprink- 
 led, all noxious uncleanness may cease: let no 
 pestilent spirit or corrupt air abide in them: let 
 all the snares of the evil one come to naught: and 
 if there be any tiling which threatens the safety 
 or quiet of the inhabitants, may it be chased away 
 by the sprinkling of this water, &c." 
 
 From these most painful and humiliating details 
 I gladly turn away, asking, if any church enjoin- 
 ing such heathenish rites and superstitious cere- 
 monies as these, and sustaining them by such bare- 
 faced impostures called miracles, can be the true, 
 the only true, the holy and infallible church of 
 Jesus Christ, out of which there is no salvation] 
 These are some of the errors and evils, against 
 which we protest, and for whose reform our fathers 
 plead in vain ! 
 
 III. As you profess to have in the Church of 
 Rome the unbroken and exclusive succession 
 from the Apostle Peter to the present time, I will 
 next examine this claim. 
 
 I hav», already, proved (see letter No. 22,) 
 that the supremacy of the Pope is an anti- chris- 
 tian usurpation of which the Scriptures are whol- 
 ly silent; and whose origin is found, ages after 
 the death of Christ. But even on your own prin- 
 ciples, Bellarmine allows (B. 2. c. 1. of the 
 Pope,) " The right of succession in the Popes of 
 Rome is founded in this, that Peter, by Christ's 
 appointment placed his seat at Rome, and there 
 remained until his death." 
 
 1. But there is no certainty whatever that Pe- 
 ter ever was at Rome. The Scripture is wholly 
 silent about it. Paul was there once and again ; 
 and in his epistles written from Rome he records 
 a long list of names, and among them even a 
 refugee-slave; but not a word of Pope Peter. 
 
 The Rhemish Commentators are so anxious to 
 prove this from Scripture, that they say Babylon 
 from which Peter wrote his first epistle, was 
 Rome. But if this be so, then confessedly, Rome 
 is the Anti-Christ mentioned in Revelations, 16th 
 and 17th chapters. 
 
 2. Allowing that Peter was at Rome, there is 
 not a shadow of proof that he had his seat there, 
 or that Christ appointed him to be Bishop of 
 Rome. The Bible is wholly silent on this sub- 
 ject also. Yet surely in fixing the imperial seat, 
 and appointing the monarch and head of the uni- 
 versal church, we might expect it to be full and 
 definite, saying, " this is the place," " this is the 
 man," "hear ye him." So far from this, Peter 
 had quite another sphere. His field of labour 
 was far, far away from Rome; and his office as 
 an Apostle, made it impossible for him to be a 
 Bishop, or to be local, or to have a successor 
 at all. 
 
 3. The Apostle John survived Peter some 30 
 years. Hence the succsssion, if any, must come 
 from John, or else the Pope who succeeded Peter 
 was the head of the church, and above an Apos- 
 tle. But you do not pretend to trace succession 
 from John; and your own doctrines lead you to 
 deny that the successor of Peter was superior to 
 John. Therefore your succession is irreparably 
 ruined at the threshhold. If not, will you please 
 to explain this dilemma'? 
 
 4. It is not agreed among yourselves whether 
 Linus, or Clemens, or Cletus, or Anacletus suc- 
 ceeded as second Pope. The Fathers are divided 
 about it; so are your standard authors. Bellar- 
 mine owns this to be the fact. Here then, the suc- 
 cession fails again, at the IhirdWnk. 
 
 5. What were the character and doctrine, of 
 these pretended successors of Peter. There 
 were fifty Popes in a line, says Genebrard, who 
 were .Apostates. Baronius tells us that strumpets' 
 elected several Popes, whom they also ruled, • 
 having driven away the true Popes, and that their'' 
 names were written in the catalogues of the Popes 
 only to note the times. These testimonies have 
 been brought forward before ; but you lack " in- 
 tention,'''' and therefore they are of no avail. Bel- 
 larmine says, (Book 4. c. 14. on Popes,) "that 
 at the Council of Constance there were three 
 who claimed to be Popes, John XXIII., Greg- 
 ory XII., and Benedict XIII.; each having very 
 learned advocates; and it could not be readily 
 decided which was the 4.rue Pope." Again, (in 
 his B. 2. c. 19. of Councils) he says, " a doubt- 
 ful Pope is reckoned no Pope." Since then there 
 were false Popes, and apostate Popes, and several 
 Popes at once, who being doubtful, were no Popes, 
 is not the succession of your Church forever gone? 
 And then as to the doctrines of these Popes, what 
 were they? Ambrose saith, " they have not the 
 succession of Peter, who have not his faith.''' 
 (Ambrose de Poenit. B. I. c. 6.) Gratian has 
 practiced a fraud upon this passage, making it 
 read " seat" of Peter, instead of " faith" of Pe- 
 ter. This is owning that " in faith" the succes- 
 sion was gone. I have heretofore mentioned 
 several heretical Popes. Their contradictions of 
 
228 
 
 each other, and their departure from the faith of 
 the Church, are matters of such notoriety that 
 you will not deny them. If you do, I can name 
 them at will. I will here only advert to Liberius, 
 the Arian Pope. And 1 ask you did he or did 
 he not sign the Arian Creed ? Yes, or no? He 
 ■did, as your own historians confess, publicly 
 adopt the Arian Heresy. Then while he was an 
 Arian, what became of the Apostolical succes- 
 sion 1 ? when the Head of the universal Church 
 as you declare him to have been, became radi- 
 cally, and avowedly a Heretic, either his heresy 
 made his office vacant, or else he continued the 
 Head Of the Church. If the former, then the 
 succession was broken for want of a Pope. If 
 •the latter, then your succession is kept up through 
 the Arian line, and by the destruction of the true 
 faith. 
 
 6. The succession in your church is ruined by 
 the schisms and electoral variations of the Papa- 
 cy. Geddes enumerated twenty-four schisms. 
 Mayer and Barenius twenty-six ; and Onufrius 
 thirty, which is the common estimate. The se- 
 cond schism in the Papacy lasted for three years, 
 It arose between Liberius and Felix, both of 
 whom were Arians ; yet now both, are on the ca- 
 lender of Roman saints! The seventh schism 
 distinguised the Popedoms of Silverius and Vigi- 
 lius. Silverius obtained the Pontificate by si- 
 mony, and was supplanted by Vigilius, by similar 
 means. They were rival Popes, occupying pro- 
 fessedly the Papal chair at the same time. Ac- 
 cording to canon law, as well as common sense, 
 -this was impossible ; and yet the schism, nulli- 
 fied the succession. Formosus and Sergius dis- 
 graced the Papacy, divided the church and des- 
 troyed the succession, by the thirteenth schism. 
 About this time a number of the Popes were 
 monsters upon earth. Stephen, who succeed For- 
 mosus, violated his grave, and insulted his dead 
 hody, as we have already related. John the tenth re- 
 scinded in turn the acts of Stephen ; and Sergius 
 ao-ain the acts of John, restoring the ordinations 
 of Stephen and annulling the ordinations of For- 
 mosus. Amidst these conflicts, schisms, and 
 mutual abrogations of each other's Pontifical ordi- 
 nations and acts, where was the succession, either 
 of the Popes, or of the clergy? In the 11th cen- 
 tury Pope Sylvester, Pope John, and Pope Bene- 
 dict, all reigned at the same time, exhibiting a 
 specimen of°a Papal Cerberus. The great west- 
 ern schism, being the twenty-ninth division, lasted 
 for fifty years, and extended through the reigns of 
 Urbahj Boniface, Innocent, Gregory, Clement, 
 and Benedict. Rival Popes reigned at Avignon, 
 und Rome, and distracted the church and the 
 world with schism and revolution, with atrocious 
 •crimes and unbounded wretchedness. Amidst these 
 thirty schisms, where is the Apostolical succession ? 
 Amidst ordinations and -counter-ordinations, and 
 ordinations recalled, where was the succession of 
 the clergy ? Papal succession thus lies buried in 
 a heap of ruins, and is attended with more diffi- 
 culty than " the quadrature of the circle or the 
 longitude at sea." And yet you boast of your 
 unbroken succession from the Apostle Peter, and 
 
 array with empty pageantry, from letter to letter 
 your objections against the rights of Protestant 
 ministers to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 
 
 7. In the age of Liberius and Felix, the rival 
 Arian Popes, the Church of Rome, and the 
 church at large, also became Arian. The Tyrian 
 Synod convened by the Emperor, A. D. 335, 
 adopted the Arian creed, and excommunicated 
 Athanasius, the champion of truth. The Synod 
 of Antioch also degraded this great man. The 
 Synod of Aries in 353 sustained the heresy of 
 Arius, and condemned Athanasius. In 355 the 
 Synod of Milan, a Western Council, and composed 
 of several hundred members, formally denounced 
 the true faith. Thus western and eastern Chris- 
 tendom united to espouse Arianism. The Sir- 
 mian Council issued three creeds. The second 
 of these, A. D. 357, was without mixture Arian, 
 and this was confirmed by Pope Liberius. Du 
 Pin gives this testimony, and is sustained by 
 Hilary, who calls this formulary " the Arian per- 
 fidy;" and by Athanasius, Jerome, Sozomen, 
 &c. &c. 
 
 Here then the Papal Church in its head and in 
 •its representatives a^Sirmium apostatized from the 
 true faith, and adopted at large a fatal heresy. 
 The Council of Ariminum met in 359, ajad was 
 composed of from four to six hundred Bishops. 
 It seemed to begin well, but ended in subscribing 
 the semi-Arian Creed and making the Son of God 
 a creature. About this time Arianism filled the 
 world. Sozomen, Jerome, Gregory, Basil, Pros- 
 per, Baronius, and Bede acknowledge this. Arian- 
 ism was thus sanctioned by Popes, Councils, and 
 the Church at large. From these undeniable facts 
 we draw the following conclusions. (1.) The true 
 succession of the Church of Rome is -irrecover- 
 ably lost amidst the apostacy and heresy of her 
 Popes and Bishops, unless you trace it in the 
 Arian line. (2.) As the head and great body of 
 the Church, both generally, and in Councils were 
 radically heretical, separation was not only the 
 right but duty of the faithful. Arianism was sub- 
 scribed by the Pope, and sustained by the Coun- 
 cils ; the Emperor directed all his power to per- 
 secute the orthodox, and establish heresy : the 
 pulpits and the churches were filled with Arians ; 
 and Athanasius himself was condemned and ex- 
 communicated. In these circumstances God's peo- 
 ple must either subscribe to heresy, and be subject 
 to daily contamination themselves, or else sepa- 
 rate themselves. They chose to separate them- 
 selves. In the manner of this separation they 
 had no more choice, than they had in the duty of 
 it. Their number was as one to a thousand. 
 Every decree and question was carried against 
 them. Thus outnumbered, and the Pope against 
 them, their only choice was to retire ; nay, they 
 were denounced and excommunicated ; they fled 
 to the forests ; they held their religious assem- 
 blies in the fields; they withdrew from the con- 
 tagion of the corrupted church. And for this the 
 orthodox fathers commmend them. But on your 
 principles they were bound to stay: they had no 
 right to go. The Arians had authority from God 
 to force their faith upon them, and to " unfrock" 
 
339 
 
 even Athanasius for refusing to subscribe their 
 abominable creed. But if the church at large may 
 become so corrupt in faith or morals, or both, as 
 to leave the faithful no choice but heresy or sepa- 
 ration, then separation is a duty ; and then, also, 
 wicked excommunications can have no binding 
 authority : for that ivhich makes it a sin to con- 
 form, also nullifies the excommunicating act. It 
 is the church which goes out ; and she carries 
 with her the institutions and blessings of her di- 
 vine head. You evade this reasoning, by deny- 
 ing that the church can err. But facts confute 
 you. You say that God has promised that the 
 gates of hell shall not prevail against her. True : 
 and the very way to fulfil it is to separate the 
 good from the evil ; as Athanasius did from the 
 Aiians, and the Reformers from the Pope of 
 Rome. That promise is that a church shall al- 
 ways exist, but not an infallible one ; and it was 
 made to the Catholic not the Roman church ! The 
 true Catholic church cannot fail. But the Roman, 
 which never was the Catholic church (and was 
 not called so forages after the death of Christ.) 
 was threatened with excision by the Apostle Paul. 
 Rom. xi. 20—22. |" Thou standest by faith— other- 
 wise thou also shalt be cut off"." 
 
 We have now reached the second era in this dis- 
 cussion, viz: your attempt at a defence of some of 
 your peculiar doctrines. The very fact that you feel 
 it necessary to do so, after what you have hereto- 
 fore said, is a fine index to the present state of 
 the discussion. From a crowd of pressing diffi- 
 culties on Supremacy, Indulgences, Purgatory, 
 Idolatory, Extreme Unction, etc. etc. you se- 
 lect for defence the doctrine of Transubstantia- 
 tion. In your argument we meet the newly 
 christened "defender of the faith," Thomas 
 Moore, at almost every step. In his " Travels 
 in search of a Religion," he found it convenient 
 to pass by the word of God, agreeing no doubt 
 with you, (in your discussion on the "rule of 
 faith") that when left to speak for itself, it does 
 not teach the religion of Rome. If, in his travels 
 he had visited Rome, or touched at the Inquisition, 
 or met the Council of Sirmium, or mingled with 
 the Council of Constance, he might have given 
 a very different report. At the latter place, he 
 might have relieved the severity of theological 
 discussion by the more agreeable communion of 
 those fifteen hundred fair companions who at- 
 tended the holy fathers ,■ and have found a mar- 
 ket for his " amatory poetry," as well as ma- 
 terials for the defence of the infallible church. 
 I do not blame you, however, for availing yourself 
 of every help in time of need. His book, has no- 
 thing new, save the service to which it led him. 
 But to proceed. It is not a little surprising that 
 in a defence of Transubstantiation covering five 
 columns, you should not only begin with the fa- 
 thers (instead of the Bible) but should also en- 
 tirely evade the testimony of your writers and 
 the body of my arguments given in Letter 24. 
 You will permit me to invert the order of discus- 
 sion, by beginning with the Scriptures. And 
 first, in regard to John, 6th chapter, where it is 
 
 thus written. " Except ye eat the flesh of the 
 Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life 
 in you." verse 53. On this passage you attempt 
 to found the doctrine of Transubstantiation. But 
 observe (1.) if this be taken literally"\\ will prove 
 that Christ's body was changed into bread, and 
 not the bread into his body ; for he expressly 
 says " this is the bread which cometh down from 
 heaven." verse 50. But your doctrine is the re- 
 verse of this, viz. that the bread is chano-ed into 1 
 his body. Of course this passage gives no sup- 
 port to your doctrine. Besides, this discourse 
 was delivered more than a year before the insti- 
 tution of the last supper, and (as Cusanus, Biel, 
 Cajetan, Tapper, Hessels, Jansenius, all Roman 
 Catholic writers, allow) had no reference to that 
 sacrament. (2.) In verses 32, 33, Christ ex- 
 pressly tells us, that the bread he is here speak- 
 ing of came down from heaven,- but his natural 
 body was born on earth and had never been in 
 heaven ; and the bread which you say is chano-ed 
 into his body, " is of the earth earthly." It fol- 
 lows, therefore, that Christ did not here refer at 
 all to the sacrament. (3.) Such was the virtue of 
 the bread here spoken of, that whoever ate of it had 
 eternal life, " if any man eat of this bread he shall 
 live forever." v. 51. If then, Christ here speaks of 
 the last supper, it follows, that all who partake 
 of it, are forever saved. But this your own 
 dogmas contradict. Therefore, on your own 
 principles Christ spoke not of the Eucharist. 
 (1.) Whosever eats not this bread is lost for ever. 
 " Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man ye 
 have no life in you." ver. 53. Then, if this pas- 
 sage refers to the Lord's supper all are damned 
 who do not partake of it. Will you follow your 
 false logic to such an issue? And again, Christ 
 said, ver. 53. "Except ye drink the blood of 
 the Son of man, ye have no life in you." But the 
 cup is forbidden to the laity by your church under 
 a heavy anathema. Then if Christ is here speak- 
 ing of the Eucharist, all the laity in the church 
 of Rome are lost forever, and that by the ex- 
 press law of said church. Therefore, if your 
 argument be true, you must restore the cup to 
 the people, or destroy all their souls. (5.) Christ 
 expressly tells us that this is throughout, a fig- 
 ure and has not a literal but a spiritual meaning; 
 that it is not an external eating and drinking 
 with the mouth, but an internal and spiritual par- 
 ticipation effected in the soul of the believer, 
 through a living faith, and by the quickening 
 spirit of Christ. The Jews, understood Christ 
 literally and grossly, just as Roman Catholics 
 do now ; but he openly rebuked them for their 
 carnal stupidity, in mistaking his meaning. 
 " This is that bread which came down from hea- 
 ven ; not as your fathers did eat manna. It 
 
 is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth 
 nothing ; the words that I speak unto you, they 
 are spirit and they are life. But there are some 
 of you that believe not," vs. 58, 63. 64. Such 
 is the obvious destruction of your doctrine as 
 founded upon this passage. But that you may 
 see that this interpretation is agreeable to anti- 
 
330 
 
 quity, I will adduce the testimony of the Fathers. 
 Eusebius, (Lib. 3. Ecclesiast. Theologiae, Cont. 
 Marcell.) Speaking of the above words of Christ, 
 in paraphrase, he says, "Do not think that I speak 
 of that flesh wherewith I urn cnmpasscd as if you 
 must eat of that; neither imagine that I command 
 you, to drink of my sensible and bodily blood: 
 but understand that the words which I have 
 spoken unto you are spirit and life. So that those 
 very words and speeches of his, are his flesh and 
 blood." Augustine, (In serm. ad. infan. de Sac. 
 apud Bedam.) " It is no way to be doubted by 
 any one that the faithful are made partakers of 
 the body and blood of Christ, when they are 
 made members of Christ in Baptism ; and they 
 are not estranged from the communion of that 
 bread and that cup, although before they eat that 
 bread and drink that cup, they depart out of this 
 world, being united to the body of Christ; for 
 they are not deprived of the participation and 
 benefit of the Sacrament when they have found that 
 which the Sacrament doth signify. And ao-ain, 
 (in Evang. John, Tracts 25, 26, 50.) ""how 
 shall I send up my hand into heaven and take 
 hold on Christ sitting there ! Send thy faith and 
 thou hast hold of him. Why preparest thou thy 
 teeth and thy belly ? Believe, and thou hast eaten. 
 For this is to eat the living bread; to believe in 
 him. He that believeth in him eateth. He is in- 
 visibly fed, because he is invisibly regenerated. 
 He is inwardly a babe, inwardly renewed : where 
 he is renewed, there he is nourished '." 
 
 How plain is it then, that the Fathers dissented 
 from the carnal and senseless construction of your 
 church; and how affecting is the evidence, that the 
 spirituality of religion and the quickening grace 
 of God's Holy Spirit, are as little understood by 
 the Roman priesthood, as they were of old by 
 Nicodemus and the unbelieving Jews. 
 
 I regret that the limits of the present letter for- 
 bid me to enter farther on the confutation and expo- 
 sure of your use of the Scriptures and the Fathers 
 -in your defence of Transubstantiation. While 
 I refer our readers to what you have left unan- 
 swered on this subject in my Letter No. XXI V. 
 I pledge myself to do this at large, if my life is 
 spared, in my next letter. 
 
 When I quoted for your perusal, the chal- 
 lenge of Bishop Jewel, it was rather to invite 
 your attention to his reasoning, than his charac- 
 ter ; and you must be aware that you do net 
 answer the one, by attacking the other. It is 
 true, even as you have said, that he once con- 
 fessed " he had written what Jie had done 
 against his own knowledge and conscience, 
 only to comply with the state, and the religion 
 which it had set up." When Mary of bloody 
 memory, ascended the throne of England, and re- 
 established by her memorable persecutions and 
 cruelties, the religion of Rome, Jewel was hunt- 
 ed down and compelled either to renounce his 
 religion or go the stake. " His cowardly mind" 
 as he himself confessed, yielded in the hour of dan- 
 ger and temptation to a forced conformity. It is to 
 this he refers in the language which you adduce. 
 A.nd yet with unaccountable license, you make it 
 
 appear, at the close of your letter, that he renounc- 
 ed the Protestant religion ! ! Over such deliber- 
 ate misrepresentations, I would for your office 
 sake, if truth and justice did not forbid, throw a 
 veil which should hide it from the eyes of men. 
 You have used the same liberty (as I have here- 
 tofore shown) with the writings of Luther ; and 
 your silence on this subject in the last letter 
 seems to confess that it could not be defended. 
 The frequency of such occurrences in your letters, 
 afflicts and amazes me. 
 
 But to return to Bishop Jewel, allow me once 
 more to propose for your consideration and an- 
 swer, the direct questions which his famous 
 challenge contains. Are they incapable of an- 
 swer? Are they not simple, pertinent, and de- 
 cisive ] I pray you, that you will not again pass 
 them by. I remain, yours, &c. 
 
 John Breckinridge. 
 
 P. S. As the time originally specified " in the 
 rules" for the continuance of this controversy has 
 now elapsed, it is due to the public and the parties, 
 that the following correspondence should be made 
 known. I accordingly publish it below. It suf- 
 ficiently explains itself without the need of com- 
 ment. 
 
 Princeton, N. /., 26th July, 1833. 
 Rev. John Breckinridge, 
 
 Rev. Sir, — Allow me in this way to remind you 
 that the period for which the Controversy was to 
 continue has now just elapsed. The letter now 
 in press ends the six months, beyond which, ac- 
 cording to mutual agreement, the correspondence 
 was not to go. 
 
 If, however, it should be deemed proper by the 
 disputants to prosecute the discussion still further 
 in the columns of the Presbyterian, it will be ne- 
 cessary that there should be previously a personal 
 arrangement and definitive limitation of time, be- 
 tween yourself and Mr. Hughes. 
 
 A reply, addressed to the care of the publishers, 
 will be esteemed by me as a favour. 
 
 An exact duplicate of this letter is carried by 
 the same mail to the Rev. Mr. Hughes, in pur- 
 suance of that impartiality which it has been my 
 endeavour to maintain. 
 Respectfully yours, 
 
 James W. Alexander, 
 
 Ed. of the Presbyterian. 
 
 To the Rev. John Hughes, 
 
 Sir, — On my return from Baltimore this morn- 
 ing, I received a letter from the Editor of the 
 Presbyterian, reminding me that " the period for 
 which the Controversy was to continue has now 
 elapsed," and saying, that "if the disputants 
 should deem it proper to prosecute the discussion 
 still further in the columns of the Presbyterian, 
 it will be necessary that there should be previ- 
 ously, a personal arrangement, and definitive 
 limitations of time, between yourself and Mr. 
 Hughes." 
 
 In view of the above suggestions, it becomes 
 
331 
 
 my duty to say to you, that it rests entirely with 
 yourself to close or continue the discussion. 
 
 It will not be necessary for me to commence 
 my autumnal tour, earlier than the 1st of October; 
 in the mean time therefore, I am entirely at your 
 service. And if after that time, you feel disposed 
 to prosecute the Controversy still further, I shall 
 be happy to meet you in a public oral discus- 
 sion ; or if you think prudent to decline that, I 
 shall at all times hold myself in readiness to at- 
 tend to your communications (through the press) 
 of a more permanent and connected character. 
 I remain your ob't. serv't. 
 
 John Breckinridge. 
 Philadelphia, August 1, 1833. 
 
 To the Rev. John Breckinridge. 
 
 Rev, Sir, — I have already complied with the 
 requisition of Mr. Alexander, by a note to the 
 publishers — in which I have stated my intention 
 to continue the controversy as long as may be 
 desired. You will have it in your power to fix 
 the " limitation" when and where you may deem 
 it convenient. 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 John Hushe.9. 
 
 August 1st, 1833. 
 
CONTROVERSY N°. 29. 
 
 Is the Protestant Religiogi the Religion of Christ? 
 
 RULES. 
 
 The undersigned, agreeing to have an amicable discus- 
 sion of the great points of religious controversy between 
 Protestants and Roman Catholics, do hereby bind them- 
 selves to the observance of the following rules : 
 
 1. The parties shall write and publish, alternately, in 
 the weekly religious papers called the Presbyterian, and 
 a Roman Catholic paper, to be furnished by the first of 
 January, it being understood that the communications 
 shall be published after the following plan : — One parly 
 opening the first week, the other party replying the next 
 week, and every piece to be republished in the immedi- 
 ately succeeding number of the Roman Catholic paper. 
 The communications not to exceed four colums of the 
 Presbyterian, nor lo continue beyond six months, without 
 consent of parties. 
 
 2. The parties agree that there is an infallible Rule of 
 Faith established by Christ, to guide us in matters of reli- 
 gion, for the purpose of determining disputes in the Church 
 of Christ. 
 
 3. They moreover agree, that after giving their views 
 of the Rule of Faith, they shall proceed to discuss the 
 question "Is the Protestant Religion, the Religion of 
 Christ ?" 
 
 4. The parties agree respectivel}', io adhere strictly 
 to the subject of discussion, i'or the lime being, and to ad- 
 mit no second question, until the first shall have been ex 
 hausted. Each party shall be the judge when he is done 
 with a subject, and shall be at liberty to occupy his lime 
 with a second topic, when he is done with the first, leav- 
 ing to the other party the liberty of continuing to review 
 the abandoned topic, as long as he shall choose ; subject, 
 however, to be answered, if he introduce new matter. 
 
 5. Mr. Hughes to open the discussion, and Mr. Breck- 
 inridge to follow, according to the dictates of his own 
 judgment. 
 
 John Breckinridge, 
 J. no. Hughes. 
 Philadelphia, December Uth, 1832. 
 
 IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION THE RELI- 
 GION OF CHRIST? 
 
 To the Rev. John Breckinridge, 
 
 Rev. Sir, — "Mr. Breckinridge, says that "the Protes- 
 tant is the religion of Christ." 
 
 If so, J call vpon him 1st. To tell me what the Protes- 
 tant religion is ? 
 
 2. / call upon him to say lohat society of Chris- 
 tians ever taught this pretended " religion of 
 Christ" previous to the Reformation 1 
 
 3. I call vpon him to say, whether Christ revealed 
 ALL the doctrines of the Protestant religion, be- 
 ginning with the best image of his church, Epis- 
 copalianism, and terminating with the most con- 
 sistent of Protestant sects, the Unitarians? — 
 and if not, hoiv many denominations out of the 
 whole belong to the true Protestant religion, 
 the religion of Christ ? 
 
 4. / call upon him to show whether the Reformers 
 received any new ministerial authority, after 
 the withdrawal of that which they had received 
 from the church ? 
 
 5. I call upon him, in case no such new authority 
 was received, to show that the Protestant clergy, 
 so called, have any divine right to exercise the 
 Christian ministry, more than other educated 
 laymen /" 
 
 Now I call upon you to answer these questions. 
 Take them up, one after the other, and give to 
 each of them, that simple, candid and ingenuous 
 answer that each of them demands. You are 
 bound to do this. Otherwise, it will be said of 
 you, in the figurative language of Scripture 
 " this man began to build, and was not able to fin- 
 ish." My own opinion is, that you are afraid — that 
 you see the difficulties of the case, and endeavour 
 to shun them. But there are venerable brethren 
 and fathers in the Presbyterian church, learned 
 professors, men ripe in age and knowledge, in- 
 quire of them " what is the Protestant Religion ?" 
 Let them answer successively, the other questions. 
 
 If, however, neither you, nor they can answer 
 them, then it follows that, whether you acknowl- 
 edge. it or not, you are driven out of the field on 
 the present question. 1st. Because you can- 
 not defend, what you cannot define. 2d. Because 
 you cannot discover so much as one village that 
 professed, previous to the soi-disant Reformation, 
 the doctrines of any sect of Protestants. 3d. Be- 
 cause you cannot defend Protestantism in the 
 g?-oss, and yet you dare not divide it. 4th. Because 
 the Reformers had no ministerial authority. 5th. 
 Because, consequently, they could not transmit 
 any ministerial authority to their successors. 
 
 The peevish little disquisition, on epistolary 
 etiquette, with which you commence your last 
 letter, is very curious. It would seem that you 
 are determined to chastise the "bad taste" and 
 " useless tautology" of your friends in Princeton 
 who address you just as I do, " Rev. Sir." Why 
 is the Rev. Mr. Alexander, whose letter you pub- 
 lish, guilty of this supposed " bad taste?" 
 
 And even some of your own letters, (some at 
 least that have your signature,) are guilty of that 
 "repetition," which, as themagister elegantiarum, 
 you pronounce to be a " violation of good taste 
 and a useless tautology !" How was this 1 ? But 
 the whole amounts to this, that when you con- 
 descended to address me by the title of " Rev. 
 Sir," you were courteous by mistake, and the open- 
 ing of your last epistle is your apology for having 
 been polite. For the rest, you should be assured 
 by this time, that nothing from your pen can 
 awaken vanity, orprovoke resentment in the bosom 
 of your opponent. 
 
 This same paragraph winds up with an attack 
 on the pretended uncharitableness of the Catholic 
 
233 
 
 religion, touching' the doctrine of exclusive' salva- 
 tion. You seem to feel that the prejudice of 
 Protestants, on this and other subjects is now 
 your only dependence, and accordingly you try to 
 stir it up in your favour. Catholics, as you know, 
 or ought to know, believe that out of the true 
 church there is no salvation. But they hold, as 
 explicitly belonging to the true church, all those 
 who are members of the great, primitive, and Ca- 
 tholic society of Christians in communion with 
 the Apostolical see of Rome, besides, they hold, 
 as belonging implicitly to the true church, all 
 those who do what God requires of them accord- 
 ing to the measure of grace, knowledge, and op- 
 portunity which they may have received. Hence 
 even among Protestants there may be members of 
 the true church, not indeed because they are Pro- 
 testants, but because by the inscrutable permis- 
 sion of God, they have been brought up in invin- 
 cible ignorance of the truth, which they would em- 
 brace^ if they knew it. But it is manifest that 
 this plea of invincible ignorance, is the only one that 
 can excuse a rational being for rejecting the re- 
 velation of Christ. Can Protestants say that 
 their ignorance is invincible? Can their ministers, 
 more especially say so? I judge them not, God 
 will judge". And at his tribunal the plea of chance, 
 party attachment, or prejudice, which binds them 
 to one sect or another, will not be admitted. 
 
 Now let us state the "exclusive salvation" of 
 Presbyterianism, and see whether it is not more 
 " bigoted," contracted and " intolerant," than 
 ours, which I have just described. I will not 
 misrepresent as you have done. But I shall 
 quote from your own last u Confession of Faith" 
 •as amended in 1821, (page 111.) "The visi- 
 ble church consists of all those through- 
 out the world, that profess the true religion, togeth- 
 er with their children ,• and is thekingdcwn of Jesus 
 Christ, the house and family of God, out of which 
 there is no ordinary possibility of satvdtiofi." -This 
 doctrine secures heaven to Presbyterians " and 
 their children," and denies the " possibility of 
 salvation to all the rest of mankind, Protestants 
 as well as Catholics. And yet you talk about 
 "bigotry!" This doctrine dooms the whole 
 Chrfstian world to perdition, except Calvin and 
 the chosen race of which he became the father, 
 some 1500 years after Christ! ! And all Protes- 
 tants, who have not Calvin for their religious pro- 
 genitor, are doomed to the same destruction. I 
 would advise that the confession be again 
 ♦' amended." 
 
 But then I shall be told that the Catholic church 
 will not extend the right, hand of fellowship to any 
 other. Certainly not — and this is one of the 
 marks of her divinity. She could not be the 
 church of Christ, if she ceased to proscribe the 
 systems invented in the 16th century, by a few of 
 her own apostate children. She would be unworthy 
 of her celestial origin, if she could stoop to Luther's 
 religion or to Calvin's, and say " Hail, Sister ! 
 Thou also art heaven-born like myself!" Truth 
 is unchangeable — I will say more, it is essentially 
 intolerant; in history, in mathematics, in medi- 
 cine, in jurisprudence— so that when the culprit 
 
 forfeits his life to the insulted laws of his coun- 
 try, he perishes by the intolerance of truth. But 
 error, on the contrary, may be tolerant towards its 
 kindred error, and the liberality of Protestantism, 
 as far as it exists, is the evidence that the whole 
 system is bottomed on conscious uncertainty. 
 Thus Protestantism subsists by excitement, or 
 else degenerates into that frigid indifference to all 
 religious truth, which is the incipient stage of in- 
 fidelity. It has charity for deists and atheists, 
 but not for Catholics, just as Pagan Rome was 
 tolerant to every thing but Christianity. This 
 o-entle spirit of Protestantism cannot contend 
 against the Catholic church, without being re- 
 minded of its own recent and spurious origin. 
 Hence those who write against the primitive faith, 
 and in defence of that nondescript called "pro- 
 testantism," are almost invariably observed to lose 
 their sense of good manners, propriety, decency, 
 and even self-respect, which should never be for- 
 gotten. They believe in mysteries as well as 
 catholics; and yet they ridicule Catholic myste- 
 ries just in the same language which Deists use 
 against their own. They read our books and per- 
 vert them, just as Deists read and pervert the 
 Scriptures. Their arguments are deistical, and yet 
 they pretend to be Christians by excellence ! 
 They insult Jesus Christ in the mystery of the 
 Eucharist, and thereby, teach the Deists to insult 
 him in the mystery of the Incarnation. — The form- 
 er doctrine being even more fully attested by 
 Scripture than the latter. They find, on mature 
 reflection, that in their immortal hatred of the 
 Catholic church they do the work of the deists. 
 They stoop to every thing, however low and vul- 
 gar, that may sustain the credit of their floating 
 systems, as they are tossed to and fro by every 
 wind of doctrine. — And seem to regret, as a mis- 
 fortune, that the moorings of the Catholic church 
 are fixed, unchangeable and eternal. 
 
 If any one, Rev. Sir, is tempted to suppose that 
 this picture is overcharged, I refer him, for the 
 correction of his mistake, to the contents of your 
 last letter. The perusal of it must have been pain- 
 ful to your best friends. They must have been 
 mortified, to" perceive the advantages which it 
 yielded to your opponent, when, instead of digni- 
 fied controversy, such as the question called for, 
 they saw you descend to the. filthiest topics, 
 couched and amplified in the filthiest terms known 
 to the English language. It might have been 
 expected from the pen which composed the Report 
 of the Magdalen Society in New York, some time 
 ago ; but from the Rev. John Breckinridge with 
 his name, it was not expected. Delicacy must 
 have blushed, and cast the paper away. And 
 even among your own people, I venture to assert 
 that no lady will acknowledge to have read it. I 
 had laboured from the commencement to hold you 
 up, and compel you to be dignified; and, at this 
 advanced stage of the discussion, judge how it 
 grieves me to perceive that I have toiled in vain ! 
 But I have the satisfaction to assure yon. that if 
 you are determined to sink, you shall not drag me 
 with you: you shall go down alone, when I can 
 support you no longer. In retailing, therefere, the 
 
334 
 
 scandals wherewithal Protestant calumny has 
 endeavoured to blacken the character of the Popes 
 and the church, you may safely calculate on im- 
 punity. The region to which you have descend- 
 ed, is to me unapproachable. The very indeli- 
 cacy of your position shall protect you. And 
 though I shall leave you "alone with your glory," 
 still I cannot help exclaiming over you, more in 
 pity than in triumph, " O ! how the mighty hath 
 fallen." I have no hesitation, however, in assert- 
 ing that your statement of immoralities at Rome, 
 (which I dare not repeat) is as false as your man- 
 ner of expressing it, is disgusting. Name the 
 page of the Catholic historian, who states what 
 you have asserted, and I pledge myself again to 
 expose you. But how are we to expect the truth 
 of history from a pen, which, in desperation, cor- 
 rupts the sacred text of Scripture itself. Let me 
 give an instance. "The word of God declares," 
 (you say) that "a bishop must be the husband of 
 one wife." Titus i. 6. Now we turn to your re- 
 ference and read, from St. Paul that you have cor- 
 rupted the word of God, since the apostle says no 
 such thing ! ! ! St. Paul had no wife, and how 
 could he say what you make him say, viz. that "a 
 bishop must be the husband of one wife." The 
 verse merely declares, in substance, that those 
 who had been twice married, were thereby dis- 
 qualified for the office of Bishop, but the word 
 " must be" is your own addition — according, in- 
 deed, with the practice of Protestant ministers, if 
 not of St. Paul. 
 
 With these observations I might close my let- 
 ter, since the whole of your letter, besides the vile- 
 ness of the topics you treat of, is entirely foreign 
 to the question. But having space I shall fill it 
 up, with such matters as I deem proper. And 
 first, it cannot be called a digression, if I make a 
 few remarks upon the course which our Episco- 
 pal friends have thought proper to adopt, in refer- 
 ence to this controversy. 
 
 Some months ago, when Bishop H. U. Onder- 
 donk's "charge on the rule of faith," appeared 
 as a succedaneum to your labours, I felt it my 
 duty to publish a "Review"''' of it. That the re- 
 view, by exposing the false premises .of the charge, 
 destroyed the great body of the Bishop's conclu- 
 sions, was manifest to all those who are acquaint- 
 ed with the principles of sound reasoning. And 1 
 have occasion to know, that Episcopalians them- 
 selves, who read both productions, formed the same 
 opinion, and regarded the subject of the charge, as 
 an unseasonable interference in a pending discus- 
 sion. The Review was treated by the Episcopal 
 press as very weak; hopes were expressed that no 
 notice should be taken of it ; and a paper called 
 the Episcopal Recorder, apparently in a fit of bad 
 humour, accused me of having challenged the 
 Bishop to a " personal controversy ;" a state- 
 ment, by the way, which was utterly unfounded 
 in truth. Still the circulation of the Review was 
 checked by every underhand manoeuvre that could 
 be resorted to without palpably betraying the mo- 
 tive. In one instance a bookseller, (as I have 
 been told) who enjoyed some sectarian patronage, 
 was actually forbidden to keep it for sale. And 
 
 yet the Review was a weak production, not 
 worthy of a reply. When you cannot answer 
 an argument, say it is too weak to deserve refu- 
 tation. 
 
 Now, however, the Review has become the 
 subject of anonymous " observations," in the Au- 
 gust number of the "Church Register;" and 
 were I to judge these "observations" by the style 
 of the "charge," I should say that both came from 
 the same pen. But the author deems it prudent 
 to conceal his name, and I allude to his essay 
 principally on that account. He does not re- 
 fute the arguments of the "Review;" nor yet 
 vindicate the fallacies and contradictions, which 
 had been pointed out in the language of the 
 "charge." He merely cavils with fine spun pro- 
 lixity. He merely nibbles at the substance of the 
 " Review." And after you have read the whole 
 of his "observations," spread over fourteen pages, 
 you rise from the perusal with but vague and con- 
 fused ideas of the conclusion which the author 
 himself intended to establish. He treats the mat- 
 ter under the following heads: 
 
 I. " Appellations ;" — and contends that it is 
 right to call us by the nickname, " Romanists." 
 Now the English Bishops in the House of Peers 
 call us " Roman Catholics," except when they 
 speak in derision with a view to insult. And if 
 the author of the " observations" were asked 
 whether an Episcopal Bishop is a Catholic Bishop, 
 he is too modest, I am sure, to answer in the 
 affirmative. But Protestants pay us a high com- 
 pliment, when they seek to shake off their own 
 name, and to clothe themselves with ours. The 
 thing, however, is ridiculous and impossible. 
 
 II. " Tradition ; various meanings." This is 
 no new idea. Almost every word in our language 
 has " various meanings." 
 
 III. " Tradition ; not valueless." What is its 
 value 1 Why says the author of the " observa- 
 tions," "we hold, for example, that Episcopacy 
 has ample testimony in these (traditional) re- 
 cords." What will your ruling Elders think of 
 this? Just admit tradition, as far as may be 
 necessary for the purposes of the Episcopal 
 Church ; and behold — " Tradition ; not value- 
 less. " 
 
 IV. "Tradition; its elementary nature." 
 What 1 ? "Hearsay," says the author! Then 
 the preaching of Christ, and the Apostles; the 
 miracles and doctrines of Christianity; are noth- 
 ing but "hearsay;" which does not change its 
 " elementary nature," by having been afterwards 
 committed to writing. Does the Church Register 
 not see that this consequence follows from its as- 
 sertions ] 
 
 V. "Tradition, the Council of Nice." Under 
 this head, the author merely quotes Mr. Milnor 
 in opposition to Mr. Hughes, and modestly ab- 
 stains from deciding between them. He specu- 
 lates on the probable ages of the Bishops, who 
 attended the Council ; and represents Mr. Hughes 
 as contending that they excluded the testimony of 
 Scripture, in condemning the heresy of Arius. 
 Mr. Hughes, fortunately, never said, never mean* 
 to say, any such thing. 
 
335 
 
 VI. "Tradition; its fallibility." Here the 
 author contends that whereas the Scripture was 
 " added and advantageous, " therefore, Tradition 
 is fallible. This is vicious reasoning. St. John's 
 Gospel was "added," and it does not therefore 
 follow that the other three were fallible. The 
 Review itself had disposed of tiiis sophistry. 
 
 VII. "Infallibility." Under this head the 
 author breaks down the bulwarks of the Christian 
 Religion ; and tells the Infidel that Christ ap- 
 pointed a Church to be the perpetual witness of 
 divine truth, and yet that this Church thus appoint- 
 ed, may deceive him ! If so, for what purpose did 
 Christ appoint it"? 
 
 VIII. " Infallibility ; its consequences." Here 
 the author seems to imagine that the world is un- 
 done, unless men agree to strip Christianity of its 
 pretensions to "infallibility." and reduce it to 
 the uncertainty of a doubtful problem. For this 
 service, also, the Deist will be grateful. 
 
 IX. "Faith, Infallibility; Opinion." Under 
 these three words the author takes pains to ex- 
 clude faith in its theological sense, and contends 
 that both Catholics and Protestants must be 
 satisfied with " opinion." This also is giving 
 the right hand of fellowship to Deists and Athe- 
 ists. For if Christianity be founded on mere 
 opinion, it rests on the same identical basis, which 
 supports infidelity and Atheism. 
 
 But there is one position assumed by the au- 
 thor of these " observations" which goes farther 
 towards the impeachment of Christianity, than 
 any thing that I have ever seen, even from a Protes- 
 tant pen. It is under the head of " infallibility." 
 The author has discovered that the inspiration of 
 the Apostles, was of an "intermittent''' 1 character! 
 Periodical infallibility, the author is willing to 
 grant them. But in the intervals, he tells us that 
 even the Apostles were capable of erring, in their 
 interpretation of the Gospel ! ! ! ! Here then, is a 
 desperate alternative resorted to, in order to- prop 
 up the "charge," and meet the arguments of* the 
 " Review." Another writer would have explain- 
 ed the 11th verse of the 2d chapter to the Gala- 
 tians, without destroying the inspiration of the 
 Apostles. The fault ascribed to Peter was not the 
 teaching of erroneous doctrine, as our "Observer" 
 would make appear, but the sanctioning of a 
 practice, which might impede the progress of the 
 Gospel among the Gentiles, and was therefore in- 
 expedient. The fault was of practice, and not of 
 preaching. And the author of "observations" 
 should have observed this, before he ascribed it to 
 the absence of inspiration. But he has denied 
 the infallibility of the Apostles. He is a Chris- 
 tian, and I leave him to his own reflections on the 
 injury he has done to the character of the Chris- 
 tian religion. 
 
 In taking leave of the "Church Register," I 
 would beg leave to state that I have no disposition to 
 engage in controversy with Episcopalians. But 
 they should not provoke it. They mistake their in- 
 terest, and forget their position on the theological 
 map, whenever they provoke a controversy with 
 Catholics. They can triumph over Presbyterian 
 antagonists in every contest ;— but they should 
 
 recollect that they stg indebted for the victory, to 
 the use of weapons which they borrow from the 
 Catholic Church — and the moment they provoke a 
 controversy with that church, whose attributes 
 they have appropriated to themselves, they shall 
 experience a prompt exposure and defeat. They 
 shall be found on the field as naked and defence- 
 less as any other sect of Protestants. The host 
 of witnesses by whose testimony they bear down 
 their Presbyterian adversaries, will desert and be 
 arrayed against them in every contest with Ca- 
 tholics. They have, however, good people ; 
 learned and respectable clergy. Their mode of at- 
 tacking Catholics is, at least, more genteel, if 
 not more successful, than that which Presbyte- 
 rian ministers adopt. They preserve decency, 
 when they write against us. Still it is true, 
 however paradoxical it may appear, that whilst 
 they have more of truth they have less of consis- 
 tency, than any other Protestant denomination. 
 In this respect they are directly the opposite of 
 the Unitarians. But without enlarging — I have 
 only to say that the author of the " Charge" on 
 the " rule of faith," and of " observations" in 
 the " Chnrch Register," has come to your aid, in 
 a way which I cannot help regarding, as equally 
 indelicate and unprofitable. Indelicate, because 
 you were the self-proclaimed champion of Pro- 
 testantism ; and unprofitable, because he has not 
 succeeded in the attempt one whit bettter than 
 yourself. 
 
 With regard to your often repeated assertion, 
 that transubstantiation was introduced A. D. 
 1215 — your silence in the last letter I construe 
 into a tacit acknowledgment of your mistake. 
 Starting from that epoch I had traced the doc- 
 trine upwards to the apostolic age, the apostles, 
 and Christ himself. And instead of contradict- 
 ing the testimonies adduced, you wonder that I did 
 not begin with the Bible ! But I ended with it. 
 I gave abundant Scripture. And instead of 
 meeting my arguments and reasoning, you merely 
 cavil at the words employed by Christ,^ in fact, the 
 incredulous Jews, who heard him, did. Again, 
 you ascribe to Catholics gross notions of Christ's 
 real presence in the eucharist — as if he subsisted 
 in the manner of a natural body, with sensible flesh 
 and blood. This is an old device of Protestants. 
 Where honest argument is impossible, they have 
 recourse to misrepresentation. What Catholics 
 believe, what all Christians believed before Car- 
 lostadius, what I placed in my last letter beyond 
 the reach of refutation is, that the body and blood 
 of Christ are truly and really present under the 
 appearances of bread and wine in the sacrament 
 of the eucharist. This presence is effected by 
 the Omnipotence of God, and in virtue of the in- 
 stitution of Jesus Christ. " Bo this for a com- 
 memoration of me." 
 
 I shall fill up the remainder of this paper, by 
 establishing the eucharistic sacrifice of the new 
 law — commonly called the mass. Sacrifice is the 
 supreme action of relig-ion — in which, by offer- 
 ing up to God, something in a state of immo- 
 lation we visibly and publicly recognize him as the 
 master of life and death and the sovereign Lord of 
 
230 
 
 all things. From the beginning of the world, 
 this action of religion was commanded and ob- 
 served among the people of God. All the ancient 
 sacrifices of the Jews had reference to that of 
 Christ, upon the cross, and, on the altars of 
 his church. This latter, is not a new sacrifice, or 
 another victim ; but it is the same sacrifice of 
 Calvary, perpetuated in an unbloody manner, by 
 Christ's divine appointment; in which, according 
 to the prophecy of Malachy, M from the rising of 
 the sun to the going down of the same, the name 
 of the Lord is great among the Gentiles ,■ and in 
 every place there is sacrifice ; and there is offer- 
 ed to his name a clean oblation." Mai. i. 
 11. The same in which the death of the Lord, 
 in the language of St. Paul, is shown forth 
 till he come. Now pray what other sacrifice is 
 there among the Gentiles, that corresponds with 
 the Prophet's prediction, except the eucharistic 
 sacrifice of the Catholic Church 1 — which is 1 it— 
 terally offered from the rising to the setting sun. 
 And how else is the " death of the Lord shown 
 forth till he come,'''' except in the mystic shedding 
 of Christ's blood in the eucharistic sacrifice of 
 the altar ] — even as he commanded. St. Paul al- 
 ludes to the priesthood of Christ in direct and 
 positive connexion, not with the bloody sacrifice as 
 it was on the cross, but as it is in the Christian 
 eucharist. He showed that the priesthood of 
 Christ was not according to that of Aaron, but 
 of Melchisedech. And what do we read of 
 him 1 ? "Melchisedech, the King of Salem, 
 bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the 
 priest of the most high God; and he blessed him." 
 Gen, xiv. 18. Do you not perceive then, Rev. 
 Sir, that in the institution of the holy eucharist, 
 Jesus Christ actually exercised this priesthood of 
 Melchisedech, by changing " bread and wine," 
 into his own body and blood, and distributing in 
 this mysterious manner among his apostles the 
 flesh of the victim, even before its immolation on 
 the cross ! " Take ye, and eat," " This is my 
 body." " This is my blood ivhich shall be shed for 
 many unto the remission of sins.'''' " 2%*J do for a 
 commemoration of me." By this act he annull- 
 ed the priesthood of Aaron, and substituted that 
 of Melchisedech. And accordingly from that 
 day the Jewish sacrifice has not been offered — 
 whereas the Christian sacrifice, according to the 
 Priesthood of Christ, and order of Melchisedech, 
 has existed, and does exist wherever the unreform- 
 ed religion of the Redeemer is known from the ri- 
 sing to the setting sun. Hence St. Paul in- 
 structs the Hebrews in the difference between the 
 Jewish and the Christian sacrifice. Having des- 
 cribed elsewhere, the order of the Christian 
 priesthood, as superior to that of Jluron, he tells 
 the Jews " we have an altar, whereof they have 
 no power to eat who serve the tabernacle." Heb. 
 xiii. 10. If it be said, that he alluded to the 
 " sacrifice of praise," mentioned in one of the 
 subsequent verses, I reply that St. Paul could 
 not hinder or make it unlawful for the Jews to 
 participate in such a sacrifice. He spoke of the 
 sacrifice of the new law ; of the altar on which 
 the body and blood of Christ was offered, under 
 
 the appearances of bread and wine, by the new 1 
 priesthood according to the order of Melchise- 
 dech. Hence we find the early Fathers bearing 
 unanimous testimony to the exi&tence of this doc- 
 trine, and this belief. And every one of them 
 pointing to the eucharistic sacrifice as the fulfil- 
 ment of Malachy's prophecy, quoted above. St. 
 Justin Martyr, almost, if not quite contem- 
 porary with St. John the Evangelist, says, 
 " Christ instituted a sacrifice of bread and wine, 
 which Christians offer up in every place," and 
 immediately quotes the Prophet Malachy i. 11. 
 (Dialog. Cum Tryphon.) Irenaeus the disciple 
 of Polycarp, says, " Christ, in consecrating 
 bread and wine, has instituted the sacrifice of the 
 new law, which the church received from the 
 Apostles, according to the prophecy of Malachy." 
 (lren. L. iv. 32.) St. Cyprian calls the euchar- 
 ist, " a true and full sacrifice,'''' and adds that. " as 
 Melchisedech offered bread and wine, so Christ 
 offered the same, namely, his body and blood." 
 (Epist. 63.) All the later Fathers speak the 
 same language — as the learned Centuriators of 
 Magdeburg indignantly acknowledge. 
 
 Here then we find that in the days of St. Paul, 
 St. Justin, Irenseus, Cyprian, and onward till you 
 arrive at the Reformation, the religion of Christ had 
 its Priesthood, its altar and its sacrifice, which sa- 
 crifice was then, and still is, offered up by the 
 Catholic church in every place among the gentiles. 
 Why then has Protestantism in its blind career, a- 
 bolished and destroyed them all] Where does it 
 pretend to fulfil the prediction of Malachy, touching 
 the " sacrifice and clean oblation among the Gen- 
 tiles]" Where is its Priesthood] Where does it 
 perpetuate the immolation of Calvary, "showing 
 forth the death of the Lord till he come]" Where 
 is its "altar .?" Where are the body and blood of 
 the Lord, which it affects to talk about, whilst it 
 boasts of having nothing left but a piece of bread 
 and a cup of wine ] 
 
 But then, the " Popish mass !" Yes, such, 
 indeed, is the appellation of insult bestow- 
 ed by Protestant apostacy on the Eucharistic 
 sacrifice of the new law, foretold, as we have 
 seen by the prophet, instituted by Jesus Christ 
 himself, and believed by all the Christians in the 
 world before Martin Luther ! But then it detracts 
 from the merits of the one sacrifice of the cross ? 
 No — it is the same sacrifice continued in a superna- 
 tural manner, by which the church daily, through- 
 out the world, presents to the eternal Father, 
 the same victim of atonement and propitiation for 
 the sins of men, in which she shows forth the 
 death of the Lord till he come; and in which our 
 souls are nourished with the body and blood of 
 the Lord. " But Mr. Breckinridge says that it 
 is idolatrous." Poor Mr. Breckinridge does not 
 understand it. He says this, because others have 
 said so bfifore him, and ignorant Protestants think 
 so. " But how can the Priest bring Christ down 
 from heaven by the words of consecration ]" I 
 answer that Christ does not cease to be in heaven 
 by being present in the Eucharist. And since he 
 was pleased so to appoint and ordain in the sacra- 
 ment of the Eucharist, how can the Protestant 
 
937 
 
 minister prevent him ? " But Mr. B. says that 
 this doctrine of a sacrifice in the Christian church 
 was an innovation of the middle ages. So he 
 said of the real presence, 1215 was the point be- 
 yond which he would not go, but I brought the 
 testimony of all the preceeding ages against him. 
 and now he speaks no more about 1215. "But 
 Protestants worship in spirit and in truth." They 
 say so,- but it is after their own manner, and not 
 as the early Christians worshipped. "But if the 
 Eucharistic sacrifice was a part of the Christian 
 religion, held at all times, and by all Christians 
 previous to the Reformation, how came the Pro- 
 testants to abolish it ?" That is a question which 
 I shall proceed to answer. 
 
 It will be recollected that, in the first place, 
 Calvin was not a priest, and cosequently had no 
 power either to consecrate or offer sacrifice. Hence 
 it is, that the Presbyterian ministerscall themselves 
 bishops (overseers) and not priests, having never 
 received any ministerial authority, more than their 
 founder, for the performance of any priestly func- 
 tion. Luther, on the contrary, being a priest, 
 continued to believe in the real presence, and to 
 claim the power of consecrating until his death. 
 But if Carlostadt and Zuinglius provoked the 
 implacable resentment of the great Reformer by 
 denying the real presence, without his permission : 
 he was determined to enjoy the undivided glory 
 of abolishing the sacrifice of mass. However he 
 had no idea, it seems, of abolishing it until after 
 he had heard the arguments brought against it, 
 in a dispute which he held with the Devil on the 
 subject. He quotes the disputation at length in 
 "which he argued strongly for the mass, but he 
 was finally obliged to yield to the superior rea- 
 soning of hisinfernal Tutor, and the mass was ac- 
 cordingly abolished. Protestants, I fear, will not 
 be edified at discovering such intimacy, between 
 the father of the Reformation, and the father of 
 lies. But I only quote what Luther himself record- 
 ed in his writings ( Wittem. ed. (1558.) vol. vii. p. 
 228. 229. 230.) Here then we see how and why 
 the Eucharistic sacrifice, was proscribed by the 
 two great divisions of Protestantism on the con- 
 tinent of Europe. It was soon after this abolish- 
 ed in England by act of Parliament, and by simi- 
 lar means was it suppressed in other countries. 
 
 Before these events all the Christian countries 
 in the universe, believed in the Eucharistic sacri- 
 fice of Mass, as Catholics still believe in it. 
 And yet Protestants are generally as ignorant or 
 as unmindful of these important facts, as if their doc- 
 trine of mere bread and wine had originated with the 
 Apostles, instead of the Reformers. This was so 
 far from being the case, that Luther in writing 
 against those who began to deny the real pres° 
 ence of Christ in the Eucharist, says "the Devil 
 seems to have mocked mankind in proposing to 
 them a heresy so ridiculous and contrary to Scrip- 
 ture, as that of the Zuinglians." (Op. Luth. De- 
 fens. Verb. Coenae.) 
 
 Having thus established the doctrine of the 
 Eucharistic Sacrifice of the New law, instituted 
 and appointed by Jesus Christ, believed by the 
 Church, and rejected by the Reformation about 
 
 three hundred years ago.— I shall now make 
 a few remarks on what Protestants call denying 
 the cup to the laity. They accuse the Church of 
 dividing the Sacrament, and administering it in 
 a manner contrary to the command of Christ. In 
 both charges, however, they are deceived by their 
 deceivers. For in the first place, Christ is pre- 
 sent, whole and entire, under each of the species 
 of the Sacrament, as much as under both. Con- 
 sequently there is no division of the Sacrament; 
 since the laity receive in the Communion, under 
 the form of bread, that same body and blood of 
 the Lord, which the Priest receives, in the action 
 of sacrificing on the altar, under the separate 
 forms of both bread and wine. But they (Pro- 
 testants) contend that, in as much as Christ, at 
 the last Supper, administered this Eucharist un- 
 der both forms, therefore, say they, all persona 
 are bound to receive under both. " Drink ye all 
 of this." To this I reply, that Christ in these 
 words addressed the Apostles and Ministers of the 
 Church, whom he appointed to consecrate and offer 
 the sacrifice, which he had just instituted. " This 
 do, for a commemoration of me." The words 
 "drink ye," and "this do," are addressed to the 
 same persons. And if the former be a precept, to 
 the laity, as well as the ministry; it will neces- 
 sarily follow that so is the latter,- and yet Protes- 
 tants do not allow the laity to consecrate, or pro- 
 nounce what they call the " blessing" over their 
 Sacrament of mere bread and wine. Why not ? 
 if both were precepts. 
 
 But it is said that in the earlier ages of the 
 Church, Communion was administered to the 
 laity in both kinds. I answer so it was: but the 
 great question is, was the administration of it un- 
 der both kinds, taught to be essential for the re- 
 ception of the Sacrament? I say no. And the 
 proof is, that it was frequently even then admin- 
 istered only under one kind. Will Mr. Breckin- 
 ridge deny this"? If he do, I shall take pains to 
 instruct him. If he do, I shall quote, beginning 
 with the second century, Tertullian, St. Dyoni- 
 sius, of Alexandria, St. Cyprian, St. Basil, St. 
 Chrysostom, &c, to prove that he is as much 
 mistaken, as when he said, that " Transubstantia- 
 tion was as young as 1215." It will be easy to 
 show him that learned Protestants have admitted 
 this fact. Among others, the Protestant Bishops 
 Forbes, White, and Montague of England not 
 only admit the fact, as to the ancient practice of 
 the Church, but acknowledge that the authority 
 for giving the Communion under both kinds, is 
 rather from tradition, than from Scripture ! Cass- 
 ander and Grotius, make similar acknowledge- 
 ments on the subject. 
 
 If you are not satisfied with these, I shall have 
 the pleasure of introducing you to the Calvin- 
 istic Synod of your own brethren, held at Poic- 
 tiers, iu France, 1550. Where it was decreed that 
 " the bread of the Lord's Supper ought to be ad- 
 ministered to those who cannot drink ivine.".... 
 (Lord's Supper, C. iii. p. 7.) Even the acts of 
 Parliaments which established the Communion 
 under both kinds in England, made it lawful to 
 administer in one kind only, when necessity re- 
 
238 
 
 quired. (Heylin's Hist, of Ref. p. 58 ; and 
 Sparrow's Collection, page 17.) What have you 
 to say against all these witnesses ] Here are 
 the united testimonies of early Fathers, Episco- 
 pal Bishops, Protestant Parliaments, and even a 
 Presbyterian Synod, all against you 1 "What will 
 you have to say for yourself? 
 
 But it may be asked why Protestants, in the 
 face of such evidence, still declaim against the 
 Catholic usage on this point, whereas they them- 
 selves, have thus acknowledged it to be matter of 
 discipline, subject to the regulation of a Synod, or 
 of a Parliament ? In answer to this, I can only 
 say, that the Reformers seemed to have had no 
 rule, to guide their spirit of change, except the 
 rule fof mere gratuitous opposition ; — first turned 
 against the Church by them all,- and then, by 
 each, against the other. Thus, for example, on 
 the subject now treated of, Luther tells us, " if a 
 Council ordained or permitted both kinds, in spite 
 of the Council, says he, we would take but one, 
 or neither, and curse those who should take both." 
 (Form. Miss. Tom. II. p. 384, 386.) This glory 
 of originating, seems to have been common to all 
 the Reformers ; and there is no other reason why 
 the Reformation might not have been confined to 
 Lutheranism; except that Zuinglius and Calvin 
 would have been subordinate in Saxony, instead 
 of being (as ambition prompted,) supreme in 
 Switzerland ; seconds in Wittemburg, instead of 
 firsts, in Zurich and Geneva. Hence they disa- 
 greed in almost every thing except in hostility to- 
 wards the Church, and more especially towards 
 the Pope. But for the rest, they quarrelled regu- 
 larly; wrote against, and reviled each other; and 
 if we believe what they have written, it will be diffi- 
 cult to escape the conviction that, a more impious 
 or wicked set of men never insulted heaven, by 
 pretending to espouse the cause of religion on 
 earth. If we look along the line of their labours 
 from Luther at one end, to Socinus at the other, 
 we will see Revelation made to run the gauntlet, 
 and the body of Christian doctrine rudely torn, 
 limb from limb. The object was to cut out the 
 cancer of Popery from the breast of religion, and 
 thus, the daughter of God, brought under the ope- 
 ration of every " reforming" quack, who had 
 nerve enough to apply the knife, was wounded, 
 with gash after gash, as she passed from one to 
 the other, until the steel of Socinus touched her 
 heart, and she expired ! Such has been the work 
 of the Reformation : and Mr. Breckinridge says, 
 that the work of the Reformation is "the Reli- 
 gion of Christ! !" Not only this; he has actu- 
 ally promised to prove it ! ! 
 
 I do not mean to say that the Reformers never 
 agreed. Dudith, one of their number tells us, 
 that they sometimes, agreed in drawing up a 
 " Confession of Faith," but he does not forget to 
 add, that they quarrelled about what they had 
 written, almost before the ink was dried on the 
 paper. There is another remarkable instance in 
 which I find six Reformers, including Bucer and 
 Melancthon, agreeing with the great leader of the 
 Reformation. Now as these men are the fathers 
 of the Protestant Religion, and as you are about 
 
 to show that "the Protestant Religion is the 
 Religion of Christ," I deem it proper to submit 
 the case for your consideration. 
 
 I allude to the " indulgence" granted by these 
 new Popes of Germany, to the Landgrave of 
 Hesse, by virtue of which his Royal Highness 
 was authorized to be the husband of " two" 
 wives at the same time. They however took the 
 precaution to recommend that it should be done 
 as secretly as possible. And accordingly, his 
 Royal Highness did marry a second wife, Mar- 
 garet de Saal, in March 1540. 
 
 Now, Rev. Sir, do not insinuate that this fact 
 is without foundation, it is known to all the learn- 
 ed men of Europe and America, and if any one is 
 curious to see the documents here referred to, I shall 
 have great pleasure in submitting to his perusal a 
 copy in Latin and French of this infamous corres- 
 pondence, as well as of the marriage contract; at- 
 tested by the regular notary public, as taken from 
 the imperial archives. When, therefore, you set 
 about redeeming your pledge, by attempting to 
 prove that the Religion of the Reformation is the 
 Religion of Christ, do not forget this decision of 
 the reformers in favour of polygamy. You have 
 said that " indulgences are a bundle of licences to 
 commit sin," and here is a Protestant "indul- 
 gence," corresponding exactly with your defini- 
 tion. If you wished to know the meaning of a 
 Catholic " indulgence," you might have learned 
 from our catechisms, or any catholic child in the 
 street, that it is " the remission of canonical pen- 
 ance, or of temporal punishment, which often re- 
 mains after the guilt of eternal punishment of 
 of sin have been remitted in the sacrament of 
 penance." 
 
 When you waste your time, in attempting to 
 break the illustrious chain of apostolic succession 
 which links the present Bishop of Rome to the 
 first Apostle, you cannot imagine how much you 
 expose yuorse/f, in the judgment of those who are 
 acquainted with ecclesiastical history. The year 
 " 1215" was nothing to it. Equally ludicrous is 
 your assertion that the Catholic Church adopted 
 the Arian heresy ; — that church, always in com- 
 munion with the See of Rome, branded Arianism, 
 Nestorianism, Pelagianism, Lutheranism, Calvin- 
 ism, Socinianism, and every other "ism" from 
 the commencement of Christianity, that presumed 
 to corrupt the doctrine of which she was the 
 guardian, and which she received from the Apos- 
 tles and from Christ. In a wordlyou had better 
 return to the defence of the " Protestant reli- 
 gion." Tell us what it is. How we shall 
 know it by its doctrine, Does it acknowledge 
 Prelacy 1 ? Does it deny infant baptism? Does 
 it destroy free will 1 Does it teach that men are 
 damned and saved by the absolute force of predes- 
 tination] 
 
 Tell us where it waS'«»«and by whom it was 
 possessed before Luther. Tell us from whom the 
 Reformers received authority to make a new reli- 
 gion. Was it from men? They were disowned 
 by all the Christian world. Was it from God ? 
 Then where are their miracles 1 Whence do the 
 present clergy of Protestantism derive their minis- 
 
339 
 
 terial character 1 Have they a single evidence to 
 show that they are not mere laymen, vested with 
 titles which are essentially defective. These, 
 Rev. Sir, are the main questions. These are the 
 crucible, from which the Protestant religion can- 
 not pass, and to which, you are manifestly afraid 
 to trust it. Come up then, I pray you, to the task 
 you have assumed, and meet the question. Let 
 us decide it, and proceed to other matters. But 
 if you cannot, hecause the thing is impossible, then 
 give it up, and let some other quetsion be placed 
 at the head of your letters. You have promised 
 to come forward with your arguments letter after 
 letter, and if you cannot find arguments to prove 
 that " the Protestant religion is the religion of 
 Christ," let me know it, and I will cease to press 
 you on the matter. I now request the publishers 
 to place the rules of the dicussion, at the head of 
 every letter, in order that all men may see your dis- 
 regard of the name with which you signed them. 
 My letter No. 23. is unanswered, it is a letter not of 
 abuse, but of solid argument, founded on testimo- 
 
 nies which cannot be called inquestion. Permit me 
 to request that you will read it again, and try to 
 answer it. Reflect on the arguments and eviden- 
 ces, and do not allow the exhausted patience of 
 your Protestant readers to suppose that the Pro- 
 testant religion is not susceptible of at least, 
 some sort of defence. You perceive how badly 
 you have succeeded, by straying from the Protes- 
 tant religion, and taking your stand against the 
 real presence at the year " 1215," with the bold 
 assertion that the doctrine was unknown before 
 that epoch. In reference to the sacrifice of mass, 
 and communion under one kind, your discursive 
 pen has been equally unfortunate. 
 
 Return then, Rev. Sir, I pray you, to " the ques- 
 tion." The whole community of our readers are 
 crying " Question," " Question." Take up the 
 difficulties stated at the head of this letter, and by 
 removing them, show us that " the Protestant 
 Religion is the Religion of Christ." 
 Yours, &c. 
 
 John Hughes. 
 
CONTROVERSY N°. 30. 
 
 Is the Protestant Religion the Religion of Christ? 
 
 Philadelphia, Jlugust 22d, 1833. 
 
 To the Rev. John Hughes, 
 
 Sir, 
 
 A pious, sensible, and well-bred man, 
 Will not insult me; and no other, can! 
 
 The exposure (in my last letter) of the immorali- 
 ties, forged miracles and superstitions^ of the Church 
 of Rome, seem deeply to have disturbed you. They 
 are new things to most of our fellow-citizens; 
 and yet they are so true, so shocking, so incap- 
 able of explanation or defence, that I do not won- 
 der you are agitated by such disclosures. I can 
 both pardon and pity you, for the rude and un- 
 gentlemanly explosion which ensues. 
 
 There are two very important facts, however, 
 connected with this tirade against me. The first 
 is the undesigned denunciation which you utter 
 against your own church, in thus wantonly assail- 
 ing me. In all I have said on the subject of" immo- 
 ralities" in the Church of Rome, I used the very lan- 
 guage of your own authors. Let the reader turn to 
 my Letter (No. XXVIII.) and he will see this to 
 be literally true. I once thought of giving these 
 Roman Catholic authorities in the original Latin, 
 or other unknown tongue, from a desire to spare 
 the feelings of our readers; for most truly as you 
 have said, the narrative is " a Magdalen report." 
 It is a report, by your own writers, of the de- 
 bauches of Popes, and the infamy of Priests, and 
 Monks, and Nuns, in a church calling itself holy, 
 and sending to perdition all who dissent from 
 her. T blushed while I read them ; I shuddered 
 while I transcribed them. But the object was to 
 make these evils known, and the only choice was 
 between suppressing them, or giving them, as I 
 did, in the language of the country. But if they 
 have been perpetrated in your church ; (as your 
 standard-authors say,) and if you are so shocked 
 at my extracts from their histories, how much 
 more should the deeds themselves revolt you 1 
 Then, when you denounce me for exposing these 
 enormities, do you not (though unconsciously) 
 pass the heaviest sentence against the institutions 
 and the clergy of your church, by whom they 
 have been committed 1 
 
 The other important fact is this ; that you give 
 this pledge : "I have no hesitation however, in as- 
 serting, that your statement of the immoralities at 
 Rome, (which I dare not repeat) is as false as your 
 manner of expressing it is disgusting. Name 
 the page of the Catholic historian, who states 
 what you have asserted, and I pledge myself to 
 expose you." _ (Letter No. XXIX. 2d. column.) I 
 This indeed, is a most auspicious promise ; and | 
 
 I meet you at once, with the following Roman 
 Catholic historians. Thuanus, Book 37. page 776. 
 A. D. 1566; as cited in my last letter, "where 
 the writer states that the Senate of Rome, insti- 
 gated by the clergy, interceded with the Pope not 
 to expel the courtezans from Rome, adding as a 
 reason, that if he did, the chastity of their fami- 
 lies would be endangered by the Priests." Bar- 
 ronius's Annals, Tom. X. "pages 765, 766. A. D. 
 908. Where this Roman Catholic historian in- 
 forms us, "that Theodora, a courtezan of noble 
 family, obtained supreme controul in Rome ; that 
 she expelled the lawful Popes, and put violent 
 and nefarious men into the Papal chair; that Pope 
 Sergius III. committed adultery with her daugh- 
 ter ; and their son John, the offspring of their 
 crimes, was afterwards Pope himself; he says 
 they were apostate Popes, and not Apostolical; 
 calls the times deplorable ; and the scandal over- 
 whelming; says the church was governed by 
 strumpets; and forgotten by God." He quotes 
 also various Roman Catholic authors in proof, 
 viz: Luitprand, Sigebert, Auxilius, Adam, &c. 
 Dupin, a Roman Catholic historian, Vol. 4. Cent. 
 10. Chap. 2.; confirms the above disgusting nar- 
 rative ; and gives also at the same time a his- 
 tory of the Popedom, during the holy lives of 
 Popes Formosus; Stephen VI; John IX ; Bene- 
 dict IV; Sergius; John X; Leo VI; Stephen 
 VII ; John XI ; John XII ; &c. which for blood, 
 debauch, murder, rapine, and manifold villiany, 
 exceeded the worst days of Heathen Rome. Of 
 Sergius he says, " this man is esteemed a mon- 
 ster, not only for his ambition, and the violent 
 proceedings he was guilty of, but on account of 
 his loose morals." He had a bastard son who 
 was afterwards promoted to the Popedom, as 
 John XI. " He tells us this John was a mon- 
 ster; Stephen the VI. was strangled; Romanus 
 was Pope a few months; Thcodorus only twenty 
 days; and Leo V. forty days; Sergius usurped 
 the Holy See, imprisoning his predecessor; John 
 XII. was a slave to vice and debauch." The 
 same writer (Vol. 7. c. 16. page 14.) says, "Pope 
 Alexander VI. died August 17, 1503, by the poi- 
 son which he had prepared for another, loaded 
 with the iniquities of himself and his natural son 
 Caesar Borgea." I present to your consideration 
 this picture. These are specimens of the Popes. 
 As to the Priesthood at large, and also the Mo- 
 nasteries, Nunneries, &c. f and the immoral doc- 
 trines as well as lives of the Clergy, Jesuits, &c. 
 I have in several successive letters given full, 
 satisfactory, unanswered, and unnoticed authori- 
 ties. To them I now refer you. If they are not 
 
•-ill 
 
 sufficient, enough is in reserve. The worst, the 
 half has not been told ! 
 
 Now according to your promise, I call on you 
 to meet these testimonies from Roman Catholic 
 historians. Do it with candour, and without eva- 
 sion, so that the community may see before we 
 close this discussion, one example from your pen, 
 of ingenuous thinking, and an elevated love, not 
 of victory, but of truth. 
 
 In my last letter I exposed the palpable rebel- 
 lion of the Church of Rome against the laws of 
 God, on the subject of the celibacy of the clergy. 
 You make no other reply than the following, 
 which supplies with insolence, the lack of argu- 
 ment. " But how are we to expect the truth of 
 history from a pen, which, in desperation, cor- 
 rupts the sacred text of Scripture itself." 
 
 Here we have a sample of your usual disingenu- 
 ousness. In 1 Tim. iii. 2. it is written in your 
 standard Bible, " Oportet ergo Episcopum irre- 
 prehensibilem, esse unius uxori3, virum." This 
 is correctly translated in our English version, "a 
 Bishop must be blameless, the husband of one 
 wife." Again in Titus i. 6. "If any (Bishop) 
 be blameless, the husband of one wife." Will 
 you compare these verses and say then, with 
 reckless disregard of truth, that I corrupt the sa- 
 cred text, when your own Bible confronts you ] 
 Does not this distinctly declare that a Bishop 
 m ay marry ; that if he should he must he the hus- 
 band of one wife ! And in Titus i. 6., the refer- 
 ence is not to a Bishop who once had a wife, but 
 who was living in that relation when the Apostle 
 wrote, viz : " if a Bishop be — the husband of one 
 wife." Peter " the first Pope," had a wife, 
 though Paul had not ; and Paul writes, " mar- 
 riage is honourable in all." But your church 
 forbids marriage to her clergy. Is not this fight- 
 ing against God 1 While the word of God thus 
 extends to all the privilege of matrimony, your 
 Bellarmine says, (I hope you will notice this 
 also in your next letter) " It is a greater evil to 
 marry than to commit fornication," i. e. for those 
 under a vow of celibacy. (Bell. b. 2. De Mon. 
 c. 34.) and Cardinal Campegius (Apud. Sleidan. 
 b. 4.) openly declared before the magistrates of 
 Strasburg ; " that it was a greater sin for Priests 
 to marry than to keep several concubines in their 
 own houses." Quod sacerdotes mariti fiant, 
 giavius esse peccatum, quam si plurimas domi- 
 meritrices alant ! 
 
 We come next to the charge of bigotry, and 
 an intollerant, exclusive spirit. In proof of this 
 I adduced the creed of your church, the declara- 
 tion of a pope, and the Rhemish Translators at 
 large. As you deny none of these, we are I sup- 
 pose to take them for granted. Your rejoinder, in 
 charging a similar spirit on the Presbyterian 
 church, is of a piece with your extracts from Ter- 
 tullian, the works of Luther, Wesley, and the life 
 of Bishop Jewel. In citing a paragraph from the 
 25th chap, of our Confession of Faith, which I in- 
 sert below, entire, you leave out that part which is 
 put in italics. It is as follows: "The visible 
 church, which is also Catholic, or universal, under 
 the Gospel (not confined to one nation as before un- 
 
 der the law) consists of all those throughout the 
 world, that profess the true religion, together with 
 their children; and is the kingdom of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out 
 of which there is no ordinary possibility of salva- 
 tion." On this passage thus mutilated you make 
 the following extraordinary comment. " This 
 doctrine secures heaven to Presbyterians and their 
 children, and denies the 'possibility' of salva- 
 tion to all the rest of mankind, Protestants as 
 well as Catholics. And yet you talk about bi- 
 gotry." Perhaps no conclusion was ever drawn 
 having less connection with its promises. It is 
 utterly gratuitous and wantonly perverse. So far 
 from being exclusive, the name of Presbyterian is 
 not mentioned in this paragraph. The definition 
 takes away all limits more narrow than " the uni- 
 versal church under the Gospel ;" and it makes 
 the church to " consist,'''' not of Presbyterians, but 
 " of all those throughout the world that profess 
 the true religion, together with their children.' 7 
 In the very next chap., also, is the following dis- 
 tinct condemnation of all narrow feelings and 
 bigoted opinions. " Saints by profession, are 
 bound to maintain a holy fellowship and commu- 
 nion in the worship of God, and in performing 
 such other spiritual services as tend to their mu- 
 tual edification; as also in relieving each other in 
 outward things, according to their several abili- 
 ties and necessities, which communion, as God 
 offereth opportunity, is to be extended unto all 
 those, who, in every place, call upon the name 
 of the Lord Jesus." In chap. 1. of book 1. form 
 of government Sec. 5. it is written, " they (i. e. the 
 Presb. ch.) believe that there are truths and forms, 
 with respect to which, men of good character and 
 principles may differ. And in all this they think 
 it the duty, both of private Christians and socie- 
 ties, to exercise mutual forbearance towards each 
 other." Such is the spirit of liberality and love 
 which our standards proclaim, and in which our 
 people glory. Thus it is that we delight to ex- 
 tend the right had of fellowship to all who love 
 our Lord Jesus, and say " hail aster" to every 
 church that " holds the head," that is Christ. To 
 you we leave the service of making the truth 
 " intollerant" It is a discovery reserved for the 
 Papacy ; and you glory in your shame when you 
 connect such contradictions. Now in contrast with 
 the above extracts, hear the doctrine of the church 
 of Rome. The canon law declares " it is necessary 
 to salvation for every human being to be subject 
 to the Roman Pontiff." The creed of the church, by 
 which all its members are bound, under a solemn 
 oath, professes, "that without the true faith of 
 the Roman Catholic church, none can be saved." 
 Mr. Hughes says, letter 27, " no Christians agreed 
 with Protestants in doctrine, from the days of 
 Christ until the coming of Luther ; and very few 
 since," Of course very few Protestants are saved ! 
 Indeed this is more than intimated, in the succeed- 
 ing paragraph. If this be so, then truly it is one 
 ofthe greatest calamities that ever befell the Ame- 
 rican Protestants, that you have been selected to 
 " preach up to them" " the only true church;" 
 for at every step, you confirm them more and 
 
242 
 
 more in fatal error ! I will only add on this topic, 
 that to this day, once every year, the Pope at. 
 Rome, publicly, and in full form, excommunicates 
 all Protestants ; and absolution is refused to all those 
 who harbor these heretics, vbho read their books, &c. 
 &c; and all ecclesiastical persons (Mr. Hughes 
 included) are required to publish the Bull, that 
 the faithful may know its contents ! 
 
 I would now resume the discussion on Tran- 
 substantiation. This, with its adjuncts is undoubt- 
 edly one of the distinguishing, and radical doc- 
 trines of the church of Rome. You have present- 
 ed it at large, in Letter No. 27. Before proceeding 
 to examine your arguments I will refresh the 
 memory of the reader by giving the doctrine in 
 the words of your church. The Council of Trent 
 at its 13th Session thus decreed touching the doc- 
 trine of Transubstantiation. " In the first place 
 the holy Council teacheth, and openly and plain- 
 ly professeth, that our Lord Jesus Christ, true 
 God and man, is truly, really, and substantially 
 contained in the pure sacrament of the holy Eu- 
 charist, after the consecration of the bread and 
 wine, and under the species of those sensible ob- 
 jects." " By the consecration of the bread and 
 wine there is effected a conversion of the whole 
 substance, the bread into the substance of the body 
 of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance 
 of the wine into the substance of his blood , which 
 conversion is fitly and properly termed by the 
 Holy Catholic church, Transubstantiat^n.^ " If 
 any one shall deny that in the most holy sacra- 
 ment of the Eucharist, there are contained truly, 
 really, and substantially, the body and blood, to- 
 gether with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ; or say that he is in it only as a sign or 
 figure or by his power, let him be accursed." 
 The following extracts from the Catechism of the 
 Council of Trent, part the 2d, Chap, the 4th de- 
 fine the method of consecration, &c. &c. " Here 
 the pastor will also explain to the faithful that 
 in this sacrament not only the true body of Christ, 
 and all the constituents of a true body, as bones 
 and sinews (velut ossa et nervos) but also Christ, 
 whole and entire are contained. — " The Catholic 
 Church, then, firmly believes, and openly profess- 
 es, that in this sacrament the words of consecration 
 accomplish three things ; first, that the true and real 
 body of Christ, the same that was born of the Virgin, 
 and is now seated at the right hand of the Father in 
 heaven, is rendered present in the holy eucharist; 
 secondly, that however repugnant it may appear 
 to the dictate of the senses, no substance of the ele- 
 ments remains in the sacraments ; and thirdly, a 
 natural consequence of the two preceding, and 
 one which the words of consecration also ex- 
 press, that the accidents which present themselves 
 to the eyes, or other senses, exist in a wonderful 
 and ineffable manner, without a subject. All the 
 accidents of bread and wine we see ; but they 
 inhere in no substance, and exist independently of 
 any. The substance of the bread and wine is so 
 changed into the body and blood of our Lord, 
 that they altogether cease to be the substance of 
 bread and wine." " The accidents cannot inhere 
 in the body and blood of Christ ; they must there- 
 
 fore, above the xohole order of nature, subsist of 
 themselves, inhering in no subject." Finally, 
 the efficacy of the consecrating act, depends upon 
 the intention of the officiating priest, so that if he 
 lacks the intention, to Transubstantiate, no 
 change takes place, and the bread and wine 
 remain the same, (see 6th chap. Coun. Tr. Can. 
 11.) " Whoever shall affirm that when ministers 
 perform and confer a sacrament, it is not necessa- 
 ry that they should at least have the intention to 
 do what the church does, let him be accursed." 
 Tn defence of this doctrine, you adduced in let- 
 ter No. 27, the 6th chap, of John. In letter 28, 
 I exposed so fully your improper use of that pas- 
 sage, that you seem to have abandoned its further 
 aid in defence of transubstantiation. Your appli- 
 cation of it to the defence of the real presence, is 
 refuted by two popes, four cardinals, two arch- 
 bishops, five bishops, and doctors, and professors 
 of divinity to^such a number as to make in all no less 
 than thirty Papal writers, who deny that the 6th 
 chap, of John gives any support to transubstantia- 
 tion. The only other portions of Scripture which 
 you adduce in support of this doctrine, are found in 
 the accouut of the institution of the eucharist given 
 by Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul. The Douay 
 and English translations used in this country, 
 differ so little from each other in these passages, 
 that either will suffice to exhibit the language of 
 institution. We' give them in our translation. 
 
 Matthew xxvi. 26 — 29. " And as they were 
 eating; Jesus took bread and blessed it, and brake 
 it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, take, 
 eat ; this is my body. And he took the cup, and 
 gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink 
 ye all of it. For this is my blood of the New 
 Testament, which is shed for many, for the re- 
 mission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not 
 drink henceforth of this fruit of the wine, until 
 that day when I drink it new with you in my 
 Father's Kingdom." Mark xiv. 22—25, differs 
 from Matthew only by adding, " and they all 
 drank of it." Luke xxii. 19 — 20, adds: " This do 
 in remembrance of me." 1 Cor. xi. 23 — 27. 
 " The Lord Jesus, the same night in which he 
 was betrayed, took bread ; and when he had 
 given thanks, he brake it and said, Take, eat; 
 this is my body, which is broken for you ; this 
 do in remembrance of me. After the same man- 
 ner also, he took the cup, when he had supped, 
 saying, This cup is the New Testament in my 
 blood ; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in 
 remembrance of me," &c. "Wherefore, whosoever 
 shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the 
 Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body a^id 
 blood of the Lord." 
 
 I. The question between us is not, whether 
 Christ be present in this sacrament ; but how he 
 is present. Evangelical Protestants all allow, 
 as their standards clearly evince, that Christ is 
 spiritually present ; and the truth of Christ's 
 words recorded above, they undoubtedly believe. 
 But they utterly deny that the bread and wine 
 are by the consecration of a priest changed into 
 the very, the real body and blood u bones and 
 sinews" of Christ, so that the bread and wine no 
 
243 
 
 longer remain; but under their appearance is 
 contained that same Christ who was born of the 
 Virgin, together with his soul and divinity. 
 This we deny to be meant in the words of the in- 
 stitution. In fact it is upon the wrong interpreta- 
 tion of these passages that the proof of transub- 
 stantiation rests. Here observe, there is bo ne- 
 cessity of taking the words literally. You ad- 
 mit that there are figures used in the Bible. 
 Why then take these literally? When the Apos- 
 tle tells us (Ephesians v. 30.) " We are mem- 
 bers of Christ's body, of his jlesh, and of his 
 bones,-" and calls it "a great mystery" — is it 
 literal or figurative ? Surely he does not mean to 
 say the bones and flesh of Christ are substantially 
 in every believer ? When Christians are said, 
 (Hebs. vi. 4.) " To be made partakers of the 
 Holy Ghost,'''' are we to understand that they are 
 really deified ? Or (1. Cor. x. 17.) "We being 
 many, are one bread and one body.'''' Does it mean 
 that all Christians are first compounded into one 
 body, a"nd then that body is transmuted into one 
 great loaf? Yet literally taken it must so 1 
 You will not deny that figures may be used in a 
 sacrament. For this is the very nature of a sa- 
 crament, to be an outward sign and figure of 
 some invisible grace and benefit. Besides, the 
 words of this sacrament are replete with figure. 
 When it is said, "this cup is the New Testament 
 in my blood," there is a figure ; viz. the cup is put 
 for the wine ,• for if it be literal, then the cup is 
 changed (and not the wine ;) and the cup is 
 changed into the New Testament, and not into 
 Chrisfs blood. Or if you say that it is the wine 
 which is changed into a Testament, then we have 
 this absurdity, viz. that the testator, is also the 
 testament. But you will not deny that it is by 
 a figure that the cup is called, the New Testa- 
 ment. I ask, then, why it may not be by a figure, 
 that the wine is called the blood of Christ, and 
 the bread his body 1 Again, these words " this 
 cup is the New Testament in my blood," plainly 
 show that what is in the cup is not really the 
 blood of Christ. For suppose " this cup" to 
 mean " this blood," then we make Christ say 
 " this blood is the New Testament in my 
 blood ;" that is, the blood of Jesus Christ 
 is in the blood of Jesus Christ. In order to 
 avoid this absurdity, Bellarmine actually makes 
 two sorts of blood of Jesus Christ. (Book 1. 
 chap. 11. of the Eucharist.) The conclusion, 
 then, is irresistable, that since literally taken, 
 it makes nonsense, it is spoken in a figure. 
 Besides, if the words " this is my body," are to 
 be taken literally, then the bread is changed into 
 the body of the Priest and not the body of Christ, 
 as it is the Priest who speaks. For your church 
 holds, that the Priest (tanquam gerens personam 
 Christi,) personates Qhrist, when he repeats the 
 words of consecration ; and that they operate what 
 they signify; Hence it is the priesfs body and 
 not Chrisfs, which is wrought into the sacrament; 
 and the priest's body which the people worship. 
 If not, then the words of consecration, were only 
 historical, and used in a. figure. Observe still fur- 
 ther that the words are not, " this shall be my 
 
 body," nor " this is made, or shall be changed into 
 my body," but " this is my body." Now the Word 
 "this" can refer to no other substance, than that 
 which was present when our Lord spoke that 
 word. But the only substance which was then 
 present was bread. This is acknowledged by 
 your own authorities. In the gloss upon Gratian, 
 (De Consecrat. Dist. Cap. 55.) it is said, " it is 
 impossible that bread should be the body of Christ." 
 Bellarmine also owns, (Book 1. chap. 1. on the 
 Eucharist) " that these words viz. « this is my 
 body,' must be taken as a figure, bread being the 
 body of Christ in signification (significative) or 
 else it is plainly absurd and impossible ,- for it can- 
 not be that bread shov.ld be the body of Christ." 
 It clearly appears then, that when Christ said 
 " this is my body," he meant it in a figure. Hence, 
 in Luke 22. 19, it is written : " He took bread 
 and gave thanks and gave it unto them saying, 
 this is my body, which is given for you, this do 
 in remembrance of me." Now what did he call 
 his body, but that which he gave to his disciples ? 
 What did he give to them, but that which he 
 broke ? And what was it he broke, but what he 
 took ? And does not Luke tell us, in so many 
 words that he took bread ? Then was it not of 
 the bread he spoke when he said " this is my 
 body ?" But could bread be his body in any 
 other way than as a sacrament, in a figure, or as 
 he expressly tells us, a memorial of his body? 
 The Apostle Paul puts this subject beyond doubt, 
 (in 1st Cor. 10. 16) "the bread which we break, 
 is it not the communion of the body of Christ." Is 
 not this a distinct declaration, that the breadis the 
 body of Christ] And if so, did not Bellarmine 
 rightly say that we must understand it figurative- 
 ly, since it is impossible that bread should be 
 literally the body of Christ 1 ? Let it not be said 
 that Paul meant that which once was bread, but 
 now is the real body of Christ ; for he says " the 
 bread which we break,- " and you own that the 
 real body of Christ cannot be broken. So that it 
 is bread and only bread which is meant in the 
 words of institution ; and therefore, when Christ 
 said " this is my body," he spoke of it sacra- 
 mentally and in a figure ,- and not of his real 
 body. 
 
 This is, if possible, still more plain in the other 
 part of the Sacrament. Matth. xxvi. 27, 28. " He 
 took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them, 
 saying, drink ye all of it, for this is my blood of 
 the New Testament :" or as Luke and Paul recite 
 it, " this cup is the New Testament in my 
 blood." Now your Church acknowledges, that 
 Christ delivered these words before the act of con- 
 secration ; and therefore, before the change took 
 place. Hence it was wine, which he called his 
 blood; it was wine of which he said, "drink 
 ye all of it;" or as he also called it the "fruit of 
 the vine." Now since you must confess that it 
 is impossible for vrine, or the fruit of the vine to 
 be really the blood of Christ, and since notwith- 
 standing, Christ called it his blood before conse- 
 cration, he could have meant nothing else than 
 his blood in a figure, or sacramentally. 
 
 It appears then, incontestably from anexamina- 
 
244 
 
 lion of the words of the institution, that the doc- 
 trine of Transubstantiation is not taught in them; 
 that so far from this, it reduces the language of 
 Christ to inextricable difficulties and absurdities 
 to put such a meaning on- his words ; and that 
 the only consistent and intelligible sense of 
 which they are capacle it that which evangelical 
 Protestants give them. It is remarkable also, 
 how strictly our interpretation accords with the 
 usage of the sacred writers. Thus, Genesis xli. 
 26. % "The seven good kine are (i.e. represent) 
 seven years ; and the seven good ears are, seven 
 years." Daniel vii. 24. " The ten horns out of 
 this kingdom are (/. e. signify) ten kings that 
 shall arise." 1 Cor. x. 4. " They drank of that 
 spiritual rock which followed them, and that rock 
 was (represented) Christ." Rev. i. 20. "The 
 seven stars are (represent) the angels of the 
 seven churches; and the seven candlesticks are 
 (represent) the seven churches." Matth. xiii. 
 38,39. "The good seed are (represent or sig- 
 nify) the children of the kingdom ; the tares are 
 (signify) the children of the wicked one : the 
 enemy is (signifies) the devil ; the harvest is 
 (signifies) the end of the world ; and the reapers 
 are (signify) the angels." With such undoubted 
 testimony from the word of God°, who can ques- 
 tion it, that when Christ say " this is my body," 
 he means this represents my body. We here sub- 
 join a very striking example from Augustine (De 
 doctrin. Christian, Lib. 3. cap. 46.) which speaks 
 volumes as to your false doctrine of Transubstan- 
 tiation, whether you found it on the 6th chapter 
 of John, or on the words of institution. "If, 
 says he, the saying be perceptive, either forbid- 
 ding a wicked action, or commanding to do that 
 which is good, it is no figurative saying ; but if 
 it seems to command any villiany or wickedness, 
 or forbid what is profitable and good, it is figu- 
 rative. This saying » except ye eat the flesh of 
 the Son of man, and drink his blood ye have no 
 life in you,' (John vi. 53.) seems to command a 
 villianous, or wicked thing ; it is therefore a fig- 
 ure, enjoining us to communicate in the passion 
 of our Lord, and to lay it up in dear and profit- 
 able remembrance, that his flesh was crucified 
 and wounded for our sakes." 
 
 From the above examination, how clear is the 
 proof, that the word of God entirely fails you 
 in sustaining the doctrine of Transubstantiation. 
 But to show you that this is not merely a Protes- 
 tant statement, let me point you again to Roman 
 Catholic authorities. Bellarmine admits, (Book 
 III. Chap. 23. on Euch.) " though the Scripture 
 quoted by us above seems clear to us, and ought to 
 convince any man who is not froward, yet it may 
 justly be doubted whether it be so, (that is, whe- 
 ther Transubstantiation can be proved from Scrip- 
 ture) when the most learned and acute men, such 
 as Scotus in particular, hold a contrary opinion." 
 Cardinal Cajetan, a famous Roman Catholic wri- 
 ter, says, (Notes on Aquinas, p. 3. q. 75. Art. I. 
 &c.) " The other point which the Gospel has not 
 expounded expressly, that is the change of the 
 bread into the body of Christ; we have received 
 r rom the Church:'' And again. "There appears 
 nothing in the Gospel to compel any man to un- 
 
 derstand these words, ' this is my body," 1 in a pro- 
 per sense. Nay, the presence (of Christ) which 
 the Church holdeth, cannot be proved, unless the 
 declaration of the Church be added." These 
 words are expunged from the Roman edition of 
 Cajetan, by order of Pope Pius V. ! ! ! It is also 
 undeniable, that Durand, Ocham and the Cardinal 
 of Cambray, Gabriel Biel, Cardinal Contarinus, 
 Melchoir Cane, and Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, 
 a martyr of your Church, unite with Scotus, in 
 granting that the doctrine of Transubstantiation 
 cannot be proved from So-ipture. And now, here 
 we might rest our cause. For if the word of 
 God will not sustain Transubstantiation, in vain 
 do you go to the authority of the Church, or the 
 testimony of the Fathers. But we will meet you 
 at all points. 
 
 II. We come then next to the testimony of the 
 Fathers. On this subject we remark: 1. That 
 their unanimous consent is necessary to prove an 
 article of faith in your Church. It is a part of 
 your rule of faith, (See Creed of Pius IV.) 
 " never to take, or interpret the sacred Scriptures 
 otherwise thai! according to the unanimous consent 
 of the lathers." Of course, if the Fathers are 
 divided on this subject, they avail you nothing. 
 2. It will abundantly appear in what follows, to say 
 the least, that the body of their testimony is entire- 
 ly against Transubstantiation. 3. If this be true, 
 then it cannot, on your own principles, be an arti- 
 cle of faith in the Church of Christ. 4. If you 
 deny this, then all the Fathers who agree with 
 Protestants were Heretics. But of the many cited 
 below, who denied the real presence, none was on 
 that account excommunicated as a Heretic. Then 
 it follows that all such were Protestants in their 
 principles, and that our doctrine was not only 
 tolerated, but professed and held at large by the 
 Fathers of the Church. 5. Such liberties have 
 been taken by your Church with the writings of 
 the Fathers, and the pruning knife and various 
 forgeries have been so frequently resorted to, that 
 every testimony in our favour is to be esteemed 
 incontrovertible indeed. 6. The Fathers often 
 used strongly figurative language, in speaking of 
 the Eucharist; and the writings of some late in 
 the history of the Church, savour of the real pre- 
 sence ; but mingled with much contradiction and 
 absurdity. With these remarks we proceed to 
 examine their authority on this subject, by way 
 of contrast with the doctrine of the Church of 
 Rome. 1. The Fathers differ from the Church 
 of Rome in determining what that thing is which 
 Christ calls " my body." We have seen above, 
 that the gloss on Gratian and Bellarmine, (and 
 we might add Salmeron, Kellison, and Vasquez,) 
 explicitly state that the word " this" cannot refer 
 to the substance of the bread, for they say, bread 
 cannot be the body of Christ. Now the Fathers 
 expressly tell us that bread is Christ's body. 
 Hence it must be in a figure as Protestants be- 
 lieve. Iraeneus in the second century (Adv. 
 Haeres. L. 5. c. 2.) says, "Our Lord confessed 
 the cup which is of the creature to be his blood, 
 and the bread which is of the creature he con- 
 firmed it to be his body." Clement of Alexan- 
 dria, second century, writes, (Psdag. Lib. 2. c. 2.) 
 
345 
 
 " Our Lord blessed the wine saying, take drink, 
 this is my blood, the blood of the grape; for the 
 holy river of gladness (that is, the wine) does al- 
 legorically signify the word (/. e. the blood of the 
 word) shed for many for the remission of sins." 
 Tertullian, (Lib. 4. Advers. Mareion, c. 40.) thus 
 writes, " the bread that he took and distributed 
 to his disciples, he made it his body, saying, 
 « this is my body,' that is, the figure of my body." 
 So likewise Cyprian, Eusebius, Origen, Cyril of 
 Jerusalem, Jerome, Chrysostom, Augustine, &c. 
 and the seventh General Council at Constanti- 
 nople, confirm the above testimonies. Here then 
 we have a decisive. proof that the ancient Fathers 
 considered Christ as speaking in a figure, when 
 he said " this is my body," and of course they 
 rejected the doctrine of Transubstantiation. 
 
 2. The Fathers, contrary to the doctrine of 
 Transubstantiation, make the bread and wine to 
 be the Sucrament, sign, type, and image of 
 Christ's blood and body. Origin, (Com. in Math. 
 15) speaking of the Eucharist, says, "thus mueh 
 may suffice concerning the typical and symbolical 
 body." Isodore, speaking of the bread and wine, 
 (De. Off. Ecc. 1. 1 C- 18) says "these two are 
 visible, but being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, 
 they pass into a sacrament of his divine body." 
 Augustine calls the Eucharist (In Psal. 3.) "a 
 banquet in which he commended and delivered 
 to his disciples the figure of his body and blood." 
 The words of the office of Ambrose (Lib. 4. de 
 Sac. c. 5) are very striking. " Wouldst thou 
 know that the Eucharist is consecrated by heaven- 
 ly words'? Hear then what the words are. The 
 Priest says, make this oblation to us allowable, 
 rational, acceptible, which is the figure of the body 
 and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ." In the pre- 
 sent canon of the Mass (a confession that Tran- 
 substantiation is new) the words, figure of the 
 body, are altered to read, may it be made to tis the 
 body, fiat nobis corpus. Eusebius (Lib. 8 Demon. 
 Evang.) thus writes, "Christ delivered to his 
 disciples the symbols of his divine economy, re- 
 quiring them to make an image of his body." 
 Ambrose says, " none can ever have been an image 
 of himself,-" and Cyril of Alexandria says, " a type 
 is not the truth, but rather imports the similitude 
 of the truth;" and Gregory Nyssen, " an image 
 would be no longer such, if it were altogether the 
 same with that of which it is an image." And 
 yet the Church of Rome ventures the following 
 anathema, " whosoever shall deny that in the 
 most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there are 
 truly, really, and substantially contained the body 
 and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, together with 
 his soul and divinity, and consequently, Christ 
 entire; but shall affirm that he is present therein 
 only in a sign or figure, or by his power .• let him 
 be accursed." 3. The Fathers directly contradict 
 the church of Rome in this, that they say Christ's 
 body is eaten spiritually, whereas the church of 
 Rome says that Christ's body is eaten, literally 
 and carnally. Berringer, A. D. 1059, recanted 
 the Protestant doctrine before the General Council 
 of Lateran, under this prescribed form, " that the 
 true body of our Lord Jesus Christ, not only in 
 
 the sign and sacrament, but in truth, is handled 
 and broken by the Priest's hands, and ground by 
 the teeth of the faithful." We have seen above 
 how St. Augustine declares that it is a "crime," 
 and "horrid thing" to speak of "eating Christ's 
 real flesh ;" and therefore he explains it spiritu- 
 ally. Origin says (Horn. 7. in Levit.) " not 
 only in. the Old Testament is found the killing 
 letter ,- there is also in the New Testament a let- 
 ter that kills him who does not spiritually consi- 
 der what is said. For if thou follow this accord- 
 ing to the letter which was said, ' unless ye eat 
 my flesh and drink my blood,' this letter kills." 
 Macarius (Homil. 27.) " They which are partak- 
 ers of the visible bread do spiritually eat the flesh 
 of the Lord." Augustine (In Psl. 98.) repre- 
 sents our Lord as " saying understand spiritually 
 what I have spoken. Ye are not. to eat this body 
 which ye see, nor to drink that blood which they 
 shall shed, who will crucify me. I have com- 
 mended a certain sacrament to you which, if spiri- 
 tually understood, will give life to you ; and since 
 it is necessary this sacrament should be visibly 
 celebrated, yet it must be invisibly tmderstood by 
 you." This is the very language of evangelical 
 Protestants. What makes this position still 
 more clear, is that the Fathers make Christ as 
 really present in baptism, as in the eucharist. 
 Thus Chrysostom, (Cat. ad. Ilium.) speaking to 
 those' who were to receive baptism says, " you 
 shall be clothed with the p lrple garment dyed in 
 the Lord's blood." Fulgentius (De. Bapt. Ae- 
 thiop. Cap. Ult.) writes, "neither need any one at 
 all doubt that then, every believer is made parta- 
 ker of our Lord's body mid blood, when he is 
 made a member of Christ in baptism." 
 
 4. The Fathers deny the substantial presence of 
 Christ's natural body in the eucharist, and thus 
 differ wholly from the Chu-ch of Rome. This 
 may be proved from the writings of Ambrose, 
 Augustine, Cyril, Chrysostoia, Gregory, Nazi- 
 anzen, &c. 
 
 5. The Fathers positively assert that the substance 
 of the bread and wine remains after consecration, 
 which is directly the reverse of Transubstantia- 
 tion. In Theodoret's Dialogues 2. it is written, 
 " after sanctification the mystical symbols do not 
 depart from their own nature, for they remain still 
 in their former substance and figure and form, and 
 may be seen and touched just as before. But they 
 are understood to be that which they are made, 
 and are believed and venerated as beino- what 
 they are believed to be." (Dial. 1.) " He (Christ) 
 honoured the visible symbols with the appellation 
 of his body and blood, not altering nature, but to 
 nature adding grace." The same may be proved 
 from Peter Martyr, Chrysostom, Pope Gelasius, 
 Facundus, Origin, Cyprian, lrenseus, Ambrose, 
 Augustine, &c. 
 
 The multiplication of particulars and of proofs 
 would be endless. But from the Fathers it may 
 abundantly be gathered, that Transubstantiation 
 was not the doctrine of the early church. They 
 contradict the church of Rome about the nature 
 and properties of bodies ; they deny that " acci- 
 dents" or properties can exist without a subject, 
 
346 
 
 that is, the appearance of bread, without its sub- 
 stance ,- they deny that our senses can deceive us 
 in the Eucharist; they deny that any but the 
 faithful can eat " Christ's body ;" the absurd use 
 of the word species in your-church was unknown 
 to them ; they professed no miracle in the Eucha- 
 rist such as you do, but make it a spiritual mys- 
 tery ; they gave the cup to the people, as .well as 
 the bread ; they never elevated the Eucharist that 
 it might be adored ; they took no care to reserve 
 what remained of the consecrated elements after 
 administration, and they allowed the people to 
 make what use they pleased of them ; and they 
 even used to send the elements from one Bishop 
 to another as a token of peace ; strange use, im- 
 pious custom if indeed it was the real body of 
 Christ! In all these things they differed wholly 
 from the church of Rome; and by these differen- 
 ces showed that they believed not the doctrine of 
 Transubstantiation. I hope hereafter, to have the 
 opportunity of presenting the argument from the 
 Fathers to the community at full length, either in 
 a public discussion with you, or if you decline 
 this, in a form which will give room for ample 
 citation of authorities. In the mean time let me 
 say, in reference to the work of Thomas Moore 
 (from which you seem chiefly to draw your tes- 
 timonies) that there is not a more garbled, dishon- 
 est and superficial view of the writings of the 
 Fathers, in any language. 
 
 III. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is not 
 only against the Scripture and the Fathers, but 
 it is contrary to reason , and contradicts all our senses. 
 Bellarmine himself acknowledges, (Book 2. chap. 
 12. De Eucharist) " we might be accounted fools 
 truly, if without the word of God, we believed the 
 true flesh of Christ to be eaten with the mouths of 
 our bodies." But w« have shown conclusively 
 that it is believed without the authority of God's 
 word. Hence on bis principles it is an absur- 
 dity. When you attempt to put this doctrine by 
 the side of the Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ 
 &c. you compare the most opposite and dissimi- 
 lar things. There is not a mystery, or a doctrine 
 of Christianity that is contrary to reason. In 
 saying therefore, " when you study mathematics 
 you reason, but in revelation you believe,'''' you can 
 mean I suppose nothing more than Bellarmine 
 does (Lib. 1. cap. 7. De Just.) " that faith is bet- 
 ter defined by ignorance than knowledge.'''' In 
 revelation, as in Mathematics, we reason upon 
 facts, communicated in the one case through God's 
 word, in the other through his works. When his 
 word reveals facts which connect themselves with 
 his works, they do not contradict each other. It 
 is not a contradiction to say that Jesus Christ 
 was a perfect man and yet God, though the revela- 
 tion is above our reason. But it is a contradiction 
 to say that a piece bread can become a perfect 
 man, " bones, sinews, body and soul ;" that the 
 man Christ Jesus, who is in Heaven, should at 
 the same time be bodily in the bread, nay, in ten 
 thousand pieces of bread, in ten thousand places 
 at the same time ; that the bread should be turned 
 into the substance of Christ, and yet nothing of the 
 bread become any of Christ, either as to matter, 
 
 form or properties ; that the bread should yet be 
 so changed into Christ's substance as to cease to 
 be bread, and still retain the appearances of bread, 
 so that there should be a long, broad, thick, white, 
 heavy, moist, active, passive nothing t that there 
 should be length and nothing long, breadth and 
 nothing broad, thickness and nothing thick, 
 whiteness and nothing white, weight and nothing 
 heavy, &c. &c; that this strange something 
 nothing, seeming bread and not bread, the body 
 of Christ yet seeming bread, should be eaten and 
 pass into our blood, and should be a body, and 
 yet not diminished, and be living in heaven entire 
 and unbroken, while all this is going on upon 
 earth, is I say an infinite absurdity. Yet this is 
 a part of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. 
 Again, the proof of miracles rests on the testimony 
 of the senses. Hence when Christ rose from the 
 dead, he said to unbelieving Thomas " handle me 
 and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye 
 see me have." All the miracles of the Bible ap- 
 peal to the senses of men ; that is not a miracle 
 which the senses cannot discern ,- and that is not 
 a true miracle which contradicts the senses. 
 Hume's argument in favour of infidelity proceeds 
 upon the denial of the testimony of the senses ; 
 and if Transubstantiation be true he cannot be 
 confuted. Now the senses say that the bread is 
 still bread, and the wine, still wine, after all your 
 consecration ; therefore, there is no miracle, or the 
 senses would discern it ; it is not the flesh of Christ 
 for the senses all say it is bread. When there- 
 fore you say I have " forgotten my philosophy," 
 you discover that the philosophy of the Bible, 
 and of Newton and of Bacon, and of common sense, 
 all are with me. Your church seemed to feel this 
 difficulty in its canons and its cathechism. Thus 
 the Catechism says, "however repugnant it may 
 appear to the dictate of the senses no substance of the 
 elements remains in the sacraments.'* In fact, in 
 the whole account of the Eucharist, there are al- 
 most as many absurdities as words. When you 
 refer to the Holy Ghost appearing at the bap- 
 tism of Christ in the form of a dove, you not only 
 forget your philosophy but pervert your Bible. 
 The Holy Ghost never had a human body .• He 
 appeared in the form of a dove ; and we do not 
 deny that God may manifest himself in a vi- 
 sible form. But the cases are not parallel. If 
 it had been said, that what appeared to be a dove, 
 was a man, and yet had all the external appear- 
 ances of a dove, and that this same man, which 
 appeared a dove to John at Jordan, was at the 
 same time in Heaven on the Throne a real man, 
 then you might have claimed it for an illustra- 
 tion. 
 
 It is a remarkable fact that the ancient hea- 
 then, Jews, and infidels, such as Celsus, and 
 Porphyry, Lucian, Julian and Trypho, who used 
 all their wit and cunning to oppose the doctrine 
 and worship of Christians, and who attacked by 
 name the doctrines of the Trinity, the Sonship of 
 Christ, his Incarnation, Crucifixion, and our Re- 
 surrection, as absurdities, never once noticed the 
 doctrine of the real presence, which surely is the 
 mystery of mysteries. From this it is evident 
 
247 
 
 that the doctrine was not then known. This is 
 the more clear from the fact that Julian was once 
 initiated into the Christian Church, and there- 
 fore, knew all their doctrines and mysteries ; yet 
 he attacked all the rest and never named this. 
 But on the other hand, just about the time at 
 which Transubstantiation was adopted, A. D. 
 1215, Jews and Mahommedans, and others, with 
 great fullness and frequency, attacked this doc- 
 trine. Averroes, a Mahommedan, whom we 
 quoted in a former letter, saying, " that Chris- 
 tians first made their God, then ate him," lived in 
 the same age with Innocent III. and the Lateran 
 Council, which introduced this doctrine, sat under 
 Innocent. Now we object not to the doctrine 
 because Mahommedans, Jews, &c. opposed it, 
 but because they never opposed it before, though 
 they opposed whatever they thought absurd be- 
 fore that age ; and have opposed this doctrine 
 ever since that age ; therefore, we infer that in 
 that age it was adopted. There is also this sin- 
 gular fact, that the faking away of the cup from 
 the people immediately followed the adoption of 
 Transubtantiation. As the wine (by this doctrine) is 
 Christ's real blood, so the use of the cup exposed it 
 to be spilt,- and besides as the blood is said to be in 
 the body, so the cup became useless. He that 
 runs may read and understand this. 
 
 IV. We notice briefly the origin of this doc- 
 -trine. The last remark goes far to prove its re- 
 cent date. Scotus, a Roman Catholic writer, (as 
 Bellarmine owns) states " that it was not an arti- 
 cle of faith before the Lateran Council, A. D. 
 1215." It is false when you charge me with 
 saying that this doctrine was not held before 
 1215 ; but I still assert that it was never an article 
 of faith before. In proof this I refer not only to 
 Scotus, but to Tonstal, to Durand, Erasmus, and 
 Alfonsus a Castro. Erasmus says, (De Hseres, 
 B. 8.) " that it was late before the church defined 
 Transubstantiation, which was unknown to the 
 ancients, both name and thing." And now I chal- 
 lenge you to produce any proof that it was enacted 
 an article of faith before 1215. It was agitated 
 for some time before ; it was matter of discussion 
 in the church till the year 1059, when Berringer 
 recanted the truth on this subject; in 1079 his re- 
 cantation was amended ,- and finally, after a world 
 of strife, through several ages, the doctrine was 
 promoted into an article of faith in 1215. 
 
 V. Your objections are so trivial and puerile, 
 that they scarcely deserve notice. You say, " if 
 the body of Christ was not in the Sacrament how 
 could men discern it there V I answer, can you 
 discern the body after Transubstantiation 1 Is 
 not the very word " spec/fs" used in your Church 
 to cover the absurdity of saying Christ's flesh is 
 there, though we discern only bread? Truly, if the 
 evidence of Christianity had rested on such mira- 
 cles as no man can see, we should all have been 
 without a religion ! We discern Christ spiritually 
 you worship the bread and superinduce idolatry 
 upon the Eucharist. 
 
 You say : " to creatures deputed by God some 
 power was given, but to Christ all power, both in 
 heaven and in earth, and it was in the Eucharist 
 
 alone that this all power was exercised." Strange 
 indeed! Christ "exercised this all power" in 
 the only way in which, from the nature of the 
 case, no body could see, feel, or know that it 
 was exercised ! Other miracles, you say, crea- 
 tures could work by delegation ; other miracles, 
 as raising the dead, passing the Red Sea, &c. 
 &c, spoke for themselves, and were seen as soon 
 as done. But this miracle, which "all" Christ's 
 power and his "alone'''' could operate, is dumb 
 and invisible; none ever discerned it, or ever 
 can ; and in order to know it, you must tell us it 
 has been done, and we must disbelieve our senses 
 in order to believe you. Besides, are not all 
 miracles, by the power, and to the glory of 
 Christ] And does not this pretended miracle 
 degrade his humanity, and Deify the operating 
 Priest? And does it not destroy all miracles to 
 believe this miracle ] If this be true all others 
 may be false, for this falsifies all those senses on 
 which the truth of other miracles rests. You 
 say Christ and his Apostles did not warn Chris- 
 tians of the error of Transubstantiation, though they 
 spoke of other errors that were to arise ; and you 
 more than intimate that Christ w r as " guilty of du- 
 plicity,' 1 '' if Transubstantiation be false. Such pro- 
 fanity needs no comment. But I ask, did Christ 
 and his Apostles warn Christians of the Protes- 
 tant error of denying the real presence 1 Did he 
 not warn them of " seducing spirits ;" of " their 
 lying wonders;" of their " changing the truth of 
 God into a lie ;" " exalting themselves above 
 God;" " forbidding to marry," &c. &c? These 
 prophetic warnings are so direct and clear, that 
 they are written in as sun-beams on the Vatican 
 at Rome. 
 
 VI. As the real presence of Christ depends upon 
 the intention of the Priest who consecrates ; (See 
 the Canon already quoted) and as Bellarmine 
 owns, (Book 3. Chap. 8 Justn.) " no man can be 
 certain, withthe certainty of faith that he receives 
 a true Sacrament; because it depends on the 
 minister's intention to consecrate it ; and none 
 can see another's intention ;" it follows irresisti- 
 bly that to worship the consecrated wafer ex- 
 poses every member of your Church to continual 
 and gross idolatry. For how can you be certain 7 
 And if you are not certain, how dare you worship 
 it 1 For if it be not truly consecrated, you en- 
 courage, and you practice gross idolatry. 
 
 VII. It would be quite amusing, if it did not 
 call up. along with that feeling, others more seri- 
 ous, to find you claiming the ancient Liturgies, as 
 teaching Transubstantiation. I here venture to 
 assert that there is not one word of truth in all 
 you have said on that subject; and I am prepared 
 to prove what I say whenever you please. So 
 far is what you say from being true, that the 
 Mass, decretals, and glosses of the Church of 
 Rome do much to overthrow Transubstantiation, 
 as I will show in my next letter, if you deny it; 
 and so confessed is this, that the Mass has been 
 altered so as to change the ancient Liturgy, (which 
 was against Transubstantiation) to make it speak 
 for it. There is another fact on this subject, which 
 speaks volumes in behalf of the Protestant doc- 
 
348 
 
 trine. It is that the ancient Syrian Christians, 
 called St. Thomas's Christians, because evange- 
 lized by the Apostle Thomas, and who have come 
 down with the Bible in their hands from the days 
 of the Apostles, reject Transubstantiation, as well 
 as " the Apochryphal books " which your church 
 has foisted into the canon. For these, and other 
 Protestant doctrines, their Breviary, Book of Ho- 
 milies, &c. were condemned by a Roman Catho- 
 lic Synod held in Goa, India, A. D. 1599. But 
 more of this hereafter- May I not then retort the 
 question, " what have you now to say for your- 
 self?" 
 
 Thus we see that on every point Transubstan- 
 tiation is a false, shocking', novel doctrine. With 
 Transubstantiation falls the sacrifice of the Mass. 
 Upon Transubstantiation, every thing impor- 
 tant and decisive in the church of Rome may 
 be said in a degree to hang. It is on account of 
 its importance, and dreadful evils that I have en- 
 tered so largely into the discussion of it. Hav- 
 ing not room to take up your remarks in the last 
 letter on the sacrifice of the mass and communion 
 in one kind, I for the present refer our readers to 
 my exposure of them in letters No. 22 and 24. 
 
 And now the doctrine of truth which remains 
 on the subject of the Eucharist, is the simple and 
 sublime institution founded by Jesus Christ, 
 practised by the earliest Christians, taught by the 
 Fathers for the first six hundred years, and 
 now held and practised by the great body of Pro- 
 testants in Europe and America, which makes 
 the elements of bread and wine to be symbols 
 and figures of the body and blood of Christ; which 
 gives the bread and the wine to all who commune; 
 which makes saving faith the qualification to par- 
 take profitably, and to discern the spiritual pre- 
 sence of Christ in his sacrament ; and which is 
 the only rational and consistent construction that 
 can be put upon the words of institution. Lu- 
 ther's doctrine called "consubstantiation," retains 
 a remnant of his Papal errors, as his great mind 
 was in transition from the absurdities of the real 
 presence towards the simple and beautiful insti- 
 tution of Jesus Christ. But whatever his doc- 
 trine was, it is radically different from yours, 
 whose enormous evils his eyes were opened to 
 behold. 
 
 You lug in "the review" of your review of 
 " Bishop Onderdonk's charge on the Rule of 
 Faith," as if you had nothing to do beside. When 
 I called you out on tradition you declined to ap- 
 pear. Now you would divert me from unveiling 
 to an astonished nation, the true history and real 
 doctrines of the Papacy. But no, no! Our res- 
 pected Episcopal brethren do not need my humble 
 
 help. I suppose you never read Tillotson nor 
 Barrow, nor Usher (" whose authority" I know 
 your church has never loved, nor met) nor Stilling- 
 fleet nor Sherlock, nor Patrick, nor Wake, whom 
 Bossuet could not forget. Go read them and be 
 humble ! 
 
 The personal vanity displayed in your notice 
 of this review, makes me ashamed of you. And 
 then to repeat the wretched tale of " a bookseller 
 (as you have been told) having been forbidden 
 to keep it for sale !" Have you forgotten the 
 Index Expurgatorius at Rome, for pruning books, 
 and prohibiting their perusal and sale, yes, even 
 of the Bible ? May I ask who this bookseller 
 is ? May I call for the name of your inform- 
 ant? Surely I have more right to do so, than 
 you had to demand the Rev. Mr. Burtt's? Who 
 then are these whose scandals you retail and pub- 
 lish against the Episcopal community"? 
 
 In my next letter, if my life is continued, I will 
 classify and extend my answers to your stereotype 
 stale questions. They have already been replied 
 to. But you shall not complain of my silence. In 
 the mean time I ask an answer to the following- 
 enquiries, viz: % 
 
 1. Did Pope Liberius subscribe the Arian creed, 
 yes or no ? 
 
 2. Did the councils of Sermium and Ariminum 
 adopt Arian creeds ? 
 
 3. Does the validity of ordinations, administra- 
 tion of the sacraments, &c. depend on the inten- 
 tion of Popes, Bishops, and Priests ? 
 
 4. Was there ever a time when there was a 
 schism in the Popedom, when several persons 
 claimed to be popes at once, and it was not cer- 
 tainly known who was the true pope ; and were 
 there ever any false popes ? 
 
 5. Do you approve the decrees of councils, rules 
 of the Index, and bulls of popes against the free- 
 dom of the press? Is there not now a committee 
 at Rome who may, and do, prohibit to all the 
 church the printing, sale, and reading of any books 
 they please ? If so, do you approve of this ? 
 
 6. Why is money paid for indulgences, masses 
 for the dead, and in aid of souls in Purgatory ? 
 
 7. Was it right to abolish the order of the 
 Jesuits ? Was it right to restore it ? The same 
 two questions also touching the Inquisition ? 
 
 8. If the Jewish church was infallible why do 
 you reject all her traditions ? These questions 
 bear directly on the controversy. An explicit an- 
 swer to them will gratify the community, many 
 of whom are surprised that you evade so many 
 subjects brought before you; and it will also much 
 oblige your obedient servant, 
 
 John Breckinridge. 
 
CONTROVERSY.. ...N°. 31. 
 
 Is the Protestant Religion the Religion of Christ? 
 
 Philadelphia, September 2d } 1833. 
 
 To the Rev. John Breckinridge. 
 
 Rev. Sir, — "Mr. Breckinridge says that "the Proles 
 tant is the religion of Christ" 
 
 If so, I call upon him 1st. To tell me what the Protes 
 tant religion is ? 
 
 2. I call upon him to say what society of Chris 
 Hans ever taught this pretended " religion of 
 Christ" previous to the Reformation ? 
 
 3. J call upon him to say, whether Christ revealed 
 all the doctrines of the Protestant religion, be- 
 ginning with the best image of his church, Epis- 
 copalianism, and terminating with the most con- 
 sistent of Protestant sects, the Unitarians ? — 
 and if not, how many denominations out of the 
 whole belong to the true Protestant religion, 
 the religion of Christ ? 
 
 4. I call upon /lint to s7ww whethtr the Reformers 
 received any new ministerial authority, afttr 
 the withdrawal of that which they had received 
 from the church ? 
 
 5. J call upon him, in case no such new authority 
 was received, to show that the Protestant clergy, 
 so called, have any divine right to exercise the 
 Christian ministry, more than other educated 
 laymen /" 
 
 In my last Letter I promised to " expose you," 
 in case you would mention " the page" of any 
 Catholic historian who states what you had as- 
 serted, respecting the immorality of the Popes 
 and Clergy of Rome." You have complied with 
 your part of the condition, and now, it is for me 
 to fulfil mine. You give two extracts ; and refer 
 me to the pages where they are to be found. 
 The one is from " Thuanus, Book 37. p. 776." 
 The history of Thuanus has been condemned at 
 Rome by two public decrees ; the one of Novem- 
 ber 9, 1609 ; the other of May 10, 1757; from 
 which fact, the reader may see with how little 
 propriety he deserves to be called a " Roman Ca- 
 tholic historian." He was, says a modern au- 
 thor, Paquot, " an audacious writer ; the implac- 
 able enemy of the Jesuits ; the calumniator of 
 the Guises ; the copyist, flatterer, friend of the 
 Protestants ; and was far from beingeven just f pa- 
 rum cequus J to the Holy See, the Council of Trent, 
 or any thing Catholic." But hostile as he was, 
 I am not certain that the extract given in your 
 letter is contained in his work ; which is not in 
 my possession. If it is to be found in the city, 
 I shall examine it. Among Catholics, however, 
 he is any thing but an accredited historian. 
 
 ' You mention as another Catholic Ivstorian, Du- 
 pin. We disown him; and for the following 
 reason. His secret papers were examined on the 
 10th of February, 1719, at the Palais Royal, and 
 
 it was found, as Lafitau testifies, that in his cor- 
 respondence with Archbishop Wake, of Canter- 
 bury, on the subject of a re-union between 
 the English and Catholic churches, he was 
 ready to give up the following points. 1. Auri- 
 acular Confession. 2. Transubstantiation. 3. 
 Religious Vows. 4. The fast of Lent and absti- 
 nence. 5. The supremacy of the Pope. 6. The 
 Celibacy of the Clergy; having probably antici- 
 pated you in discovering that a Bishop "must 
 be" the husband of one wife. But it is clear, that 
 a man who could so far betray the Catholic Reli- 
 gion, is not entitled to the credit ox appellation of 
 a Catholic historian. From him, however, you 
 give no extract. 
 
 But Baronius is a Catholic historian. You re- 
 fer to " the page" of his Annals for A. D. 908. 
 From this you give an extract : I have consulted 
 the text, and find : 1st. That you suppress that 
 part of the passage, which, so far from criminat- 
 ing the legitimate Popes, absolutely vindicates 
 them from your charge. 2d. That you absolute- 
 ly falsify Baronius, (if indeed you ever saw the 
 original,) by making him say the very contrary 
 of what he has said. To put the matter to rest, 
 I shall mark the pages, and leave two copies of 
 Baronius, one in Latin, and the other in Italian, 
 at the Athenacium on Thursday morning, to- 
 gether with a copy of your letter, for the 
 curious to compare the one with the other. 
 The public will then see which of us is to 
 to be "exposed." If the American people pride 
 themselves on their love of truth, these little 
 matters will open their eyes to the impositions 
 that have been practiced upon them and their 
 fathers. They will see to what an extent their 
 credulity has been abused, on the subject of the 
 Catholic Religion. They will see, moreover, 
 that you evade the only question for which you 
 had pledged yourself: viz. whether "the Pro- 
 testant Religion be the Religion of Christ V I 
 furnished ample arguments founded on the autho- 
 rity of the Reformers themselves to prove the 
 contrary. This was in Letter, No. XXIII. Will 
 they ever be answered ] Is not the author of 
 your last, able to refute them ? If not ; but 
 hold : here is something like a renewal of the 
 promise. 
 
 "In my next letter, if my life be continued, I 
 will classify and extend my answers to your past, 
 stale questions." Here then is a promise at last, 
 and I hope the " stale" questions will be satisfac- 
 torily disposed of. If you had answered them 
 sooner, they would not be "stale." 
 
 In the first column of your last Letter you re- 
 turn to your "Magdalen Report," but with less of 
 
350 
 
 indecent language than had been employed on a 
 former occasion. You do me great wrong, how- 
 ever, when you insinuate that I wished to insult 
 you. I merely stated, with a view to the im- 
 provement of your style, that you had given of- 
 fence to modesty and delicate sentiment, by the 
 elaborate grossness of your descriptions. For 
 this, you should not be displeased with me. I 
 merely held up the mirror of public taste, and in- 
 stead of attempting to " break the looking-glass," 
 you should have endeavoured to correct the de- 
 formities (if any) that were reflected by it, until 
 at length, you might look upon the image of your 
 pen without feeling yourself " insulted.'" 
 
 It is true, that our own writers have lamented, 
 and do lament the existence of immoralities. But 
 this is common to all denominations. And if it 
 be an argument against the truth of a religion, the 
 deist may quote the example of Judas, and use it 
 against the doctrines of Christ. There are, and 
 have been, immoral men of every religion, and yet 
 I know of no religion that does not profess to 
 condemn immorality. But the man who practi- 
 ces the duties of the Catholic religion is found to 
 be an example of every virtue that can adorn hu- 
 manity. How then can that religion be made 
 accountable for transgressions that are committed 
 in contempt of her authority and in violation of 
 her precepts ? Is Christianity to be held respon- 
 sible for the crimes of men, calling themselves 
 Christians 1 Certainly not. So neither is 
 the church accountable for the crimes of indi- 
 viduals. This is manifest to every mind endow- 
 ed with common sense. When, therefore, you 
 speak of scandalous men in the church, you 
 speak of men who are self-condemned by the 
 very doctrines which they profess. They are 
 Protestants in morals, by despising and trampling 
 upon the moral precepts of their religion. But 
 pray do Presbyterians stand so immaculate in 
 public estimation, that you are warranted in 
 wielding the weapon of reproach with so large an 
 assumption of sectarian righteousness ] Are 
 there no instances of depravity among your peo- 
 ple, your pastors and ruling elders 1 Are not 
 " publicans and sinners*' sometimes found under 
 the Pharasee's mantle 1 ? Are there no " coiivic- 
 ticrns^ among you, except those of the spirit ? If 
 not, you have a right to " cast the first stone." 
 I merely suggest these inquries to your recollec- 
 tion, leaving it to some pen more reckless than 
 mine to go into specific crimination. Materials 
 are not wanting, and the •public are aware of if. 
 
 Now certainly it is not the celibacy of the Pro- 
 testant clergy that gives occasion to these scan- 
 dals. Their ministers may be, or as you have dis- 
 covered " must be" the husband of one wife; and 
 even this does not always protect them from the 
 tongue and the type of scandal. How is this 1 
 
 Ao-ain : — if the details of impudicity be a fa- 
 vourite theme, why did you pass over those of 
 " Brother M'DowelPa Journal," and other Pro- 
 testant documents by which it appears that in the 
 city of New York no less than " ten thousand" 
 females have forgotten to be virtuous ] And yet 
 New York is a city, in which Protestant minis- 
 
 ters are superabundantly numerous, basking in the 
 sunshine of popularity and emolument. This state 
 of morals is certainly not owing to the celibacy of 
 the clergy. Is it to be ascribed to the Protes- 
 tantism of New York 1 The analogy of your 
 reasoning would lead to that inference. 
 
 As to the charge that the Catholic Church for- 
 bids marriage, it is untrue. She teaches in the 
 very language of St. Paul, that marriage is hon- 
 ourable in afl. She holds, however, that there is 
 a holier state, which is free for those who, by the 
 divine grace, are called to embrace it. The law 
 of her priesthood enjoins celibacy and chastity, 
 but no one is compelled to enter into the minis- 
 try of her sanctuary. If they wish to marry, 
 they do weil. She does not choose them for her 
 clergy. If they wish not to marry, they do better, 
 freeing themselves from solicitude " about the 
 things of this world, how they may please their 
 wives." But in neither case is there any com- 
 pulsion. At some future time I may enlarge 
 upon the subject, but at present I merely state the 
 fact to show that you either did not know or did 
 not choose to represent fairly, the doctrine of the 
 church. It is certain that the marriage of Luther 
 and his associates was a shocking scandal even 
 to their followers. And Dr. Miller goes so far 
 
 as to recommend celibacy among 1 the Protes- 
 tant clergy, but evidently with the conviction on 
 his mind, that his advice will not be followed. 
 He thinks for example, that neither Wesley nor 
 Whitefield should have engaged in matrimony. 
 But the fact is that Protestant clergymen seem to 
 feel it as an inward reproach, that they can furnish 
 no such examples of self denial, as those which 
 are witnessed in the Catholic priesthood. They 
 feel, that in the trying duties of the ministry, they 
 dare not expose their lives, as the Catholic clergy 
 do. When pestilence is in the city, they fly to 
 the country, and when the voice of reproach from 
 their own people pursues them, they take refuge 
 behind their wives and children " according to 
 law." If the example of the Catholic Priests is 
 pointed at, to shame them by the comparison, it 
 .only fills them with additional hatred towards 
 clerical celibacy. " A Bishop" must be " the hus- 
 band of one wife," and to say the contrary is, 
 you tell us, " fighting against God." 
 
 Now, in the Catholic church, the vow of celibacy 
 and chastity, voluntarily assumed, is binding, and 
 constitutes a moral incapacity on the part of those 
 who have taken it, to enter into matrimonial en- 
 gagements. Such is the case which you select from 
 Betlarmine, in which he contends, as you cannot 
 but know, that the marriage is essentially mtllani 
 void. The Catholic religion teaches that the 
 vows of the Priest in his ordination, which he 
 makes by his own free will and choice, are an 
 absolute impediment to any marriage vow, sabse- 
 quently made. To illustrate the case, then, cited 
 from Bellarmine, I would ask you whether an 
 act of conjugal infidelity, in a married person, is 
 as great a sin as polygamy 1 In other words, 
 whether the Landgrave of Hesse was more guilty 
 in his libertinism, being the husband of only one 
 wife, than he was afterwards, when for the peace 
 
251 
 
 of his conscience, and "by virtue of an indul- 
 gence" from the Reformers, he became the hus- 
 band of tico? Whilst sneaking on this subject 1 
 may as well direct your attention to a permanent 
 " indulgence," (I mean according to your defini- 
 tion, "license to commit sin") which I find record- 
 ed in your Confession of Faith, in favour of poly- 
 gamy. In cases of adultery, " or such wilful de- 
 sertion as can in no way be remedied by the church 
 or civil magistrate," the injured party may obtain 
 a divorce, and toitk the approbation of the church 
 enter into a new contract of marriage ! ! (See chap, 
 xxiv. p. 110.) 
 
 If the church had gone a little farther, and to 
 this " wilful desertion," added " incompatability 
 of disposition," as another cause for dissolving 
 marriage, it would have anticipated the morality 
 of the French Revolution, and even of Miss 
 Wright. 
 
 Touching the bigotry and intolerance of the 
 Presbyterian creed, I am glad to see that they are 
 becoming antiquated, if we may credit your mag- 
 nificent professions of liberality. But with regret 
 I add, that in reference to Catholics, you make an 
 assertion, which, in justice to his holiness and 
 myself, I must say is not true. "Once every 
 year," you tell us, " the Pope at Rome, publicly, 
 and in full form, excommunicates all Protestants; 
 (not true) and absolution is refused to all those 
 who harbour these heretics who read their books 
 &c, (not true) and all ecclesiastical persons, Mr. 
 Hughes included, are required to publish the Bull 
 that the faithful may know its contents," (not a 
 word of truth in it.) How can you write such 
 tales ! But it is true that once every year the 
 Pope at Rome, and all the clergy throughout the 
 world, pray to Almighty God for the conversion 
 of all those who are under the delusion of heresy, 
 as well as Jews and Pagans, that they may be 
 gathered from their wanderings, into the unity of 
 faith and into the one sheepfold of Jesus Christ. 
 This is probably what you have mistaken for ex- 
 communication. 
 
 The Catholic belief is, that out of the true 
 church there is no salvation. But besides those 
 who profess the true religion, it considers as impli- 
 cit members of the church, those who, invincibly 
 ignorant of the truth, yet have so upright and sin 
 cere a heart towards God, that they would em- 
 brace the truth if they knew it. It holds, that 
 those who sin without the law (except by their 
 own fault) shall not be judged by the law.. Has 
 Presbyterianism so much charity 1 Let us see. 
 
 The church, says the Confession of Faith, 
 " consists of all those throughout the world who 
 profess the true religion." This is the house of 
 God, " out of which there is no ordinary possibility 
 of salvation.'''' Now let us see how large a por- 
 tion of the human race your doctrine excludes 
 from this "house of God," and to how small a 
 number it reduces the elect. 1st. All the Jews 
 since Christ, and all the Pagans since and before. 
 2. All Mohammedans, Greeks schisjnatics, heretics 
 of the east, and Catholics, whom it expressly de- 
 nounces as " Idolators." Here then all are lost 
 but Protestants. But 3d, how will thtxj fare T 
 
 The Synod of Dort, which you hold, condemned 
 Arminiunism as heresy. Of course those who hold 
 Arminian doctrines do not 'profess the true religion,' 
 and are shut out, consequently, from the " house of 
 God." Now it is known to all men that 4th, most 
 of the Episcopalians, and 5th, most of the Metho- 
 dists are on the side of Arminianism, consequently 
 they are excluded. 6. Lutherans are, for the error of 
 consubstantiaiion. 7th, the Drs. Brownlee and Cox 
 of New York, have proved to the satisfaction of all 
 the Bishops in the General Assembly, that the Qua- 
 kers are not even Christians, consequently they are 
 done for. As for 8th, Unitarians, 9th, Universalists, 
 10th, Swedenborgians, and others ; it would be out 
 of the question to cherish even a hope for them. 
 This, Rev. Sir, is the charity of the Presbyterian 
 doctrine. Let any man who has common sense 
 see, whether these consequences do not flow from 
 the definition of "the church," "out of which there 
 is no ordinary possibility of salvation as laid down 
 in your Confession of Faith, "amended," in 1821. 
 Which is the more exclusive ] Which, the more 
 charitable towards involuntary and invincible error? 
 Let those who have eyes and understanding de- 
 cide. 
 
 Your objections to the dogma of the Eucharist, 
 are but the repetition of those which have been 
 urged a thousand times before, and a thousand times 
 refuted. You pass over most of the arguments 
 adduced in my Letter No. 27, to which I beg 
 leave to refer the reader, that I may avoid the 
 necessity of repeating what has already been 
 said. You admit that Berringer was condemned 
 as an heretic for denying the doctrine of Tran- 
 substantiation in 1059, and yet by a contradiction 
 which I shall not pretend to explain, you assert 
 that Transubstantiation was not a doctrine of the 
 church until " 1215." That is, a man is con- 
 demned by the whole church for denying a doc- 
 trine which did not exist ! ! Now this fact alone 
 would prove its existence, unless, indeed, you 
 can persuade men into the belief of a paradox. 
 Here then you furnish all requisite testimony 
 against yourself. The question is not of the word 
 Transubstantiation, as used by the Council of 
 Lateran, but of the doctrine which it expresses. 
 Did that doctrine exist before the Council 1 I say 
 it did, you say it did, since you admit that Berrin- 
 ger was condemned in 1059 for denying it. Here 
 then we are ^agreed. For the rest, your quibble 
 is like that of the Socinians who contend that the 
 divinity of Jesus Christ was not believed in the 
 primitive church because the words " Consub- 
 stantial with the Father" were first used by the 
 Council of Nice, not for the purpose as you 
 know, of creating a new doctrine ; but on the 
 contrary for the express purpose of defending a 
 doctrine which had always been believed. 
 
 But it is not in this alone that we can trace 
 the exact similarity of your reasoning, to that of 
 the Socinian. It pervades the whole of your 
 objections. To illustrate this allow me to state 
 some of your difficulties in juxta-position with 
 those of the Unitarian argument as sustained by 
 Professor Norton in his " Statement of Reasons" 
 against the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus 
 
952 
 
 Christ. In his preface, he apologises for writino- 
 against a doctrine which he regards as exploded 
 by all sensible men, for its absurdity. He means 
 the Trinity. To prove this he does every thing 
 that you do, to show that Transubstantiation 
 should be exploded by sensible men. 
 
 He quotes the scriptures as abundantly and as 
 figuratively as you do. He cites passages from 
 the Fathers as confidently as you do. He con- 
 tends that the Trinity is as great an absurdity as 
 Transubstantiation, and the weapons which you 
 wield against the one, he wields against the other. 
 
 The arguments in both cases are neither more 
 nor less than deistical. Mr. Breckinridge'applies 
 reason to the doctrine of Christ's real presence in 
 the Eucharist — Mr. Norton to the doctrine of three 
 persons in one God. Yet God, says the Bible, 
 out of stones could raise up children unto Abra- 
 ham. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. 
 " It is not a contradiction 
 to say that Jesus Christ was 
 a perfect man, and yet God, 
 though the Revelation is 
 above our reason." 
 
 Mr. Norton. 
 
 " The doctrine that Jesus 
 
 Christ is both God and man, 
 
 is a contradiction in 
 
 terms." (Title of a chapter.) 
 
 Mr. Norton. 
 " The proposition that 
 Christ is God, proved to be 
 false from Scripture." Title 
 of Sect. III. 
 
 Unitarian. 
 The Deity of Jesus is 
 not only contrary to Scrip- 
 ture, but it is contrary to 
 reason, and contradicts all 
 our senses. We see, hear, 
 feel, smell, and (if possible) 
 taste — a man, and yet you, 
 Mr. Breckinridge, contrary 
 to Scripture and reason, and 
 all our senses, require us 
 to believe that he is God! 
 
 Unitarian. 
 Thus we see that the di- 
 vinity of Christ is a false, 
 shocking, and novel doc- 
 trine. " Will any one at 
 the present day shock our 
 feelings and understanding 
 to the uttermost, by telling 
 us that, Almighty God was 
 incarnate in an infant, 
 and wrapped in swaddling 
 clothes?" Norton, p. 31. 
 To show how "shocking" 
 this doctrine is he quotes 
 Dr. Watts: 
 "This infant is the mighty 
 
 God, 
 Come to be suckled and 
 adored." 
 
 Now, Rev'd Sir, put your invention to the tor- 
 ture, and see whether a single argument can be 
 raised against the pretended unreasonableness of 
 Transubstantiation, that will not hold against 
 the Incarnation. The one is as contrary to rea- 
 son as the other. Did I not then, rightly define 
 Protestantism" as the middle gound between an- 
 cient Christianity and modern Deism, combining 
 certain elements of both, and unable to defend itself 
 against either'?" Let reason be the rule, and tell 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. 
 The doctrine of Christ's 
 real presence in the Eucha- 
 rist proved to be false from 
 Scripture. 
 
 Mr, Breckinridge. 
 " The doctrine of Tran- 
 substantiation is not only 
 against the Scriptures and 
 the Fathers, but it is con- 
 trary to reason, and contra- 
 dicts all our senses." 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. 
 " Thus we see that Tran- 
 substantiation is a false, 
 shocking, novel doctrine." 
 
 me which is easier to be believed ; that God was 
 an infant, " suckled and adored," or that the 
 body and blood of Christ are, by the Divine Om- 
 nipotence, truly contained under the appearance 
 of bread and wine 1 You believe that " Omni- 
 potence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence, were 
 wrapt in swaddling-clothes, and abased to the 
 homely usages of a stable and a manger,-" " that 
 the artificer of the whole universe turned carpen- 
 ter (I quote from an Orthodox Protestant ser- 
 mon,) and exercised an inglorious trade in a lit- 
 tle cell !" " That the eternal God could be sub- 
 ject to the meannesses of hunger and thirst, and 
 be afflicted in all his appetites." " That the 
 Creator, Governor, and Judge of the world was 
 abused in all his concerns and relations; scourged, 
 spit upon, mocked and at last crucified.'" All this 
 you believe, if you believe the divinity of Jesus 
 Christ; and yet you reject Transubstantiation 
 because your reason forsooth, cannot comprehend 
 it. Can it comprehend the mysteries just stated 1 
 
 Now for your objections under their respective 
 heads. 
 
 1. You begin by stating that "Evangelical 
 Protestants all allow, as their standards clearly 
 evince, that Christ is spiritually present, and the 
 truth of his words recorded above (this is my 
 body, this is blood,) they undoubtedly believe." 
 Let me then take you at your word, " Christ, 
 you say, is spiritually present." By this I un- 
 derstand that the spirit, soul, or divinity of Christ 
 is present. If it does not mean this, it means 
 nothing. This presence of Christ, as to the fact, 
 is roundly stated ; but as to the manner, it is 
 qualified by the word 'spiritually.' Now this 
 statement goes far towards the Catholic doctrine. 
 For Christ is both God and man ; and if he is 
 present at all, it follows that he is corporally as 
 well as ' spiritually' present. Will you separate 
 the soul of Christ from the body of Christ, and 
 say that he is present " spiritually," and absent 
 corporally. This presence of Christ is connected 
 with the locality of the Lord's Supper; of course 
 it is a specific presence ; and we are told that 
 "Christ is present 'spiritually;' that is, all but 
 his body." Your Confession, page 127. tells us 
 that, at the reception of the bread and wine, this ab- 
 sent body and blood, are " spiritually present to the 
 faith of believers in that ordinance as the ele- 
 ments themselves are, to their outward senses." A 
 body absent — present ! Christ the man-God 
 " really present," without his body ! His body 
 and blood present spiritually ; but not corporally ! 
 Do you understand it, Rev'd Sir ? I do not. 
 
 If it mean that indefinite presence, which was 
 promised to " two or three gathered together in 
 his name," then we can comprehend °it. But 
 that Chiist should be really present in a special 
 manner, as you assert, and your standards teach 
 of the Lord's supper, and yet be present, whole 
 Christ, without a body, is above comprehension. 
 You however make the statement, and from you 
 we must wait for the explanation. The real pre- 
 sence as revealed by Christ was indeed a "hard 
 saying," which the Jews sought to escape by 
 " walking no more with him,"' and the Protes- 
 
253 
 
 tants endeavour to evade by an explanation which 
 spoils a mystery, and substitutes a paradox 
 
 Tbe literal sense is hard to flesh and blood ; 
 But nonsense never could be understood. 
 Now the argument or objections which you 
 make against the mystery of the Eucharist under 
 the first head, are from your interpretation of 
 Scripture. Their amount is tbis: the Scriptures 
 often speak figuratively, therefore the words of 
 Christ, both in the 6th chapter of St. John and 
 in the institution of the Eucharist, are to be under- 
 stood figuratively. Here again is the reasoning of 
 the Unitarian whenever you quote the passages that 
 establish the divinity of Christ. They are, he says, 
 tobe understood figuratively. But there is one brief 
 reply. When Christ said " I am the door," " I 
 am the vine," &c. those who heard him under- 
 stood him to speak figuratively. But when he said 
 "I am the living bread which came down from hea- 
 ven." " The bread which I will give is my flesh 
 for the life of the world," " unless you eat the 
 flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you 
 cannot have life in you," &c. his hearers understood 
 him to speak literally, and if that was an error, 
 as you say, his language gave rise to it, and his 
 silence, when they objected that it was " a haid 
 saying," confirmed them in it. Therefore his lan- 
 guage was not figurative. Figurative language 
 would not have offended them. He reproached 
 them for their incredulity, he suffered them to go 
 away; therefore they understood him literally. 
 And it is because Protestants do not believe, 
 that they also go back and walk no more with 
 Jesus, unles he will accommodate them with a 
 figurative explanation, which he refused to his 
 own disciples. 
 
 But in the institution, he took bread and lite- 
 rally fulfilled what he had promised. He blessed 
 and broke and gave to them; saying, take ye and 
 eat, this is my body, which is given for you...-. 
 This is my blood which shall be shed for many 
 unto the remission of sins." It was not the figure 
 of his body that was given for us on the cross ; it 
 was not the figure of his blood which was shed 
 for us. Therefore he spoke of his real body and 
 blood, and his language was literal and not figura- 
 tive. And consequently Protestants, in appealing 
 to figure, oppose the language and conduct of 
 Jesus Christ, at every point of the promise, and of 
 the institution of the holy Eucharist. 
 
 As to the pretended " absurdities and inexpli- 
 cable difficulties, which you find in Christ's 
 words," according to Catholic interpretation, I 
 must refer you to a higher tribunal. But the 
 plain Scripture is, " this is my body ; this is my 
 blood." And these plain words of Scripture, you 
 tell us, are " absurd," unless we understand the 
 contrary of what they assert ; so as to read " this 
 is not my body, but iraw? which is given for you ;" 
 this is not my blood, but wine, which shall be 
 shed for many unto the remission of sins." This 
 amendment of Scripture may relieve Jesus Christ 
 from the imputation of having used "absurd" 
 language, if you will have it so, but in that case 
 I ask, is the Scripture plain and intelligible to 
 all 1 
 
 The attempt to convert St. Augustine, Bellar- 
 mine, Cardinal Cajetan, Bishop Fisher, &c, into 
 Protestants on this subject, is what I would call 
 overdoing the business. It proves your courage, 
 not your cause. Bellarmine asserted that the 
 doctrine of the real presence and Transubstantia- 
 tion are clearly proved from Scripture, but he ad- 
 mitted the possibility of a man's reading the 
 Scripture, clear and plain as its language is, with- 
 out being convinced. Just as you would say, 
 that however clearly the divinity of Christ is re- 
 vealed, it may still be doubted whether "a man 
 who is not froward" will be convinced of it, by 
 reading the Scriptures. 
 
 Again, the passages which you quole from St. 
 Augustine, (De Doct. Christ. Lib. 3. c. 46.) and 
 from Theodoret, (Dial. 2.) and other passages 
 from Origen, Ambrose, Isidore, Chrysostom, &c. 
 which you copy from the Calvinistic objections 
 of Claude and Aubertin, in their controversy with 
 Nicole, are ambiguous, taken by themselves ,- but 
 taken with other passages, from the same Fathers 
 in which, as I shall presently show, the Catholic 
 doctrine of the Eucharist is clearly stated, they are 
 quite intelligible. If you wish to see a full and 
 complete refutation of all these ambiguous pas- 
 sages of the Fathers, I refer you to the third vol- 
 ume of " Perpetuite de la Foi ;" in which they 
 are triumphantly vindicated against the false 
 meaning ascribed to them by the Calvinistic min- 
 isters. If you have not this work, 1 shall have 
 great pleasure in loaning it, and you will see that 
 these passages, which express neither the Catho- 
 lic, nor the Protestant doctrine on the Eucharist, 
 are reconcileable only with the former. Some of 
 them, even as quoted by yourself, are a condem- 
 nation of the Protestant doctrine. For example 
 St. Isidore speaking of the bread and wine says' 
 "these two are visible, but being sanctified by 
 the Holy Spirit, they pass into the Sacrament of 
 his divine body." This language from a Catho- 
 lic pulpit would be understood. But how would 
 it sound in the First Presbyterian Church on a 
 Sacrament Sunday? If the minister were to 
 speak of the bread and wine "passing into" any 
 thing, but what it was before, would not the peo- 
 ple accuse him of teaching something very like 
 " Transubstantiation." And yet this is made an 
 objection,- and the rest are like it. Let us try 
 another, which you quote from Theodoret. 
 
 " After sanctification the mystical symbols do 
 not depart from their nature, for they remain still 
 in their former substance and figure and form and 
 may be seen and touched just as before." All 
 this is true as to appearances.- but he g-oes on to 
 show that notwithstanding these appearances, "they 
 (the Eucharist) are understood to be that which 
 they are made, and are believed and venerated (or 
 " adored") as being what they are believed to 
 be." Would you venture to hold even this lan- 
 guage to a Presbyterian congregation? If you 
 did, they would say that you are half a Papist, at 
 least; and you would be called to account for 
 your sermon. And yet these are the proofs that 
 the Fathers held the doctrine which you preach !!! 
 Even the ambiguous language of the Fathers, is 
 
254 
 
 irreconeileable with the Protestant Lord's Supper 
 of mere bread and wine. Even your own quota- 
 tions are against you. 
 
 The exceptions which you profess to find, as to 
 the "unanimous consent of the Fathers" on the 
 Catholic faith of the Eucharist, have as much 
 foundation in reality, as the contradictions which 
 the Deist pretends to discover in the comparison of 
 the four Gospels. In both cases there are appar- 
 ent disagreements. But to proceed. After hav- 
 ing claimed the testimony of Scripture by quali- 
 fying the affirmative words of Christ, with a Pro- 
 testant negative, making him say " no, this is not 
 my body," instead of what he actually said "this 
 is ray body ; this is my blood." You appeal to 
 the Fathers under your second head, for you 
 " will meet me at all points." By this you 
 would persuade our Protestant readers that the 
 Fathers held the doctrine of mere bread and wine 
 as they do. Now to our Protestant readers I 
 leave the decision of the case, let them judge be- 
 tween us." 
 
 You state as a consequence from other state- 
 ments, " that the Protestant doctrine (viz : mere 
 bread and wine) was not only tolerated, but pro- 
 fessed and held at large by the Fathers of the 
 Church." What say the Fathers on the subject? 
 Hear them. 
 
 Hear St. Ignatius, in his epistle to the faithful 
 of Smyrna: "These Heretics abstain from the 
 Eucharist and the oblations, because they do not 
 acknowledge the Eucharist to be the flesh of our 
 Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered 
 for our sins, and which the Father resuscitated by 
 his goodness." Who were the " Protestants" 
 then ? St. Ignatius or these Heretics ? 
 
 " How, says St. Irenaeus, can they, (other 
 Heretics) be assured that the bread over which 
 they have given thanks, is the body of the Lord 1 ?" 
 (Adver. Hor. Lib. 4. c. 34.) And again, no less 
 than three times he repeats, "the Eucharist is 
 the body of Jesus Christ, and it is made so by the 
 word of God." (Ibid. L. 5. c. 2.) This was in 
 the Apostolic age, long before the year " 1215." 
 
 St. Jerome, " But as for us, let us hearken to 
 what the Gospel tells us, that the bread which 
 the Lord broke and gave to his disciples, is the 
 body of our Lord and our Saviour, since he said to 
 them ; take and eat, this is my body." (Epist. 
 ad Hedib.) 
 
 St. Chrysostom says, " The blessed chalice is 
 the communion of the blood of Jesus Christ, it is 
 very terrible, because that which is in the cha- 
 lice is that which flowed from the side of Jesus 
 Christ:' 1 (Horn. 24, Epist. 1. ad. Cor.) 
 
 St. Ambrose says, " He (Jesus) took bread into 
 his holy hands ; before it is consecrated it is bread, 
 after the words of Jesus Christ have b^en applied 
 to it, it is the body of Jesus Christ. Hear what he 
 says to you, take and eat; this is my body. The 
 Priest says, the body of Christ ; and you answer, 
 Amen ; that is, it is true, let the your heart be 
 penetrated with what your mouth confesses." 
 (De Saer. Lib. 4. c. 5.) Would any minister 
 dare to pronounce these words of the Fathers 
 in a Protestant pulpit] And yet you, Rev'd Sir, 
 
 would persuade the poor people, that the doc- 
 trine of mere bread and wine, which Carlostadt 
 invented in the sixteenth century, and bequeathed 
 to Protestantism, was the doctrine of the Fa- 
 thers ! ! ! 
 
 St. Cyril of Jerusalem, speaking of the conse- 
 crated chalice, asks " who shall dare to say that 
 it is not his blood V (Catech. 4.") 
 
 Origin, " When you receive the body of the Lord, 
 you take all possible precaution that not the 
 smallest part of it should fall-" (Horn. 13 in 
 Exod.) 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria, "Jesus Christ returns and 
 appears in our mysteries invisibly as God, visibly 
 in his body, and he gives us to touch his holy flesh:'' 
 (Comment in Joann. p. 1104.) 
 
 The Council of Nice decreed "that neither 
 canon nor custom has taught, that they (deacons) 
 who have themselves no power to offer (/. e. in 
 the sacrifice of mass) should give the body of Christ 
 to them (viz. Priests) who have that power." 
 (Canon xviii.) 
 
 St. Athanasius says: " Our sanctuaries are now 
 pure, as they always were ; having been rendered 
 venerable by the blood alone of Christ, and embel- 
 lished by his worship." (Apol. adver. Arian. T. 
 1. p. 127.) " Take care then he says, (in anoth- 
 er place) take care, O Deacon, not to give to the 
 unworthy the blood of the immaculate body, lest you 
 incur the guilt of giving holy things to dogs." 
 (Serm de Incontam. Myst. T. ii. p. 35.) 
 
 St. Ephrein of Edessa, " Abraham placed earth- 
 lyfood before celestial spirits, of which they ate. 
 (Gen. xviii.) This was wonderful. But what 
 Christ has done for us greatly exceeds this, and 
 transcends all speech, and all conception. To us, 
 that are in the flesh, he hath given to eat his body 
 and blood. Myself incapable of comprehending 
 the mysteries of God, I dare not proceed ; and 
 should I attempt it, I should only show my own 
 rashness." (De. Nal. Dei. T. iii. p. 182.) 
 
 St. Optatus of Milevis, says, " What is so sa- 
 criligious as to break, to erase, and to remove the 
 altars of God, on which yourselves made offer- 
 ings'? On them the vows of the people and the 
 members of Christ were borne. For what is the 
 altar, but the seat of the body and blood of Christ'? 
 What offence had Christ given, whose body and 
 blood at certain times, do dwell there? This 
 huge impiety is doubled, whilst you broke also the 
 chalices, the bearers of the blood of Christ." (Con- 
 tra Parmen, (the Donatist,) Lib. vi. p. 91, 92, 93.) 
 Now, Rev. sir, if Donatists, or other persons 
 were to destroy all the communion tables, and 
 all the cups for the sacramental vine in the whole 
 Protestant world, would any Protestant complain 
 of it, in the language of St. Optatus 1 And yet you 
 would persuade the people that Protestants and 
 the Fathers, believed the same doctrine touching 
 the sacrament, and that the Catholic dogma was 
 introduced A. D. " 1215." 
 
 St. Basil. " About the things that God has 
 spoken, there should be no hesitation, nor doubt, 
 but a firm persuasion, that all is true and possible, 
 though nature be against it. Herein lies the strug- 
 gle of faith. The Jews therefore strove among 
 
255 
 
 themselves, saying: How can this man give us 
 his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: 
 Amen, Amen, I say unto you, unless you eat the 
 flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you 
 shall not have life in you. John v. 53, 54." 
 (Rogula viii. Moral. T. ii. p. 210.) 
 
 You say the Fathers did not understand the 
 6th chapter of St. John as relating to the Eucha- 
 rist. If you wish to correct this mistake, you 
 have only to consult Origen, (Horn, in Num. 1(3.) 
 Cyprian (dc ceena Dom. Lib. 1. Coutr. Judeos, c. 
 22.) Hilary, (Lib. de Trin.) Basil, (de Reg. Moral.) 
 Chysostom, (Horn. 41. In Joann.) Epiphanius, 
 Hasres 55.) Amer, (Lib. 4. de sacr. c. 5.) Augus- 
 tine, (de Pecc. Mr. Lib. 1. c. 20.) Jerome, (Comm. 
 in cap. 1. Ep. ad Ephes.) Ml the Fathers, all the 
 Christians of all ages, understood the 6th chapter 
 of St. John of the Eucharist, except the Protes- 
 tants; and when they attempt to explain it other- 
 wise, they make awkward business of it. 
 
 When the Fathers speak of bread before the 
 consecration, they mean bread ; when they call it 
 bread after the consecration, they mean the body 
 of Christ under the appearance of bread, and so 
 Catholics at this day are accustomed to call it the 
 bread of life. This is proved by their adoring 
 that which was contained under the appearances 
 of bread and wine. Hear St. Augustine : 
 
 " And because he (Christ) walked in the flesh, 
 he also gave us his very flesh to eat for our salva- 
 tion ; but no one eat this flesh unless he adores 
 
 it beforehand so far are we from committing 
 
 sin by adoring it, that we should commit sin in 
 not adoring it. (St. Aug. in Psalm 98.) 
 
 St. Cyril. "Jesus Christ does not quicken us 
 by the participation of his spirit only, but also by 
 giving us to eat the flesh which he assumed" (De 
 Incar. p. 707.) 
 
 St. Augustine. " God gives us to eat truly the 
 body in which he suffered so much.'''' (In Psalm 
 33.) And again, "We receive, says he, with a 
 faithful heart and mouth, the mediator between. God 
 and man, the man Christ Jesus, who has given 
 us his body to eat, and his blood to drink, although it 
 seems a more horrible thing to eat the flesh of a man, 
 than to slay him, and to drink human blood, than 
 to shed it."" (Contr. Advsers. leg. et. proph. Lib. 2. 
 c. 9.) 
 
 St. Chrysostom, "The body of Jesus Christ is 
 placed before us that we may touch it. <0 how 
 I should desire, many of you exclaim,' says he, 
 (addressing his audience) 'howl should desire 
 to see the form of his (Christ's) countenance and 
 of his clothes.' God has granted you more, for 
 you touch himself, you eat himself." (Horn. 83. 
 in Matt.) Here, Rev. Sir, was your objection 
 about eating God, more than seven centuries be- 
 fore " 1215," and " Avenoes, the Arabian philoso- 
 pher." Was St. Chrysostom, were the believers 
 whom he addressed in this language, Protestants? 
 And yet you would persuade the people that the 
 Fathers held the figurative sense, the mere bread 
 and wine of Protestantism ! ! ! No; the rational- 
 ism, that is, in other words, the infidelity of Pro- 
 testantism, would be shocked at the language of 
 the Fathers, because it was and is, the language 
 
 M* 
 
 of the Catholic church. Protestant ministers, (if 
 indeed they are aware of it themselves) dare not 
 repeat in their pulpits, the doctrine of the Fathers 
 in their own words. The people would discover 
 that the Fathers were Catholics, and that no 
 Christians ever held your doctrines before the 
 days of Carlostadius and Luther. What would 
 they say, if to convince them that the Fathers 
 held the doctrine of " Evangelical Protestants" 
 on the Eucharist, you were to quote the fol- 
 lowing testimony from St. Augustine. " Who 
 could understand, my brethren, says this Father, 
 how that saying, ' he was borne in his hands ;' 
 could be accomplished in a man. For a person 
 may be borne by the hands of another, but no one 
 is borne in his own proper hands. We cannot 
 understand this according to the letter of David, 
 but we can understand it of Jesus Christ, tor 
 Jesus Christ was borne in his hands whon speak- 
 ing of his very body, he said, this is my body : 
 for he bore his body in his hands. ,, (In Psalm 
 33.) How would the General Assembly stop 
 their ears if any one were to propose this " hard 
 saying," as the doctrine of " Evangelical Pro- 
 testants," and yet you have asserted that they 
 hold the same doctrine with the Fathers, on the 
 Eucharist! This was the belief of the Church 
 when St. Augustine preached some fourteen 
 hundred years ago ; it was the belief of the 
 Church, when St. Ignatius reproached the Here- 
 tics with refusing to acknowledge that the Eu- 
 charist was the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ; 
 seventeen hundred years ago; it is the belief of 
 the Church this day. Were the Fathers Pro- 
 testants ? 
 
 St. Augustine. " It has pleased the Holy 
 Ghost that in the honour of this great Sacrament, 
 the body of Jesus Christ should enter into the 
 mouth of the Christian before all other meats." 
 (Epist. ad Januar.) Do we not still receive fast- 
 ing? 
 
 St. Cyril, " Since Jesus Christ is in us, by 
 his proper flesh, we shall assuredly rise again." 
 (In Joann. L. 4. p. 363." 
 
 Again Cyril of Jerusalem. "That which ap- 
 pears to be bread is not bread, although the taste 
 judge it to be bread, but it is the body of Jesus 
 Christ .- and that which appears to be wine, is 
 not wine, although the taste testifies that it is, but 
 it is the blood of Jesus Christ. ," (Catech. 9.) Have I 
 given enoughto show Protestants how far they have 
 been deceived by their books and their ministers, 
 (I do not say intentionally) when it is pretended 
 that the Fathers of the first six centuries were 
 not Catholics? Here are positive statements of 
 the Christian belief of the Eucharist in their 
 days. Was it the Protestant belief ? Mere fig- 
 ure ; mere bread and wine ? Let any sensible 
 Protestant reader compare these testimonies with 
 what his minister tells him of the bread and wine 
 of the Lord's Supper, and ask himself in the pre- 
 sence of God, whether the Protestant doctrine is 
 not diametrically opposed to that of the Fathers 
 of the first six centuries ? 
 
 Under the third head, you bring up the objec- 
 tion of reason and the senses. But the example 
 
256 
 
 of the Jews at Capernaum, of the Socinians, and 
 Deists among ourselves should teach you, that in 
 the mysteries of the Christian Revelation these are 
 but sorry guides. We may reason on the ques- 
 tion whether a mystery has been revealed ; and 
 if the evidence be sufficient, to convince us that 
 it has,- then we believe. By reason you can- 
 not understand the mystery of the Trinity. 
 By the senses you can discover nothing of 
 the Saviour's divinity, when, hanging on the 
 cross he cried out, " My God, my God ! Why 
 hast thou forsaken me." But this mode "of 
 attacking a mystery is sufficiently exemplified in 
 the introduction. The Presbyterian selects one 
 dogma ; the Unitarian another ; the Universalist 
 a third ; but all work with the same iveapons. 
 When you deny that the " real presence" of the 
 Holy Ghost, under the forms and appearances, 
 length, breadth, thickness, and all the external 
 properties of a dove, is a parallel case with 
 " the real presence" of Jesus Christ, under the 
 forms and appearances of bread and wine you 
 affect to discover a difference which but few 
 minds, except your own, can perceive. The 
 ground, it seems, of this difference is that Christ, 
 " as man," cannot (what!) be present on the 
 earth ; " he is seated on his throne in heaven." 
 But have you forgotten that, notwithstanding all 
 this, he appeared to St. Paul on his way to Da- 
 mascus'? If you have, I refer you to Acts ix. 17. 
 Christ did not cease to be on his throne, by ap- 
 pearing to St. Paul on the way; therefore hie 
 body can be in two places at once, and if in two, 
 so in a million of places, and yet be at the right 
 hand. His body is spiritual, that is, endowed 
 with the properties of a spirit. Can you tell 
 what those are 1 Can you say that such a body 
 cannot exist under the appearances of bread and 
 wine 1 When the Deist retorts your argument, 
 against the Bible itself, what will you have to 
 reply T When you tell him that the Holy Ghost 
 descended in the form of a dove ; " what ! he 
 will exclaim," that there should be a long, broad, 
 thick, white, heavy, moist, active, passive, feath- 
 ered flying, nothing ,■ and that this strange some- 
 thing nothing, seeming; dove, and not a dove, 
 the Holy Ghost, and yet seeming a dove, should 
 descend on a man in the Jordan, and yet be living 
 in heaven entire and quiescent, while all this is 
 going on upon earth, is, I say, an infinite absur- 
 dity. Pardon me, Sir, he will continue, the ex- 
 pression seems harsh, and the objection savours 
 of levity, ridicule, and, as you Christians would 
 say, blasphemy : but to the honour of Deism, I 
 must inform you that I learned it from a Christian 
 minister. It is your own, extracted literally 
 from your Letter No. XXX. on " Transubstantia- 
 tion." How will you meet this Deist? Will 
 you have the eourage to destroy your own child ? 
 And if you would, will you have the power ? 
 Has not the press made it immortal ? And if 
 you disown it, will it not be adopted by the 
 Deists, and arrayed against its Christian parent- 
 age. 
 
 When you call Transubstantiation a miracle, 
 and institute a parallel between it and the miracles 
 
 which prove the truth of Christianity, do you not 
 grossly (I will not say intentionally) deceive your 
 readers ? These being intended as proofs were 
 addressed to the senses. The miracle of the 
 Eucharist is like the miracle of the Incarnation, 
 acknowledged by faith, made known, not by 
 taste, hearing, sight, smell, or touch, but by the 
 Revelation of Jesus' Christ. Hence the Jews are 
 reproached by him because they would not believe, 
 and the Protestants do not believe. But the Apos- 
 tles believed, the apostolic Fathers believed, the 
 Catholic church, of whose faith they are witness- 
 es, believed, and believes. So that when you say 
 " Hume cannot be confuted, if Transubstantiation 
 be true," you impose grossly (without intending 
 it, I hope) upon the ignorance of Protestant read- 
 ers. Christ proposed a mystery, and you wish to 
 prove by your senses, that he does not deceive ! ! ! 
 Catholics are not so distrustful. Jesus Christ has 
 said so, that is enough. The true, real body and 
 blood of Christ, exist in the sacrament of the Eucha- 
 rist, not in the natural manner in which they ex- 
 isted on the cross, but in the spiritual, supernatu- 
 ral manner in which they existed, when they were 
 given at the last supper, or when they entered the 
 room where the disciples were, the doors being 
 closed. (John xx. 19.) He said to Thomas, " a 
 spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me to 
 have." Yet we find that he, having "flesh and 
 bones" which were touched by St. Thomas, en- 
 tered an apartment, the doors being closed ! How 
 could an entrance into a closed apartment be ef- 
 fected by a human body consisting of flesh and bones, 
 which all could see and touch? The Bible states the 
 fact — does the philosophy of Bacon and of New- 
 ton explain it? Can you, Rev. Sir, explain if? 
 Did Christ's body penetrate through the wall, or 
 the door ? Then, there were two bodies existing 
 in the same space at the same time ! Here then are 
 two facts : 1. That the body of Christ was at the 
 wme time in two places, viz. in heaven and on 
 the way to Damascus. 2. That the body of Christ 
 existed in the same space which was occupied by 
 the closed door or wall through which he entered 
 the apartment, where the disciples were: By both 
 of which it is proved, that the body of Christ is 
 not under the government of natural laws, and 
 therefore, that your argument, founded on the laws 
 that govern bodies in their natural condition, whilst 
 it proves nothing against the real and substantial 
 presence of Christ in the Eucharist, is a flat con- 
 tradiction of the Bible, in the two cases referred 
 to, and comes mal-a-propos from an evangelical 
 Protestant. Neither is it correct in philosoph)'. 
 For we know nothing of space, abstractedly from 
 the relations of bodies existing in their natural 
 condition,- nor of time, except by the succession 
 of perceptible events. Of the manner therefore, 
 in which spirits, or the spiritual body of Jesus Christ, 
 are effected by time and space, permit me to say 
 that you and we are all equally and utterly igno- 
 rant. And yet with a mind ignorant of what is 
 space — ignorant of what is time — ignorant of the 
 relations which they bear to the spiritual body of 
 Jesus Christ — ignorant of the properties of that 
 body, you rise up against the express and reiterated 
 
•557 
 
 declaration of the Saviour, against the doctrine of 
 all the Fathers, and of the whole christian 
 world before, and except the Protestants; and in 
 the plenitude of all this ignorance, you scan the. 
 attributes of the eternal God, circumscribe the 
 ocean of Divine Omnipotence, by your ideas of 
 time and space, and proclaim that the real pre- 
 sence of the body of Christ in the mystery of the 
 Eucharist is " an infinite absurdity ! ! !" Deists, 
 Rev. Sir, never made a more arrogant, perverted, 
 or fallacious use of reason, than this is. Reason 
 knows nothing of these matters, except as they are 
 revealed; and the haughty little blunderer may 
 return to its nut-shell, convinced of its own impo- 
 tence, and satisfied that the son of God would not 
 have required of us to believe any thing which is 
 absurd. So much for the dcistical objection of 
 reason and the senses. 
 
 Under this head also, you introduced the silence 
 of the enemies of Christianity in the primitive 
 church ; having nothing to hope from the Fathers, 
 said, on the subject, you expect something from 
 what the Jews, Pagans, and apostate Christians did 
 not say. " Celsus, Porphyry, Lucian, Julian and 
 Trypho, would have written (as Protestant min- 
 isters do) against the doctrine of Christ's real 
 presence, if it had been believed in their time as it 
 is now in the Catholic Church." Answer. 1. 
 The knowledge of the Christian mysteries, and the 
 administration of the sacraments was inviolably 
 concealed from Jews and Pagans by the "discipline 
 of the secret," for an account of which you may 
 consult Bingham and Mosheim, though they 
 are not the best authority. 2. I have proved al- 
 ready from the Fathers, that the belief of Christ's 
 real flesh in the Eucharist did exist. 3. The 
 charge made against the Christians of "murdering 
 a child, and eating its flesh in their secret assemblies,'''' 
 proves that the Jews and Pagans had a confused 
 vague knowledge of the doctrine of the Eucharist. 
 4. With regard to Julian the apostate, we cannot 
 know whether he wrote against the doctrine or 
 not, since his theological works have been lost. St. 
 Cyril in his preface tells us, that he had written 
 three books against the Christians. Of the con- 
 tents of them we know nothing, except a part of 
 one to which Cyril replied. Who knows then, 
 that in the others he did not prove himself a 
 sound Protestant by attacking the Eucharist, and 
 pronouncing it an " infinite absurdity V Itis like 
 his language. 
 
 The IV. head is on the origin of the doctrine. 
 Here you deny having asserted "that the doctrine of 
 Transubstantiation was not held'.before the year 1215." 
 I am glad to see you deny your assertions, but it 
 would be more magnanimous to recall them and 
 acknowledge that you were mistaken. But the 
 matter has been already sufficiently disposed of, 
 in the introduction. 
 
 V. Head you ask " how we can discern the 
 body and blood after consecration V I answer 
 hy faith. By believing with St. Augustine that 
 « it is the body of Jesus Christ in which he suffered.^'' 
 and with St. Ignatius that it is " the flesh of Jesus 
 Christ, " with St. Chrysostom that "what is in the 
 chalice is what flow ed from his side," and with 
 
 Christ himself that itis "his body and blood.'''' 
 And now I ask you how can Protestants discern 
 it at all? Since they will not allow even faith to 
 believe that the "body of the Lord" is there. 
 Would St. Paul require the Corinthians to dis- 
 cern the body of the Lord in the sacrament, if the 
 body of the Lord were not really and truly there, 
 though in a supernatural manner, impervious to 
 the senses? No, certainly. 
 
 You ask, "does not this pretended miracle de- 
 grade Christ's humanity, and deify the operating 
 Priest?" I answer first, that it is a miracle, 
 which faith alone can appreciate, and that your lan- 
 guage is a gross imposition on the ignorance of Pro- 
 testants, when you speak of it as a miracle for the 
 senses to judge of. Is this intentional 1 and if it 
 be, is it honest ? 
 
 \ answer secondly, that the priest offering " the 
 sacrifice," acts as the minister and by the authority 
 of Jesus Christ — just as you profess to do, when 
 you preach the Gospel. Is this " deifying" either 
 the priest or the parson? Can you be serious when 
 you employ such expressions ? I answer thirdly, 
 that so far from degrading the Catholic doctrine of 
 the Eucharist, glorifies, the Saviour's humanity, 
 and the Saviour himself. Because we believe in 
 his veracity when he said "this is my body," and 
 the flesh which the Jews seeing scourged and spit 
 upon, that same the Catholics adore without see- 
 ing — as if to atone for the insults. 
 
 VI. Head. Under this ycu make a difficulty 
 respecting the priest's " intention." To this I 
 reply that there is no ground to suppose, that a 
 priest who administers a sacrament should have 
 the intention not to administer. In heaven or on 
 earth, in time or in eternity, there is no motive for 
 him to withhold his intention, and deliberate 
 wicked actions without any motive or inducement, 
 are not to be presumed. The Presbytery that or- 
 dains a Calvinistic minister, f;oi/ /(/constitute there- 
 by a real minister if it depended on intention, and 
 whenever we say that it does not, we predicate 
 on the absence, not of intention, but of power. 
 The Presbytery cannot give, what it does not 
 possess — however much it may intend it. 
 
 VII. And last head. Here you affect to be 
 amused at my claiming the ancient Liturgies as 
 teaching (the doctrine of) Transubstantiation, 
 and venture to assert that there is not one word 
 of truth in all I have said on that subject." I 
 must say that you never " ventured" on a more 
 hazardous experiment in your life — the appeal to 
 the Fathers not excepted. I have not room here 
 to quote the words of those liturgies. But at a 
 proper time I shall lay them before the public, 
 and let Protestants see with their own eyes, 
 how grossly they are imposed upon, when they are 
 told, that before Luther there ever were Christians 
 that believed as they do. In the mean time I 
 shall mention two facts which will show how little 
 of Protestantism is :'.n these Liturgies. 
 
 In the early part of the seventeenth century the 
 Duke of Saxony had been persuaded that Pro- 
 testantism, vainly sought for in the primitive 
 Church, was to be found abundantly in the an- 
 cient liturgies of the heretics in the east. Ac- 
 
258 
 
 eordingly he sent an eminent oriental scholar, 
 John Michael Vensleb to examine. This exami- 
 nation resulted in his conversion to the Catho- 
 lic faith. Afterwards, he travelled in the east, 
 and procured no less than five hundred manu- 
 scripts for the French King's Library. One of 
 these, the Liturgy of Dioscorus, Patriarch of 
 Alexandria, was published in London in 1661. 
 He had been the pupil of the celebrated oriental 
 scholar, Ludolf. A similar discovery in the ex- 
 amination of the Eastern Liturgies, caused the 
 conversion to the Catholic faith of Vigne, a 
 Calvinistic minister of Grenoble, about the same 
 time. (Le. Brun vol. 4. p. 467.) These two facts 
 are ample proof, that on the Eucharist all the 
 liturgies of the east and west, teach the real pre- 
 sence by the change of the bread and wine into 
 the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This I shall 
 make appear at large. 
 
 I have now answered the arguments of your 
 letter to the satisfaction, I trust, of the public, if 
 not of its author. Did the Fathers, up to St. 
 Ignatius, in the very age of the Apostles, hold, 
 or did they not, the Catholic doctrine of the 
 real presence of the glorified body of Jesus 
 Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist] If 
 they did not, then take up, one after the 
 other, the passages I have quoted, and tell us 
 what they mean. If they did— then Catholics 
 are right, and Protestants are wrong, on your own 
 admission, for you claimed the ^Fathers, and 
 professed yourself ready " to meet me at all 
 points." If then the Fathers, up to the apostolic 
 age, held the true 3octrine, does it not follow that 
 Protestants have been led to forsake the faith 
 of Jesus Christ ] Let them reflect on it. 
 
 I have no objection to the compliments which 
 you pay to the great men of the Episcopal 
 Church. But you might have left the name of 
 " Usher" out, and substituted those of Drs. Bow- 
 en and Cooke, of Kentucky, and of Mr. Briton, 
 of New York, who have so triumphantly vindi- 
 cated, at least, one article of Catholic belief 
 against the errors of Presbyterianism. These 
 names I know are not in good odour at Princeton, 
 but their triumph is not the less complete on that 
 account. 
 
 The Bookseller who was forbidden to keep my 
 review of Bishop Onderdonk's Charge for sale, is 
 the Agent of the Baptist Tract Depository, and 
 my informant is Mr. Fithian, whose note see 
 below. Now I shall answer your questions bv 
 number. 
 To the 1. I say that Pope Liberius did not 
 
 sign the Arian Creed in the Arian sense or mean- 
 ing. 
 
 To the 2d. that no council, recognized by 
 the Catholic Church, ever " adopted," the Arian 
 Creed. For the errors of other councils, or 
 general assemblies, the Church is not accounta- 
 ble. 
 
 To the 3d. I reply, I have answered it already, 
 the VI. head. J 
 
 To the 4th. compound question, I answer 1st, 
 that there were pretenders to the see of Rome, 
 besides the rightful occupant, and in this sense 
 there were schism in the Popedom— 2, that Ca- 
 tholics have no difficulty in knowing who was 
 the true Pope, and 3, that a false pope is no 
 pope. 
 
 To the 5th. about the freedom of the press at 
 Rome, and the " Prohibiting Committee" which 
 you are pleased to imagine for the benefit of " all 
 the Church," I answer, that the latter does not ex- 
 ist, and the former is a question on which every 
 man may abound in his own sense. 
 
 To the 6th. I answer, that money given to a 
 priest for any sacred function is not given, and 
 cannot lawfully be received as an equivalent, but 
 either as alms, deeds, or for support, on the 
 principle that they who serve at the altar should 
 live by the altar. 
 
 To the 7th. I answer, that in my opinion, reli- 
 gion and science suffered by the suppression 
 ot the Jesuits, and that both are gainers by their 
 restoration. This opinion is founded on the fact 
 that they are hated for their zeal, and admired 
 for their learning by all the infidels in Europe. 
 As to the Inquisition, it may have been a good 
 thing — abused. 
 
 To the 8th. and last, I answer that so far as 
 the traditions of the Jewish Church had reference 
 to the ceremonial law, they expired with it. So 
 far as they regarded proof of Jewish faith before 
 the coming of Christ, I do not reject them. 
 Yours, &c. 
 
 John Hughes. 
 
 As the publisher of "the Review" I supplied a 
 number of Booksellers with it on commission 
 among others, the Depository of the Baptist 
 Tract Depository. As I was personally acquainted 
 with them generally 1 called in occasionally to 
 inquire if I should send more, &c. and was inform- 
 ed by the Assistant Agent that the number which 
 I had sent them was all sold but orders had been 
 been given him not to receive and offer for sale any 
 more - M. Fithian. 
 
CONTROVERSY,. ...N°. 32. 
 
 Is the Protectant Religion the Religion of Christ? 
 
 Philadelphia, September 1th, 1833. 
 To the Rev. John Hughes, 
 
 Sir, — In my last letter I produced the distinct 
 testimony of three several Roman Catholic histo- 
 rians, in support of my charges against the infa- 
 mous lives of the clergy and Popes of Rome. 
 This was done in answer to your challenge, to 
 the following effect, viz. " Name the page of 
 the Catholic historian who states what you have 
 asserted, and I pledge myself again to expose 
 2/ow." (Letter No. XXIX.) And now when these 
 connecting authorities are adduced, how do you 
 meet them ? 
 
 Thuanus you reject, saying that he was twice 
 condemned at Rome by public decrees, in 1609 
 and 1757. . Were these decrees issued by Gene- 
 ral Councils, approved by Popes? If -not, they 
 are of no weight in this question. But they were 
 not, for the last Council (that of Trent) sat more 
 than fifty years before the first of these dates 1 
 How then can you say that he is not a Catholic 
 historian ? Does the Church condemn him 1 
 Has he not written the truth? Yes; and it is 
 for this that you reject him, as you did Bellarmine 
 when his testimony became insupportable, though 
 you informed me once, that he was a standard 
 writer in the Church of Rome. Dupin was my 
 second witness. You answer, "we disown him!" 
 So you do the Bible, as a rule of faith ; and for 
 the same reason, that it does not teach Romanism, 
 if left to speak for itself . Dupin not a "Catho- 
 lic historian !" And why ? Because he does 
 not deny or conceal the corruptions of Popes, 
 Prelates and Priests. " He is your enemy be- 
 cause he tells you the truth." This a summary 
 method of disposing of an author; not forsooth, 
 because what he says is proved to be false,- but 
 because he condemns the party whose history lie 
 writes, and because the condemned party finds 
 fault with him for doing it. 
 
 But you are forced to own that my third wit- 
 ness, Baronius " is a Catholic historian." 
 Here then we join issue. 
 
 On this reference, you speak so unlike a gospel 
 minister, or christian gentleman, that I assure you 
 I feel ashamed to be dragged before the commu- 
 nity in such company. After language which 
 shows a desperate and infatuated state of mind, 
 you propose the following extraordinary course — 
 " To put the matter to rest, I shall mark the 
 pages, and leave two copies of Baronius, one in 
 Latin, the other in Italian, at the Athenaeum on 
 Thursday morning, together with a copy of your 
 letter for the curious to compare the one with the 
 other. The public will then see which of us is 
 to be exposed." 
 
 From such a trial I shrink not, except for the in- 
 decent coarseness and vulgarity with which it is 
 proposed to be made, and at which every honour- 
 able mind must revolt. The volume and my 
 friend were at the Athenaeum at the appointed hour; 
 and by referring to the Postcript you will see that 
 lam fully prepared to meet you at " all points. " 
 But the passage in Baronius to which I referred 
 you, was only only one of a hundred furnished by 
 this " Catholic historian. " He relates, for ex- 
 ample, that Pope Alexander VI., A. D. 1492, 
 (see Baronius' Annals, Vol. 19, p. 413 et seq.) 
 was elected by Cardinals, some of whom were 
 bribed, some allured by promises of promotion, 
 and some enticed by fellowship in his vices and 
 impurities, to give him their suffrages. He re- 
 fers to various authors who complained that he 
 was (insignem stupris) famous for his debauche- 
 ry; he tells us of his vile example (pessimo ex- 
 emplo) in keeping(pellicem Romanam Vanoziam) 
 a Roman strumpet Vanozia, by whom he had 
 many children ; that he conferred wealth and 
 honours on them, and even created one of them, 
 Caesar Borgia, (an inordinately wicked man,) 
 archbishop of the church. The same writer 
 (Vol. 11th. p. 145, &c.) records the election of 
 Benedict the 9th, at the age of twelve years r 
 which he says was accomplished by gold, and he 
 calls it (" horrendum ac detestabile visu") "hor- 
 rible and detestable to behold:" yet he adds that 
 the whole christian world acknowledged Bene- 
 dict, without controversy, to be a true Pope. 
 This man he represents as a monster of iniquity, 
 and relates, that after death he appeared to a cer- 
 tain Vaclus in a hideous shape, and informed him 
 that he was doomed to everlasting woe ! 
 
 Once more: the same author (vol. 10. pp. 742, 
 3.) informs us at large of the villanies and infa- 
 mous conduct of the notorious Pope Stephen the 
 7th. The following sentence conveys the history 
 of his unparalleled wickedness in a sirTgle line. 
 Ita quidem passus facinorosus homo quique ut 
 fur et latro ingressus est in ovile ovium, laqueo 
 vitam adeo infami exitu vindice Deo clausit. 
 " Thus perished this villanous man, who entered 
 the sheep-fold as a thief and a robber; and who 
 in ' the retribution of God, ended his days by 
 the infamous death of the halter." There have 
 been probably not less than two hundred Popes 
 whose lives furnish in a greater or less degree 
 confirmation of the charges which I have already 
 made. There is not in the history of human 
 crime such a catalogue as is furnished by the 
 lives of the Popes. No list of Mahommedan or 
 I Syracusan tyrants — no annals of human barbarity, 
 1 debauch, and infamy — no history of any age or 
 
2G© 
 
 any people furnish such a picture of depravity. 
 Let any reader consult Baronius, or Boyer, or Du- 
 pin, or Thuanus, or even the popular Encyclope- 
 dias of the day, and he will find our description 
 abundantly sustained. When, therefore, you speak 
 of "Magdalen Reports," and refer to the history 
 of crime in our country, remember, that the infa- 
 mous women of whom you speak are not Protes- 
 tants ; and that it is the Protestant church which 
 is seeking their reform; while on the other hand 
 the history which I have given above, is the his- 
 tory not only of your Priesthood, but of your 
 Popes, 
 
 I. Your defence of the celibacy of the clergy, 
 carries its own exposure with it. You say " as 
 to the charge that the Catholic church forbids 
 marriage, it is untrue." But in the next sentence 
 you own, that " the law of her Priesthood enjoins 
 celibacy and chastity, but no one is compelled to 
 enter into the ministry of her sanctuary." But 
 pray who authorized her to make a law enjoining 
 celibacy on the Priesthood 1 The Bible says 
 "marriage is honourable in a//;" but the church 
 of Rome says it is not honourable in the Priest- 
 hood. The Bible confers on Bishops, in so many 
 words, the privilege of marriage; whereas the 
 church of Rome in so many words forbids it, and 
 anathematizes those who dissent from her. This 
 is what I call " fighting against God;" it is in 
 fact nothing less than cursing God. If, as you say, 
 " no man is compelled to enter the ministry" in 
 your church (which however is far from the truth 
 in Spain, Italy, &c.) yet do you not compel those 
 whom God may call into the ministry, to abandon 
 their families or else stay out of the Priesthood 1 
 And I ask is not this tyranny ; is not this the most 
 daring species of oppression and rebellion against 
 God 1 Your defence of Bellarmine is a full ex- 
 emplification of the spirit, and corrupt principles 
 of the Jesuits. Bellarmine as cited by me con- 
 tends " that it is a greater evil to marry under the 
 vow of celibacy than to commit fornication;" you 
 say that " under such a vow, marriage is essential- 
 ly null and void ;" and you ask " whether an act 
 of conjugal infidelity in a married person is as 
 great a sin as polygamy V Bellarmine's reason 
 for his opinion is that one who is married after a 
 vow of celibacy is incapable, for the future of 
 of keeping the vow , whereas one who commits 
 fornication may quit it and return to his vow. Now 
 on your p/inciples, as marriage under a vow is 
 "null and void," it follows that the wife may as 
 properly be forsaken as \X\e mistress ; therefore 
 Bellarmine's reason can have no weight. And 
 then we are brought to this, that a Priest who can- 
 not or will not keep his vow of celibacy, had bet- 
 ter keep a mistress than get a wife ! This is the 
 reasoning, and this the morality of the Rev. John 
 Hughes ! Is it to be wondered at then, that the 
 Priests of the church of Rome are often found to 
 he fathers, though they T have no wives']: When 
 you charge our Confession of Faith with giving a 
 license to commit sin (see Confession of Faith chap. 
 24,) as it grants divorce in case of adultery, you 
 forget that you condemn the Lord of Glory, for he 
 has said (Matt. xix. 9) " whosoever shall put away 
 
 his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall mar- 
 ry another committeth adultery." Here is a full 
 warrant for divorce in the case supposed. 
 
 On the subject of intolerance and exclusive sal- 
 vation, you seem to be conscious in your late let- 
 ter that your church cannot be defended ; and 
 your last, though fruitless effort is, to prove that 
 the Presbyterian church is as intolerant as your 
 own. But it is a failure to the extent of being 
 even ludicrous. So far from excluding other de- 
 nominations of Christians from heaven we cherish 
 the hope that God numbers many of his own 
 children among those who are subjected to the 
 despotism of the Pope ; but we are free to acknow- 
 ledge, that this hope almost "expires when we 
 reach the Priesthood of your church. The records 
 of past ages and the daily developments of the 
 present time, tell us in a language which we can- 
 not misunderstand, that the clergy of your church, 
 taken as a body, have been and are the most guil- 
 ty and most dangerous men with whom this fallen 
 world has been ever cursed. You deny that once 
 every year the Pope at Rome excommunicates all 
 Protestants, and refuses absolution to their abet- 
 tors, harbourers, readers of their books, &c. I 
 know not whether most to wonder at your assur- 
 ance or your ignorance. Cardinal Tolet (Istruct. 
 sacred, cap. 20, 32.) tells us with the most co- 
 pious distinctness that this is the fact. Can it 
 be possible that you have never seen or heard 
 of the famous Bulla Coenae in which the Pope 
 annually curses Protestants as I have said ; 
 claims power over kings, denounces all govern- 
 ments who tax Papists without his consent, who 
 harbour heretics, furnish them with arms, read 
 their books, &c. &c. Strange that you have 
 never heard of this Bull, though it requires you 
 once a year to publish it to the faithful ! 
 
 II. We next proceed to notice your ineffectual 
 effort at the defence of Transnbstantiation. You 
 struggle in the toils of truth and self-contra- 
 diction in which you have been caught, with a 
 pertinacity and desperation which would excite 
 compassion if you were labouring in a better cause. 
 A brief notice of the several particulars is all that 
 is necessary, for you have met none of my argu- 
 ments, and as will soon, appear, have still more 
 deeply involved yourself. You attempt to prove 
 me guilty of contradiction when I admit that Ber- 
 ringer was condemned for denying Transubstan- 
 tiation in 1059, while I say that it was not an 
 article of faith until 1215. But do you remem- 
 ber that in Berringer's day, amidst the con- 
 troversies on this disputed point, even the terms 
 in which the parties expressed their opinions 
 were not fixed'? Berringer's first recantation 
 (before a c^mcil in which the majority held the 
 real presence) was in such crude and shocking 
 language as the following; " the true body of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ is broken by the Priest's hands, 
 and ground by the teeth of the faithful." But the 
 party for Transubstantiation afterwards found that 
 his recantation was worse than the former Protes- 
 tant doctrine which he held; so after many years 
 his recantation was amended ,- and he finally re- 
 turned to his first opinion and was backed in it 
 
36 i 
 
 by half the church. Any one acquainted with 
 the history of the church must know as Scotus, 
 and Tonstal, and Durand, and Erasmus, &c. (all 
 Roman Catholic writers) infoim us, that until 1215 
 it was a disputed question sustained on each side 
 with great warmth, that the church allowed her 
 members to hold either side without censure ; and 
 that even after it was decreed in 1215 to be a doc- 
 trine which all must believe, it was received on 
 authority and not from the Bible. So we are in- 
 formed by Cajetan, Scotus, Durand, Ocham, Biel, 
 Contarinus, Melchior, Cane, Fisher, &c. all Ro- 
 man Catholic writers. Bellarmine, Bruys and 
 Sirmond tell us that Pascasius in the 9th century 
 was the first author who expressly wrote on the 
 real presence. Bertram answered him ; yet he 
 was no heretic and for two hundred years his 
 work was circulated and not condemned. This 
 said work was revived after the Reformation in 
 support of Protestantism by the Reformers. 
 After this, Cardinals, the Pope and the Committee 
 of the Index at Rome denounced Bertram's book; 
 yet Mabbillon in 1680 proved beyond all doubt 
 that it was the genuine work of Bertram. Do not 
 such facts incontestibly prove the novelty of Tran- 
 substantiatjon ; and the antiquity of the Protestant 
 doctrine 1 
 
 1. Your renewed attempts to derive this doc- 
 trine from the Scripture grow worse and worse 
 at every step. If you take the words " this is my 
 body" literally, why will you not also take literally 
 all the remaining words of institution, viz. " this 
 cup is the New Testament in my blood ?" Why 
 did you not answer my argument on this point? 
 Have you not one word then to say in reply to all 
 that was presented in my last letter showing the ab- 
 surdity of your interpretation of Scripture. Mustnot 
 the public and even your own people see and own 
 that you abandon the Scripture defence of your doc- 
 trine ? Is not the Bible against you 1 When you 
 give us, letter after letter, teeming columns of per- 
 verted testimonies from the " Fathers" and furnish 
 only a solitary line from the word of God, what 
 can such dearth of Scripture mean but that Scrip- 
 ture is against you ! 
 
 2. As to the Fathers, even admitting that some 
 of them are for you, then by your own rule of 
 faith as you have not their " unanimous consent" 
 their proof is of no value to ydii. This is a point 
 of which you are manifestly afrrfid, and which 
 you have never touched though presented to you 
 in my letter No. 1. In your last letter you bare- 
 ly say as follows: "The exceptions which you 
 profess to find, as to the 'unanimous consent of the 
 Fathers' on the Catholic faith of the Eucharist, 
 have as much foundation in reality, as 'the contra- 
 dictions which the Deist pretends to discover in 
 the comparison of the four Gospels. In both cases 
 there are apparent disagreements." If by this 
 you mean to say that the " Fathers" are as unani- 
 mous as the four Gospels then surely you ought 
 never atjain to speak evil of the Deist. Yet this 
 is all you say in defence of their unanimity. I 
 have proved in my last letter that the Fathers as 
 a body rejected Transubstantiation. But to settle 
 this question and give you the opportunity of 
 
 making out their unanimity in support of your 
 doctrine, let me here summarily present to you a 
 few specimens. If you will reconcile them to 
 your doctrine of the real presence, then will I 
 concede that the Fathers are yours. But until 
 you do, by your own confession your rule of faith 
 rejects this doctrine. Besides when some of the 
 Fathers appear to agree with you in calling the bread 
 the '■body and the flesh' of Christ, &c. meaning 
 the sign of his body and flesh, they can be recon- 
 ciled to our views ; but when they call it ' a figure 
 of his body,' and say * the nature of bread still re- 
 mains after consecration,' that ' it is wicked to say 
 we eat the flesh of Christ, &c. they cannot be re- 
 conciled with your doctrine. Therefore they either 
 contradict each other, or all of them are for us. 
 
 Augustine, whom you claim, (De doctrin. Chris- 
 tian, Lib. 3. cap. 46.) thus writes : "If the say- 
 ing be preceptive, either forbidding a wicked ac- 
 tion, or commanding to do that which is good, it 
 is no figurative saying; but if it seems to com- 
 mand any villany or wickedness, or forbid what 
 is profitable and good, it is figurative. This say- 
 ing 'except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and 
 drink his blood ye have no life in you,' (John vi. 
 53.) seems to command a wicked or villu?tous 
 thing; it is therefore a figure, enjoining us to 
 communicate in the passion of our Lord ; and to 
 lay it up in dear and profitable remembrance, that 
 his flesh was crucified and wounded for our 
 sakes." Chrysostom (Epis. ad. Caesarium Mo- 
 nachum.) says, "Christ is both God and man: 
 God, for that he cannot suffer; man, for that he 
 suffered. One Son, one Lord, he the same with- 
 out doubt, having one dominion, one power of 
 two natures ,■ not that these natures are consub- 
 stantial, seeing each of them does retain, without 
 confusion its own properties, and being two are not 
 confused in Him. For as (in the Eucharist) be- 
 fore the bread is consecrated, we call it bread ; 
 but when the grace of God by the Priest has con- 
 secrated it, it has no longer the name of bread, 
 but is counted worthy to be called the Lord's 
 body, although the nature of bread remains in it, 
 and we do not say that there are two bodies, but 
 one body of the Son : so here, the divine nature 
 being joined to the (human) body, they both to- 
 gether make one Son, one person ; but yet they 
 must be acknowledged to remain without confu- 
 sion, and after an indivisible manner, not in one 
 nature only, but in two perfect natures." 
 
 The Eutychians, against whom this Father 
 wrote, denied that Christ had two natures, that is, 
 that he was truly a man and truly God also. 
 Now he uses [the example of the Eucharist to 
 illustrate the two natures of Christ ; and argues, 
 that though "the nature of the bread remains the 
 same" after consecration, and the nature of 
 Christ's body in Heaven remains the same, yet 
 they are both called his body ; so the manhood of 
 Christ and the Godhead of Christ remain each 
 unchanged, though they are both together called 
 one Son of God. What he says would be inap- 
 plicable and absurd, if the bread be really changed 
 into the body bf Christ. Tertullian (Adv. Mar- 
 cion. L. 4. c. 40,) says, " Christ taking the bread 
 
902 
 
 and distributing it to his disciples, made it his 
 body, saying-, this is my body, i. e. this is the 
 figure of my body ! Now it would not have been 
 ■a. figure or representation of Christ's body, if 
 Christ's body had not been a true and real body." 
 Marcion, against whom Tertullian wrote, denied 
 that Christ had a true body, and held, that it was 
 one only in appearance. Tertullian proves that 
 he had a real body, in the above passage by show- 
 ing that the bread in the Eucharist was a figure 
 of his body, and the argument was this : how 
 could a phantasm or shadow which was not a 
 real body, have a figure to represent it ? Now 
 suppose Tertullian to have believed the doctrine 
 of Transubstantiation, then his argument would 
 have been in the highest degree absurd. Nay, 
 Marcion might have turned it directly against him ; 
 for he would have retorted thus : " You say that 
 the accidents and appearance of bread subsist in 
 the Sacrament without the substance of bread. 
 Why then could not the accidents and appearance 
 of a body subsist in Christ without the substance 
 of a body?" There could not be therefore a 
 stronger proof that Tertullian rejected Transub- 
 stantiation. Epiphanius, (In Anchorat.) " We 
 see that our Saviour took in his hands, (viz: 
 bread,) and having given thanks, said, this is mine, 
 and that; and yet we see, that it is not equal to 
 it nor like it ; not to the incarnate image, not to 
 the invisible Deity, not to the lineaments of mem- 
 bers ; for this (the bread) is of a round form, and 
 insensible as to any power." Once more ; Augus- 
 tine, (De utilit. Pcenitentiae Cap. 1.) "The 
 Apostle says that our fathers, not the fathers of 
 unbelievers, not the fathers of the wicked that did 
 eat and die, but our fathers, the fathers of the faith- 
 ful, did eat spiritual meat and therefore the same, 
 (with us.) For there were such there, to whom 
 Christ was more tasteful in their heart than man- 
 na in their mouth. Whosoever understood Christ 
 in the manna did eat the same spiritual meat we 
 do. - So also the same drink, for the rock was 
 Christ. Therefore they drank the same drink we 
 do, but spiritual drink, that is drink which was 
 received by faith, not what was swallowed down 
 the body.. They ate therefore the same meat, 
 the same to those that understand and believe ; 
 but to them that do not understand, it was only 
 that manna, only that w)afer." And just after 
 this he says, " it is the same Christ, though un- 
 der the different form of words, ' Christ to come," 1 
 or that has come;" (Venturus, etvenit; diversa 
 verba sunt, sed idem Christus.) Here it is mani- 
 fest that this Father did not believe in Transub- 
 stantiation. In explaining the Apostle's declara- 
 tion in 1 Cor. x. 3-4. as to the manna and the 
 water in the wilderness, he tells us " that our fa- 
 thers did spiritually eat and drink of the same 
 Christ with ourselves ;" but if our eating now be 
 Christ's natural body, then their meat and ours 
 was not the same ; for as Christ had not then taken 
 flesh upon him, those fathers in the wilderness 
 could not have eaten it in a carnal sense. This 
 is made more obvious by his Tract 45, in John, 
 where he says, " the signs are varied, faith re- 
 maining the same. There the rock was Christ; 
 
 to us that which was laid on the altar is Christ ■ 
 and they drank of the water that flowed from the 
 rock for a great, Sacrament of the same Christ • 
 and what we drink the faithful knew. If you re- 
 gard the visible species it is another thing ; if the 
 vntelhgiblc signification, they drank the same spi- 
 ritual drink." If this be not good Protestant 
 doctrine, I know not what is. The usages also 
 of the Fathers show in the most striking light 
 that they did not believe in the real presence. 
 Anciently it was the custom to give what remain- 
 ed of the consecrated bread to little children for 
 food ; sometimes they burned it in the fire ; they 
 even made plasters of it for the sick ; they sent 
 it from one to another as a token of communion ; 
 and they sometimes mixed the consecrated wine 
 with ink for writing things of importance. Does 
 this look like the real body and the real blood of 
 Christ ? Could the Fathers thus sacrilegiously 
 treat the Son of God ? Impossible ! It is clear 
 that they held no such belief as yours. How un- 
 like this were these usages to those of the present 
 Church of Rome. With you if a drop of the 
 wine be spilled, it must reverently be licked up ; 
 if-a mouse run away with a crumb of the bread' 
 the whole Church is in commotion ; " if a Priest 
 vomit the Eucharist he must swallow it again." 
 Such being the difference of usage, and such the 
 clear testimonies of the .Fathers, let me once 
 more refer their opinions to your re-considera- 
 tion. 
 
 3. Under the head in which you attempt to 
 meet my objections to Transubstantiation, " as 
 contrary to reason and contradictory to the sen- 
 ses," I know not whether you are most feeble 
 or most prolix. Your parallel between Professor 
 Norton's objections to the Trinity, and mine to 
 the real presence, is only remarkable for this, 
 that you seem to prefer the sacrifice of the Trinity 
 to the surrender of Transubstantiation. It is 
 surely a most profane parallel. But the contrast 
 between the Trinity and Transubstantiation, is 
 perfect in all its parts. 1. There is not a word 
 of Scripture for the real presence : whereas it is 
 redundant in favour of the Trinity. 2. Transub- 
 stantiation is contrary to reason and contradictory 
 to the senses: whereas the Trinity does not the 
 least violence to either. I would ask you if the 
 doctrine of the Trinity does contradict the senses? 
 Your whole argument then, as derived from the 
 Unitarian is this— the Unitarian says the Trinity 
 is contrary to reason, which Mr. Hughes does 
 not believe; therefore Transubstantiation is not 
 contrary to reason and the senses. A noble 
 syllogism truly ! Is it impossible for your fake 
 doctrine to .contradict reason and the senses, be- 
 cause a Unitarian says a true doctrine does ? 
 In reference to Hume I still insist, that if Tran- 
 substantiation be true he cannot be confuted. 
 You seem not to understand his system. He 
 found prepared to his hand a false philosophy, 
 which in violation of common sense denied first 
 principles. Previous philosophers had denied 
 the existence of matter. And who can prove it ? 
 It is self-evident ; nothing is clearer to prove it 
 by ; we look to the senses for the proof of it. 
 
•-»«» 
 
 Proceeding on the same false principle, he de- 
 nied the existence of spirit. 11" you grant his 
 
 principle, it is impossible to answer his annimenls. 
 Now as his error started with the absurdity 
 of contradicting the senses, and rejecting their 
 testimony about the existence of matter, so 
 Transuhstantiation, in the same way contradicts 
 the senses by saying that bread ceases to be 
 bread, and has only the appearance of bread, 
 when all our senses tell us it is still bread. We 
 prove it to be bread as we prove the existence 
 of all matter, on the testimony of the senses. We 
 feel it, we taste, we smell it, we see it that it is 
 very bread, after all your consecrations ; and the 
 moment that you admit that it is not bread, Hume 
 steps in and on the same proof, may deny the 
 existence of all matter. Whoever therefore takes 
 your ground, if a thinking and consistent man, 
 must launch into the wide sea of universal scep- 
 ticism. Hence it has happened, as in Spain 
 and South America at this day, that multitudes 
 of your priests are infidels, as well as men of 
 pleasure, in the worse sense of the terms; for 
 your doctrines lead to it. And hence too the 
 mass of your people are as superstitious as the 
 Hindoos themselves; their confused views of the 
 body of Christ are transferred to all things 
 around them; and wizzards, and witches, and 
 saints, and angels, and devils possess all objects, 
 and people the creation ; and holy water, and 
 amulets, and relics, and images, and crosses, and 
 beads, and agnus Dei's, and exorcisms abound; 
 and they must have something around the neck, 
 or in the bosom, at all times, to save them from 
 devils, witches, fevers, fires, shipwrecks, &c. &c. 
 Here I cannot but remark on the shocking way 
 in which you express your ideas of the incarna- 
 tion of the Son of God. You speak of " omni- 
 potence, omniscience, and omnipresence, wrapt 
 in swaddling clothes;" " the artificer of the uni- 
 verse turned carpenter ;" " the eternal God sub- 
 jected to the meannesses of hunger and thirst;" and 
 you adopt this as your creed by saying "all this 
 you must believe, if you believe the divinity of Je- 
 sus Christ." No Sir, 1 do not believe one word of 
 it, and it is an insult to the God of heaven to con- 
 nect such expressions with his august nature. 1 
 believe that the man Christ Jesus was thus expos- 
 ed, and that the eternal God was and is united 
 to the man Christ Jesus ; but that God could 
 not be born or suffer, or die any more than " his 
 divinity, together with the soul and body of 
 Jesus Christ," could be called into a piece of 
 bread by the incantations of a priest, and then be 
 eaten by the mouths of men. Again, even al- 
 lowing that the body of Christ was really and 
 carnally present in the Eucharist, it would still 
 he moss idolatry to worship it. For I would 
 ask,°what is the proper object of divine worship 
 but the divine attributes and perfections 1 To 
 worship the body of Christ alone, is idolatry, as 
 much as to worship a stock, or stone, or any 
 mere creature. We worship Christ as God: 
 But you worship ihe flesh (as you call it) of Jesus 
 Christ. Is this not downright idolatry 1 For 
 you do not merely adore God in the communion, 
 
 but you " elevate the host," i. e. the consecrated 
 wafer, (not God, for you cannot handle and elevate 
 an infinite spirit) and you " adore" what you de- 
 rate. So that even if it be Christ's body, you are 
 guilty of gross idolatry; and if it bo not, of course, 
 it is idolatry ; so that taken cither, or any way, 
 to worship it is idolatry. Your ideas of matter 
 are surely of the most extraordinary kind, and 
 as dangerous to Christianity as they are absurd 
 in themselves. The truth of Christianity was 
 suspended by its author, on his resurrection from 
 the dead. Now if his body did rise, it was and 
 is a body still ; and though refined, not a spirit, 
 for Christ said " handle me and see, for a spirit 
 hath not flesh and bones, as you see me have." 
 Luke xxiv. 39. And yet you venture to say 
 " his body can be in two places at once ; and if 
 in lico, so in a miiRon of places, and yet be at the 
 right hand. His body is spiritual: that is en- 
 dowed with the properties of a spirit." Let 
 Augustine (Epist. 57. ad Dardan) answer you. 
 " Take places away from bodies, and the bodies 
 shall be no where: because they shall be no 
 where, they shall not be at all." He thought 
 that an omnipresent body, was no body- A body 
 present in a million of places at tlie same time ! 
 Is not this a precise equivalent to the Eutychean 
 heresy which denied that Christ had a body at 
 all? "A body endowed with the properties of a 
 spirit!" Is not this absurd] Is it not to say 
 that it is not a body, for the properties of a 
 spirit, make a spirit ,■ and a body is that which 
 has not the properties of a spirit. Do you 
 not then in fact take the ground of the Sweden- 
 borgians, and Shaking Quakers, and deny the 
 bodily resurrection of Christ, making it all spirit 
 tual? You most stangely appeal to John xx. 19. 
 " When the doors were shut, where the disciples 
 were assembled for fear of the Jews, Jesus came 
 and stood in the midst." This you apply to 
 prove, that as Christ must have come through ther 
 door, or the wall, therefore the body of Christ 
 existed in the same space which was occupied 
 by the closed door or wall. Suiely you will not 
 call this infallible interpretation. Do you forget that 
 Christ had power to open the door by miracle, as 
 the prison doors, shortly after this were opened 
 and shut again by the angel of God, who liberat- 
 ed the apostles without disturbing the keepers ? 
 Acts v. 19. Do you forget that Christ had power 
 miraculously to open a passage for his body 
 through the door or wall, and close it again T 
 Do you forget that matter having all the proper- 
 ties of matter, may be transmitted through other 
 matter and yet neither occupy the place of the 
 other, as light passing through a pane of glass 1 
 You adduce Christ's appearing to Paul on his 
 way to Damascus, as a proof that his body was 
 in two places at the same lime. Christ also ap- 
 peared to Stephen, Acts vii. 50, who said "behold 
 I see the heavens opened and the Son of man 
 standing on the right hand of God." Pray tell 
 me where \s the right hand of God? Have you 
 any proof that Christ was not at his right hand 
 when he was seen by Paul 1 Until you make 
 this appear, your reasoning upon the passage is 
 
364 
 
 but a begging of the question we are discussing. 
 I observe in all your remarks about our ignorance 
 of space and time abstracted from the natural rela- 
 tion of bodies, you exclude -the bread. Now the 
 bread in our hands is certainly in its natural rela- 
 tion, both as to time and space,- and whatever we do 
 not know, this we do know, that it is bread, possess- 
 ing all the properties ofbread, after as well as be- 
 fore consecration ; and as such, we handle, and 
 break, and eat it; and being such, it is not the body 
 of Christ. This we know. You attempt in vain to 
 meet my exposure of youi illustration, drawn' from 
 the descent of the Holy Ghost upon Jesus Christ 
 at his baptism. I ask, was the Holy Ghost ever 
 incarnate, or is he now ] And can you then still 
 insist that the case is parallel ; or that the visible 
 manifestation of Deity is the same thing, or a simi- 
 lar thing to the Transubstantiation of bread into 
 a human body, a human soul and the Divinity, 
 yet retaining every appearance of bread 1 
 
 4. Your remarks on the doctrine of intention; 
 on the early silence of Jews, Pagans, and apos- 
 tate Christians, about Transubstantiation ; on 
 the Eucharist as a miracle, and yet no miracle, 
 since all miracles are palpable to the senses ; are 
 mere evasions, and call for nn reply. My argu- 
 ments on these topics stand just where they did, 
 except that your failure to meet them shows their 
 strength. As to the ancient Liturgies, I am pre- 
 pared to meet you on that question when you 
 please. I would only here ask you, whether the 
 Mass used in your Church is not altered so as to 
 differ materially from the ancient Liturgy on the 
 subject of the real presence 1 If you deny it, I 
 will prove it. 
 
 III. Having now, as I suppose, effectually dis- 
 posed of Transubstantiation, 1 proceed briefly to 
 expose the sacrifice of the Mass, which you at- 
 tempt to defend in Letter No. XXIX. This doc- 
 trine is the legitimate offspring of Transubstan- 
 tiation, as we have already remarked, and of 
 course falls with it. But it is worthy of a 
 separate notice, especially as you own that it is 
 the chief business of your clergy to offer up this 
 sacrifice. The doctrine of your Church is "that 
 the same Christ who once offered himself by his 
 blood, on the altar of the cross, is contained in 
 this divine sacrifice, which is celebrated in the 
 Mass, and offered without blood; and the holy 
 Council (of Trent) teaches that this is really pro- 
 pitiatory, and made by Christ himself :" " the 
 victim and the Priest are the same Christ our 
 Lord:" "in the Mass there is offered to God, a 
 true, proper, propitiatory sacrifice for the living 
 and the dead." (See Council of Trent, 1st and 
 2d chapters on the Mass ; the Catechism on the 
 Eucharist, and Creed of Pius IV.; also m Let- 
 ter No. XXIV.) 
 
 Against this " blasphemous fable," as it is 
 called in the articles of the Church of England, 
 we have already (See Letter No. XXIV.) said 
 much which you have left unanswered. We 
 now add : 1. This is properly no sacrifice, be- 
 cause every real sacrifice supposes the death of 
 the victim, and abo its oblation to God. But 
 the Council of Trent confesses as quoted above, 
 
 that it is an unbloody sacrifice ; and the Apostle 
 Paul tells us, Heb. ix. 22. " that without shed- 
 ding of blood is no remission." It follows there- 
 fore that it is no sacrifice, and especially not pro- 
 pitiatory, though the Council calls it so. Your 
 standards confess that there is no destruction of 
 life in the sacrifice of the Mass. The bread is 
 destroyed, but bread cannot be a victim. How 
 then can you call it a sacrifice? Again, there is 
 no oblation ; for there can be no offering up of 
 Christ, if Transubstantiation be false; and we 
 have abundantly proved that it is. 2. If the 
 Mass be a true sacrifice, then Christ did at the 
 last Supper offer up his body and blood as a true 
 propitiatory sacrifice to God before he offered 
 himsplf on the cross. You acknowledge that 
 you offer in the Mass what Christ offered in the 
 Supper; then if the Mass be true a sacrifice, Christ 
 must have offered himself as a sacrifice to God 
 in the Supper before he suffered on the cross. 
 Of course Christ laid down his life before his 
 death ; that is, he offered himself twice, which is 
 an absurdity. But it is clear that Christ did not 
 shed his blood at the Supper, and without shed- 
 ding of blood there is no proper sacrifice. The 
 Mass, therefore, cannot be a propitiatory sacri- 
 fice. 3. We are expressly told in Hebrews that 
 Christ made but one propitiatory sacrifice of him- 
 self to God. Thus it is written, Heb. x. 11-14. 
 " Every Priest, (Jewish) standeth daily minister- 
 ing and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices 
 which can never take away sins : but this man 
 (Christ) after he had offered one sacrifice for sins 
 forever sat down on the right hand of God ; for 
 by one offering he hath perfected forever them 
 that are sanctified."' And again, verse 10.; "we 
 are sanctified through the offering of the body of 
 Christ once." Here there is a definite statement 
 that Christ was offered but once,- yet in your 
 Church, by the sacrifice of the Mass you profess 
 to offer him daily, and in different parts of the 
 world, millions of times every year. The churches 
 in Madrid, alone in about one century, offered 
 Christ 558,921 times, at the price of £1,720,437, 
 for relieving from Purgatory, 1,030.395 souls!! 
 Truly this is changing the temple of God into a 
 house of merchandise ; and this at last is the se- 
 cret magic of the Mass. But the word of God 
 makes not the least mention of Christ's sacrifice 
 being offered again on earth after his death, or of 
 repeating it in the Mass. So far from this we 
 are told Hebrews ix. 12. " that by his own blood 
 Christ entered into the holy place having obtain- 
 ed eternal redemption for us." 4. The Apostle 
 plainly contradicts the doctrine of the Mass when 
 he lays down the principle, that if Christ be of- 
 fered often he must suffer often. (Hebrews ix. 25, 
 26.) " Nor yet that he should offer himself often, 
 as the High Priest entereth into the holy place 
 every year with blood of others ; for then must 
 he often have suffered since the foundation of the 
 world ; but now once in the end of the world hath 
 he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of 
 himself." If then you really offer Christ, you 
 renew his sufferings and repeat his death, by every 
 sacrifice of the Mass. Yet you call it an un- 
 
265 
 
 bloody sacrifice, and deny that Christ really suf- 
 S*rs ,• though you say you offer the same victim 
 that died upon the cross. Thus do you contra- 
 dict yourselves, and do violence to the word of 
 God. 5. The Mass makes an external visible 
 sacrifice of a thing that is perfectly invisible; 
 for it is Christ's body which you say is the mat- 
 ter of the sacrifice in the Mass; and yet this mat- 
 ter is not seen nor perceived by any of the senses. 
 If Christ had thus offered himself on the cross, 
 who would have known it? It would have been 
 the offering of a shadow and not a substance to 
 God. You might just as well have an invisible 
 Priest, and an invisible altar. It is a gross ab- 
 surdity. 6. It is not to this day determined in 
 the Church of Rome what is the essence of this sa- 
 crifice, and wherein the true sacrificial act should 
 be placed. The subject is involved in inexplica- 
 ble difficulties. To put this to the test, I now ask 
 you to tell me in your next letter wherein they 
 consist 1 ? Now what sort of sacrifice must that be 
 which none can explain, which none understand, 
 and which none can tell whether it consists in 
 the oblation, the consecration, the breaking or 
 eating of the elements ? 7. Your own mass book, 
 though altered from the ancient Liturgy, still 
 goes°directly in the face of such a sacrifice as you 
 profess to offer, in several of its parts ; and ap- 
 pears to be a strange compound of ancient truth, 
 and modern errors. It is easy to make this mani- 
 fest if you call for it. Yet this is the sacrifice by 
 which you help souls out of purgatory. As if 
 conscious that it could not be defended, you have 
 left untouched my refutation of purgatory present- 
 ed many weeks ago. Upon this profane and un- 
 scriptural institution have you hung the hopes of 
 innumerable millions of souls* For this doctrine 
 you bring no Scripture proof. Of the three pas- 
 sages in Genesis. Malachi, and Hebrews, not one 
 has the least reference to the subject. I have 
 much more to say on this subject which I now 
 omit for want of room, and am prepared to show 
 from Scripture, and antiquity, and reason, that 
 this innovation, so profitable to the Priests and so 
 ruinous to the souls of the people, is utterly anti- 
 Christian. 
 IV. We come next to consider your defence of the 
 Roman church for taking the cup from the people 
 in the Eucharist. Your first reason is that Christ 
 is present, whole and entire under each of the spe- 
 cies of the sacrament. But the force of this de- 
 pends, as you are aware, on the truth of Transub- 
 stantiation ; and I think that by this time the 
 community are satisfied that this is a slender 
 thread on which to suspend such an innovation. 
 Our Lord must have known the nature of his sa- 
 craments as well as you do, and yet he command- 
 ed the cup to be used, as well as the bread. 
 
 2. You contend that when Christ said "drink 
 ye all of this," and "this do in remembrance of 
 me," he addressed Apostles and Ministers only; 
 and therefore if the people are to have the cup, 
 the people also are to " consecrate and offer the 
 sacrifice which he had just instituted." Yet you 
 admit below " that in the earlier ages of the 
 church the communion was administered to the 
 
 laity in both kinds." Then on your admission it 
 follows that the church in the first ages understood 
 Christ to confer on the laity the right of adminis- 
 tering the sacrament of the supper. But this you 
 deny; and of course contradict yourself. I ask 
 then why the early Christians gave the cup to the 
 laity ? But again the Council of Trent in so 
 many words, says " that it was not till the last 
 supper that our Lord ordained the Apostles to be 
 Priests of the New Testament ;" and you say the 
 same. I ask then, were the Apostles Priests when 
 they applied " the sacrament" of extreme miction 
 to the sick? (Mark vi. 13.) If they were, then 
 they were made Priests before the last supper; for 
 none but Priests can administer sacraments. 
 But you say they were made Priests at the last 
 supper. If so, it follows that extreme unction was 
 not a sacrament. But your church says it is a 
 sacrament. Then the church has erred, and is 
 not infallible. Yet if it be a sacrament, institut- 
 ed by Christ, as you say, then the Apostles ad- 
 ministered it, before they were priests, or if you 
 say, they were priests, before the last supper, then 
 the church has erred, for she says ,they were not. 
 
 3. It appears then that the Roman Church has, 
 after all, violated an express law of Christ. For 
 He said "drink ye all of it," to those to whom 
 he said "take, eat;" and if you may do away the 
 "cup" so you may the "bread;" and if he meant 
 the Priests only to have the "cup," he meant the 
 priests only to have "the bread," and so there is 
 no sacrament. You own " that in the earlier 
 ages," they gave the cup to the laity. Why? 
 Arid why alter the practice"? Is not the change 
 an insult to Christ 1 ? You say it is not "es- 
 sential" to give the cup. How dare you say so 
 when Christ ordered it to be done 1 ? And you his 
 priest to administer his sacrament? Not essential.' 
 to do what Christ has fixed by a standing law, 
 and in a holy sacrament! The councils of Late- 
 ran and Trent own that the cup was primitively 
 received by the people; but gravely tell us that 
 for good and sufficient reasons the church has by 
 law changed it; and has added an anathema to 
 him who disputes the Church's authority! 
 
 4. By this act you nullify the Lord's Sup- 
 per. You divide what Christ united, viz. the 
 cup from the bread. Now as you drop one 
 half, you destroy the entire institution. The Eu- 
 charist is never, no never, celebrated in your 
 church. You not only pervert it by the pretended 
 sacrifice, when it is no sacrifice, but you destroy it, 
 by dropping one-half, and the more important 
 part, if there be a difference. And now I call on 
 you prove your right to do so; and to show that 
 the earliest antiquity gives to this criminal mutila- 
 tion, nay, destruction of the Eucharist, the least 
 countenance. 
 
 V. We come next to your stereotype questions. 
 These have at different times been answered by 
 me already; and I doubt not, to the satisfaction ot 
 every reasonable man. Your motive for their fre- 
 quent repetition, is but too evident. The courso 
 of discussion which I had adopted under tho 
 general question, viz. " is the Protestant Religion 
 the Religion of Christ," led me in the first place to 
 
266 
 
 expose the errors and corruptions of the Church of 
 Rome. From the nature of the question this was 
 the only consistent line of argument. In pursuit 
 of this plan, I have exposed in a long series of 
 unanswered arguments and historical facts, the 
 false doctrines and abominations of the Church of 
 Rome. Instead of meeting me on this ground you 
 have continually been crying out for the "question" 
 the " question," desirous, no doubt, to call me off 
 from points which your pen could not defend, and 
 whose discussion your cause could not endure. 
 To prevent an endless and indeterminate controver- 
 sy, I waived the points on which we agreed,- and 
 selected those on which we differed. On these dis- 
 puted points the controversy between us turns. 
 Ton hold these disputed points to be essential as 
 a part of the Religion of Christ ; whereas we pro- 
 test against them as errors and innovations. I 
 fully stated these disputed tenets in my definition 
 of the Protestant Religion in letter No. XX; and 
 since that time have been engaged in confuting 
 the chief part of them. To illustrate this; we 
 agree that Christ is the head of the Church ; hut 
 you add the supremacy of the Pope. I have 
 shown his supremacy to be an anti-chiistian usur- 
 pation. When this Papal exeresence is cut off, 
 the Christian, Protest;) nt. headship of Christ re- 
 mains. We agree that the Bible is a rule of faith; 
 but you add to it the apochryphal books, unwrit 
 ten tradition, an infallible interpreter, and the 
 unanimous consent of the Fathers. I exposed 
 your additions, and showed that they are unchris- 
 tian novelties. The Christian, Protestant Rule of 
 Faith remains. We agree that God is the proper 
 object of religious worship ; but you add to this, 
 gross idolatry, in the worship of the cross, the 
 consecrated bread, the Virgin Mary, angels, saints, 
 pictures, relics, and images. I exposed this idol- 
 atry; the Christian, pure, Protestant worship of 
 God alone remains. We agree that Christ insti- 
 tuted the two sacraments of Baptism and the Eu- 
 charist; but. you corrupt these, two and add five 
 more. I have exposed these your corruptions and 
 additions; the Christian. .Protestant sacraments 
 remain; and so of the other points of difference, 
 whether it be your additions to or subtractions from 
 the Religion of Christ. At every step, therefore, 
 in this discussion, (besides my direct replies, at 
 the close of several of my letters,) I have been 
 answering your interrogatories by assailing and 
 confuting those doctrines of your church agamst 
 which we protest. ' 
 
 But to be more particular. You ask 1. "TV/iat 
 is the Protestant Religion.'''' Answer. It is the 
 Religion of the Reformation, in contradistinction 
 from the Roman Catholic Religion, as it concerns 
 doctrine, and morality, government, discipline, 
 and worship. It is the religion which is exclu- 
 sively derived from and consistent with the Holy 
 Scriptures as the only infallible Rule of Faith end 
 practice ,■ and which protests against the errors and 
 corruptions of the Church of Rome. After all 
 your vain cavils, this definition is clear, minute, 
 and just. You object that Deists protest (see 
 Letter No. 23) against the Roman Catholic Reli- 
 gion. True; but I defined, the points on which 
 
 we protest; and they in important respects, differ 
 from the protests of Deists; for Deists protest 
 against those points in which we differ from you ; 
 and Deists protest also against those points in 
 which we agree with you. You object again to the 
 definition "that our religion is derived exclusively 
 from the Holy Scriptures, because we derive it by 
 private interpretation." But how else shall we de- 
 rive it'? I have fully proved that your infallibity is a 
 figment, that your rule of faith is a failure and a 
 fraud ; that the right use of reason, under the 
 guidance of God, is the only way ; and that as to 
 abuses, your forcing the sense of Scripture and the 
 conscience of men, have led to greater abuses than 
 private interpretation ever did, with this difference 
 against you, that if men abuse private interpreta- 
 tion, that is not the fault of our rule, or our 
 method of using it; whereas, your enormous 
 abuses of the Bible are by authority, and your 
 church must answer to God for all the violence 
 she has done to conscience, reason, and his holy 
 word. Once more, you object to the definition, 
 that " our religion is consistent with the Holy 
 Scriptures," and say that " every sect claims the 
 same for its notions." It is true ; but are claims 
 facts'? Do false claims destroy true ones'? 
 False prophets claimed inspiration ; does that 
 destroy the evidence of Paul's inspiration 1 
 False Christs arose ; does that falsify the true 
 Christ 1 The truth of a definition depends upon 
 the proof of a conformity between the thing defined 
 and the terms; and I have proved the justness of my 
 definition in the progress of this discussion. If 
 heretical sects do claim conformity to the Bible, 
 they pay more respect to it than the Church of 
 Rome does, for she professedly violates Bible 
 law by taking the cup from the laity in the Eu- 
 charist; by using prayers in an unknown tongue; 
 by forbidding priests to marry; by making a sa- 
 crament of extreme unction, &c. &c. 
 
 2d Question. " I call upon you to say, what 
 society of Christians ever taught this pretended 
 ' Religion of Christ' previous to the Reformation?" 
 This question was answered at large in Letters 
 No. XX. and XXIV. I answer, that the name 
 Protestant is new, but not the Religion. The 
 name Roman Catholic is also new, as well as ab- 
 surd. Neither name is found in the Apostle's 
 creed, or any early creed; and the Roman Church 
 was not even called Catholic for ages after the 
 Apostles' days. Protestant, is a new name for the 
 old Religion of Christ, which was given to those 
 who protested, at the Reformation, against the cor- 
 ruptions of that Religion by the Church of Rome. 
 Every society of Christians on earth from the 
 days of the Apostles to the Council of Nice, held 
 the doctrines of the Protestant Religion ! All 
 the churches founded by the Apostles (includ- 
 ing Rome) beginning at Jerusalem, in Asia, 
 Africa, and Europe, held essentially, the doc^ 
 trines of the Protestant Church until the Coun- 
 cil of Nice ; as may be seen by comparing the 
 formularies issued by the Reformers with the 
 Apostles' creed ; the Athanasian creed ; the 
 Nicene creed, and the writings at large of the 
 Ante-nicene Fathers. In order to test this, will 
 
207 
 
 you be so good as to take up these formularies 
 and compare them, first with these monuments of 
 antiquity, and secondly, with the word of God 1 
 After Arius arose, the Church by degrees became 
 corrupted with his heresy; and finally. Liberius 
 the Bishop (Pope) of Rome, signed the Anan 
 creed ; several Councils adopted Arianism ; and 
 finally, as Hilary informs us, Arianism was 
 spread throughout the whole world. Still a rem- 
 nant was left according to the faithful promise of 
 Christ to his Church, which professed the true 
 Religion; and from age to age till the glorious 
 Reformation in the sixteenth century, the doc- 
 trines of the Protestant Church, though perse- 
 cuted by the Church of Rome, were cherished 
 (as I have shown in previous letters) by faithful 
 witnesses to the truth. The Syrian Christians to 
 whom I have often in vain invited your attention, 
 who were never connected with or subject to the 
 Church of Rome, who reject your canon of Scrip- 
 ture; who were condemned by your Archbishop 
 for holding Protestant doctrines, and who derived 
 from Apostolical days their Bible and their 
 creed ; are a living monument to the Christianity 
 of Protestantism, and to the innovations and cor- 
 ruptions of the Church of Rome. It is also noto- 
 rious, that the Christian churches in England, 
 and Ireland, held the Protestant doctrines in their 
 essential purity, before and when the first emissa- 
 ries of the Church of Rome invaded them, and 
 began to proselyte them to the Roman Hierar- 
 chy. 
 
 Question 3d. "I call upon you to say, whether 
 Christ revealed all the doctrines of the Protestant 
 Religion, beginning with the best image of your 
 Church, Episcopalianism, and terminating with 
 the most consistent of Protestant sects, the Uni- 
 tarians 1 and if not, how many denominations 
 out of the whole, belong, to the true Protestant 
 Religion, the Religion of Christ]" 
 
 Answer. In your Letter No. XXIII. you make 
 the following acknowledgment, viz : " touching 
 what are called ' Orthodox' tenets among Pro- 
 testants, I have to observe that they are all found 
 in the Catholic Church. These doctrines always 
 existed in the Church ; and the Reformers in 
 going out from the Church, carried them forth." 
 Now, we agree with you, that some who call 
 themselves Protestants are not Orthodox in their 
 faith ; and you agree with us that there are 
 ' orthodox' Protestants. I refer you again (as in 
 Letter 26) to the Formularies which were drawn 
 up and published by the Reformed church in the 
 16th century. There were no less than 12 of 
 these, viz. the Augustan, Tetrapolitan, Polish, 
 Saxon, Bohemian, Wittemberg, Palatine, Helve- 
 tic, French, Dutch, English, and Scotch Confes- 
 sions. These doctrinal standards exhibited the 
 Christian Theology and unity of the flower of 
 Europe as to its character, and of half its popula- 
 tion as to number. They were issued as by one 
 simultaneous movement; they agreed essentially 
 with each other; and with one consent threw off 
 the despotism, and corrupt doctrines of the church 
 of Rome. Protestantism pervaded Norway, 
 Sweden, Denmark, Poland, Prussia, Germany, 
 
 Transylvania, Hungary, Switzerland, France, 
 Holland, England, Ireland, Scotland ; and soon 
 reached the continents of Asia, Africa, and Ame- 
 rica. That there have been and are many sects 
 calling themselves Protestants whose doctrines 
 are heretical, who are not Protestants, and with 
 whom we cannot symbolize, Evangelical Protes- 
 tants are as free to admit as yourself, and cease 
 not to deplore it. But this is not peculiar to 
 Protestantism. No church has so abounded with 
 sects as the church of Rome ; and not an error has 
 arisen in the Protestant church which finds not its 
 parentage or its likeness in your church. You 
 have this great advantage over us, that by the In- 
 quisition, or the stake, or a crusade, or some tre- 
 mendous interdict, you compel uniformity; but 
 our people are subject to no such bodily pains and 
 penalties, and persecutions, and stakes. And this 
 also, that the capacious and polluted bosom of 
 the church of Rome can contain all sorts of wick- 
 edness, and can tolerate all sorts of irregularities 
 if her peculiar dogmas and dominion are but re- 
 cognized. Thus her Priests, as in South Ameri- 
 ca and Spain, may spend the afternoon of the 
 Lord's day in the cock-pit orat the gambling-table, 
 if they only say mass in the morning; and the con- 
 venient morality of the Jesuits can cover and ex- 
 cuse any sin, even fornication, or murder, so that 
 the Pope be acknowledged, and Protestants 
 abhorred. Now we cannot do so, and hence we 
 often are called to divide from us, for errors, or 
 immoralities, those who give rise to some new but 
 small sect. Yet after all, the different denomi- 
 nations of Protestant Christians, as Episcopalians, 
 Lutherans, Baptists, Congregationalists, Metho- 
 dists, Moravians, and Presbyterians, agree far more 
 nearly with each other than the various sects now 
 existing (as I shall prove in my next letter) in 
 the church of Rome. But if the Reformed church 
 is made responsible for the many heresies and 
 sects with which you charge her, I ask who is re- 
 sponsible for the many heresies and sects which 
 arose in the church of Rome at the Reformation 1 
 Why did half the population of Europe forsake 
 the church of Rome and break into various sects 1 
 You say the fault was in those who broke off. 
 Why then is it not the fault of those who break 
 off from the Protestant church 1 You affirm that 
 these sects and heresies in the Protestant church 
 are produced by our rule of Faith. Then, query, 
 if your rule pf faith be so perfect, why did so many 
 sects and heresies arise in your bosom 1 Such 
 are the inconsistencies and absurdities involved in 
 your system. 
 
 The 4th and 5th questions regard Protpstant 
 ordination. Want of room compels me to delay 
 an answer till the next letter, in which, Provi- 
 dence permitting, I will give one at large. I ob- 
 serve that you have omitted a 6th question, once 
 numbered in the series, touching the character of 
 the Reformers, in these words, " Take the Re- 
 formers as they have been described by them- 
 selves, is it clear that they were the men whom 
 God would have selected to purify the church'?" 
 This question was returned upon you in the wick- 
 ed lives of the Popes with such effect, that you 
 
268 
 
 Voluntarily withdrew it from the list of your aux- 
 iliaries. 
 
 But I must, before I close, notice your answers 
 to my questions. 1. You say that '• Pope Libe- 
 rius did not sign the Arlan creed in the Arian 
 sense or meaning." This is a mere evasion. I 
 ask in what sense did he sign it? 2. What coun- 
 cils does your church recognize, and by what 
 rules is she guided, if she reject the Councils of 
 Sermium, Ariminum, &c? 3. I repeat the ques- 
 tion concerning " the intention of Popes, Bishops, 
 and Priests;" supposing they do, as they may, 
 lack intention, are their acts valid ? It is not 
 true that " they have no motive to withhold in- 
 tention." Your answers to the remaining ques- 
 tions are highly important and shall be exposed 
 in my next. Let me here remark that your ap- 
 probation of the Inquisition, your high trihute to 
 the Jesuits, and your shunning an answer on the 
 freedom of the Press, are approaches to the true 
 spirit of Popery, at which I hope our readers will 
 distinctly look ; and from which the most im- 
 portant results are promised. Allow me to add 
 the following questions to those which you have 
 left unanswered in your last. Is there any evi- 
 dence of the Pope's Supremacy before the Coun- 
 cil of Nice ? Were the Apostles Priests when 
 they administered Extreme Unction, Mark vi. 13. 
 Has the Pope a right to put a kingdom under in- 
 terdict, or to depose a monarch or chief magis- 
 trate ? Did the second Council of Pisa decree 
 a reformation in faith or nor ? Did the Council 
 of Lateran in 1215 pass an anathema against 
 those rulers who shoujd tax Ecclesiastics? Is 
 not the second commandment dropped from the 
 Catechisms which are in common use in your 
 Church in Europe and in America 1 ? Have not 
 •" The Fathers" been altered and pruned by au- 
 thority in your church"? Are the Missal and the 
 Breviary authorized and standard works? When 
 you have answered these, we shall have additional 
 light on the policy and principles of the Roman 
 Church. 
 
 I remain, Yours, &c. 
 
 John Breckinridge. 
 
 P. S. Last Thursday morning, Mr. Hughes ac- 
 cording to his promise deposited his copy of Baro- 
 niusin the Athenaeum for the inspection of the pub- 
 lic, accompanied with a paper, of which the fol- 
 lowing is a correct copy. My copy of Baronius, 
 which is page for page the same as his, was laid 
 beside it. As no notice was published in the dai- 
 ly papers of the fact, or the reason of it, it attract- 
 ed, I believe, very little notice. I have too much 
 reason to think that this was exactly what Mr. 
 H. wished. 
 
 MR. HUGHES' NOTES. 
 " Theodora. — Baronius tells us, paragraph 6. 
 that she was the mistress of Albertus Marquis of 
 Tuscany, who at that time could tyrannize over 
 Rome by means of the Fort of St. Angclo, of which 
 he was master. Consequently, he could expel 
 lawful Popes and put in usurpers, just as his mis- 
 tress directed. Was it fair in Mr. B. to suppress 
 this? 
 
 "Sergius — Baronius tells us that the monster 
 Sergius was a usurper, and was sustained in his 
 usurpations by said Albertus. And moreover, that 
 all the scandals referred to, were by these creatures 
 of a tyrant. "Perpetrata sunt ista ab invasori- 
 bus et intrusis ! ! verum legitime creati Romani 
 Pontifices ista vehementer sunt execrati." § 3. 
 Was it fair then to suppress this? / 
 
 '• Apostate Popes and not Apostolical. 1 '' — Baro- 
 nius says this in reference to the illegitimate and 
 tyrannical manner in which they had been thrust 
 into the place of the lawful Popes. Was it fair 
 to suppress this ? 
 
 " Baronius tells us the church was " disgraced" 
 (infamari) by strumpets. Mr. Breckinridge 
 translates it "governed" by strumpets. Is this 
 fair ? 
 
 " Baronius occupies the whole of the seventh 
 paragraph to prove how manifestly the providence 
 of God appears in the preservation of his church in 
 those days of tyranny, scandal, and disorder. He 
 argues that it would have been rent asunder, "had 
 not God with his supreme watchfulness preserved 
 its safety and integrity," " nisi Deus ejus inco- 
 lumitati et integritaii summa vigilantia prospexis- 
 se/." He says it was the invisible hand of God 
 which sustained the Church, and that nothing else 
 could sustain it under the shocking scandals of 
 those wicked tyrants and intruders which he had 
 just described. 
 
 "Does not Mr. Breckinridge, then, assert what 
 is untrue in making Baronius say that the church 
 was forgotten by God ? Did he ever see the origi- 
 nal ? 
 
 N. B. The Italian copy is but an abridgment." 
 
 As this appears to be a proper. occasion to dis- 
 pose of this matter, I must trespass a little longer 
 on the patience of my readers by submitting the 
 following answer to the above notes. 
 In my last letter I asserted as follows: 
 1st. "That Theodora, a courtezan of noble 
 family, obtained supreme control in Rome." 
 
 PROOF. 
 
 Baronius, Vol. X. p. 7G6. Hast thou heard of the 
 §5. Audisti temporis hu- most deplorable state of (his 
 jus deploratissinuim sia- lime, when Theodora the 
 turn, cum Theodora senior elder a noble courtezan 
 nobile scorlum monarchiam oblained (so to spef.k) su- 
 (ut ita dicam) obtineret in preme control in the city 1 
 urbe ? 
 
 Mr. H- leaves this assertion untouched. Ba- 
 ronius unfortunately is too explicit. 
 
 2d. "That she expelled the lawful Popes and 
 put violent and nefarious men into the Papal 
 chair." 
 
 PROOF. 
 Baronius, ibid. § 6. Ex By which means these 
 quibus tantarum invaluit courtezans acquired such 
 meretricum imperium .ut power that at their pleasure 
 pro arbitrio legitime crea- they expelled the lawfully 
 tos dimoverent poniifices et constituted popes, and put 
 violentos ac nefarios ho- violent and nefarious men 
 mines illis pulsis intruderent. inl" their place. 
 
 Mr. H. says that " Albertus could expel lawful 
 Popes, and put in usurpers, just as his mistress 
 directed.'" (This mistress was Marozia, one of the 
 noble daughters of the noble Theodora.) Here 
 
369 
 
 we agree. Popes have been deposed, and others 
 appointed at the direction of a courtezan. I would 
 like to know whether these facts are stated in 
 the Italian translation of Baronius, which Mr. H. 
 promised to deposit at the Athenaeum, for the in- 
 spection of the public, but which he withheld, on 
 the ground of its being only an abridgment ! It 
 might have scandalized the devout Italians to 
 read such things about their Holy Mother. 
 
 3d. "That Pope Sergius III. committed adul- 
 tery with her Theodora's) daughter, and their son 
 John, the offspring of their crimes was afterwards 
 Pope himself." 
 
 PROOF. 
 
 Luilprandus, quoled by One of these daughters, 
 
 Baronius, ibid, $ 5. Harum Marozia, by a shocking 
 
 una Marozia ex Papa Set- adultery, had a son John 
 
 gio Ibannem qui sane- by Pope Sergius, who after- 
 
 ta Ro manse Ecclesiae obti- wards obtained the dignity 
 
 nuit dignitatem nefario ge- of the Holy Roman Church, 
 
 nuil adulterio. Joannes un- John XI. son of the pre- 
 
 decimus ex Marozia scor- tended Pope Sergius, by 
 
 to Scrgii Pseudopapae filius Marozia a courtezan, is 
 
 papa creatur. See Index made Pope, 
 to Vol. X. 
 
 Uncontradicted, for a good reason. But Mr. 
 Hughes says Sergius was an usurper. 1 grant 
 it, and so were all his predecessors and succes- 
 sors. But I would ask, did not this usurper hold 
 the Papal chair at least three years 1 Were not 
 he and his bastard son John XI. who was like- 
 wise an " usurper," acknowledged by the Catho- 
 lic church as its only visible head 1 Did they 
 not perform the functions of Pontiffs in consecrat- 
 ing Bishops, &c. If they were not true Popes, 
 then the line of succession was broken, and all 
 the consecrations and episcopal acts performed 
 by them were null and void. How does Mr. H. 
 know that he himself has not received his ghostly 
 authority from this tainted source 1 
 
 4th. " He (Baronius) says they were Apos- 
 tate Popes, and not Apostolical." 
 
 PROOF. 
 
 Baronius ibid. § 4. Cum Whereas in the judgment 
 
 tamen eosdem sedis Apos- of sound ecclesiastical dis- 
 
 tolicae invasores non Apos- cipline such invaders of the 
 
 tolicos sed aposlaticos esse Apostolical See should be 
 
 dicendos, Kcclesiastica be- called not apostolical but 
 
 ne disposila censuit disci- Apostate, 
 plina. 
 
 Not denied by Mr. H. I have not suppress- 
 ed a word of the passage or context here. See 
 assertion second. 
 
 5th. " Calls the times deplorable." See 1st. 
 Admitted by Mr. H. by "expressive silence." 
 6th. " And the scandal overwhelming, says 
 the church was governed by strumpets and for- 
 gotten by God." 
 
 Baronius ibid. § 7. Quis 
 ista considerans non obsiu- 
 pescens. scandalumqu ■ pa- 
 tiens putarit, Deum obliium 
 Ecclesiae suae, quam mere- 
 tricum arbitrio permiserit 
 iufamari ? 
 
 Baronius says that the Church was dist-> 
 graced by the government of strumpets, (infa- 
 mari arbitrio meretricum. And here I cannot 
 but admire the courage of Mr. II. in asserting 
 under his hand that I had translated infamari 
 governed. Did he not know, or did he think that 
 the intelligent gentlemen who visit the Athenaeum 
 would not discover that Baroniu3 uses the word 
 arbitrio, " will, pleasure, rule, power.'''' See Ains- 
 worth. "Did he ever see the original V Alas 
 for the cause that needs such a subterfuge ! It is 
 not only once or twice that Baronius makes the 
 same assertion. On page 779. § viii. he says, quae' 
 tunc facies sanctae Ecclesiae Romanae 1 Quam 
 foedissima, cum Romae dominarenfur potentissi- 
 mas aeque ac sordidissimae meretrices 1 Quarum 
 arbitrio, &c. " What was then the aspect of the' 
 Holy Roman Church 1 How foul, when courte- 
 zans at once the most powerful and most sor- 
 did, governed Rome ?" 
 
 With respect to the assertion " that God had 
 forgotten his church," Baronius acknowledges 
 that it would be a rational conclusion in any one 
 who would consider these things. But with 
 much Jesuitical ingenuity he goes on to show 
 from the fact that no schism nor heresy occurred 
 in the church in consequence of these scandalous 
 corruptions, that this is the true church of God ! 
 A more palpable sopbism was never conceived. 
 It only proves that it was ' like priest, like people.' 
 For if there had been any virtue in the communi- 
 ty, a church which had thus forsaken God, and 
 been forsaken by him, would have become " a 
 bye-word and a hissing." Moreover Baronius, 
 speaking of the Pontificate of John X. another 
 " usurper" who obtained the chair by the influ- 
 ence of his paramour Theodora, and held it six- 
 teen years, says "Dormiebat tunc plane alto (ut 
 apparet) sopore Christus in navi." " Surely 
 Cbrist was then sound asleep in the ship, as is 
 evident." Do not these expressions warrant the 
 assertion that Baronius said " God had forgot- 
 ten his chcrch 1" At all events Mr. H. should 
 be the last pe.son to deny that God had forgotten 
 the Roman Catholic Church, unless it could 
 exist without a head For he tells us in his last 
 letter that " a false po, e is no pope." Baronius 
 whom he acknowledges u i; e good authority calls 
 John X. pseudopapa, pseud^ ont : ,j eXii a f u i se p ope ^ 
 So that for sixteen years theh, was no p p e / jf 
 the Catholic Church was the ^burch of God 
 
 Who in view of these 
 things would not be amazed 
 and shocked, and think that 
 God had forgotten his 
 church, which he had thus 
 
 fiven up to the infamy of 
 eing governed by strum- 
 pets? 
 
 where was his care of it all this ti 
 not forgotten it 
 
 ne 1 Had he 
 J. B. 
 
 The following letter speaks for itself. 
 To the Rev. John Breckinridge, 
 
 Sir, — Having observed in the papers of this 
 morning a card signed by M. Fithian, as the pub- 
 lisher of the Review of Bishop Onderdonk'scharge, 
 in which reference is made to me, it becomes my 
 duty to say that his statements are incorrect. 
 Immediately after the letter of Rev. Mr. Hughes' 
 appeared, in which he says, " In one instance a 
 bookseller who enjoyed some sectarian patronage 
 was actually forbidden to keep it for sale ;" I was 
 called upon by the said Mr. Fithian to ascertain 
 
370 
 
 Whether the information that he had given, and 
 which led to the above statement, was correct. I 
 told him that it was not, and this he must have 
 known when he gave the card to which his name 
 is annexed, and which appeared many days after 
 our interview. I was never forbidden to keep it 
 for sale, I have never received orders of any kind 
 whatever on the subject, nor am I aware that it 
 was ever known by the members composing the 
 Board, that I had received the work at all. Any 
 one acquainted with the nature of this Institution, 
 must see that even if orders had been given, the 
 statement of Rev. Mr. Hughes makes a false im- 
 pression on the public mind. lam not a bookseller 
 in the sense in which that term is ordinarily un- 
 derstood ; but an agent employed in a Religious 
 Institution. lean therefore neither "enjoy" nor 
 receive " patronage ,-" nor be influenced in the 
 
 discharge of my duties by the fear of losing it< 
 The object of the Baptist Tract Society is the 
 diffusion of what that denomination considers 
 truth. All its agents and concerns are under the 
 direction of a Board of Managers. The supply- 
 ing of the Depository with other works than those 
 issued by the Society, is under the direction of a 
 Committee of that Board. But in the case of the 
 Review no orders whatever were given by the 
 Board, nor by the Committee respecting the sale 
 of it at first, or the discontinuance of it. I receiv- 
 ed and sold the copies that were left with me 
 on my own responsibility, and declined receiving 
 any more upon the same, and by that responsibi- 
 lity I am willing to stand. 
 
 A. S. LANGLEY, 
 
 Assistant at the Depository of the Bap. Gen. Tract Society. 
 Philadelphia, Sept. 5th 1833. 
 
CONTROVERSY N ( 
 
 33. 
 
 Is ihc Protestant Religion tke Religion off Christ? 
 
 Philadelphia, September 13M, 1833. 
 
 To the Rev. John Breckinridge, 
 
 Rev. Sir, — "Mr. Breckinridge sai/sthat "the Protes- 
 tant is the religion of Christ." 
 
 If so, I call upon him 1st. To tell me what the Protes- 
 tant, religion is ? 
 
 2. I cull upon him to say what society of Chris- 
 tians ever taught this pretended " religion of 
 Christ" previous to the Reformation ? 
 
 3. I call upon him to sua, whether Christ revealed 
 am, the doctrines of the Protestant, religion, be- 
 ginning with the best image of his church, Epis- 
 copaliauism, and terminating with the most eon- 
 si stmt of Protestant sects, the Unitarians? — 
 and if not, how many denominations out of the 
 whole belong to the true Protestant religion, 
 the religion of Christ ? 
 
 4. / call upon him to show whether the Reformers 
 received any new ministerial authority, after 
 
 tell me thai, you "are ashamed (perhaps not with- 
 out reason) to he dragged before the public in 
 such company." Do you forget that your con- 
 troversial challenge was addressed to " Priests 
 and Bishops," and that you condescended to 
 admit my claims as a "responsible correspon- 
 dent." /■ 
 
 Again, as regards what you call " supersti- 
 tion," you compare Catholics with "Hindoos." 
 Now the Catholics (accustomed to insult,) can 
 forgive you this, but Protestants themselves 
 will say there is no argument in such phrases. 
 
 Again, since you have sent your "friend to 
 the Atheneeum," when (and perhaps because) I 
 did not expect him, it is but fair that he and 
 you should have another and a better opportu- 
 nity. 
 
 He it known, therefore, that, a reward of five hundred 
 dollars is hereby offered, to any friend of Mr. Breckin- 
 
 the withdrawal of that which they had received i ri,, ? e , or a "V other person, who shall Jind, in the 10th 
 from the church ? | volume of the writings of Baronius, a certain quotation, 
 
 f> 
 
 5. / call upon him, in case no such new authority 
 was received, to show that the Protestant clergy, 
 so called, have any divine right to exercise the 
 Christina ministry, more than other educated 
 laymen /." 
 
 You will not he surprised that the five "stale 
 questions," should still stand at the head of my 
 
 which he, the said Mr. Breckinridge published with in- 
 verted commas, in Letter No. XXX. of the pending 
 controversy ; and which he, the said Mr. Breckinridge, 
 professed to have found in, and taken from the said 
 10th volume. If Mr. Espy, Mr. Parker, Teachers of 
 languages, and Mr. MEihenny, {all Protestants) or 
 any two Professors of languages in any College, in 
 America, shall attest that said passage has been 
 
 letters, as I shall show in the sequel, that .you | found, the subscriber hereby binds himsetf to pay five 
 have not answered any of them; and moreover, \ hundred dollars to the finder. The said li)th volume 
 that they cannot be answered to the satisfaction \°f Baronius shall remain at the Aihenre.am, open for 
 of any dispassionate or reasonable mind. | inspection during one week after the publication of these 
 
 With regard to the authority of Thuanns and presents. 
 Dupin, as Catholic writers, it is rejected for rea- j Now, Rev'd Sir, let "your friend" get ready, 
 sons which I have already stated ; and from the whilst I proceed to notice whatever deserves to 
 fact of its rejection you are at liberty to draw be noticed in your letter, of which by the way, 
 your inferences as you think proper. ■ the continued perversions of authorities form the 
 
 In reference to Baronius, I had simply accused principal part. 
 you of falsifying the text in your quotation. I The case of Bellarmine you still affect not to 
 supposed then, thntyou did it through ignorance; I understand. I have explained and vindicated it 
 but the book has since been laid open to public in- j in my last lelter, and to that explanation I refer 
 spection, and you have the courage still to repeat: the reader. It is not necessary for me in every 
 what every scholar who examined the original, J letter to extricate my arguments and reasonings 
 must acknowledge to be untrue. \ from the confusion in which it may suit your con- 
 
 In my postscript I shall give the translation of j veniencc to involve what you cannot answer or 
 Baronius; so- that even the uneducated may see ! refute. Touching the. "licence to commit sin,", 
 what must be your situation, when you first the Protestant indulgence which I pointed out in 
 quote falsely, and being advised of it, repeat the ; your "Confession of Faith," you have thought fit 
 assertion, under circumstances which go far, to be silent.. It was not founded on the case of 
 as I shall show, to prove that you must have adultery; but on the liberty to obtain a divorce and 
 known it was unfounded. I marry another wife or husband, in consequence of 
 
 But, Rev'd Sir, I hope you will not be offend- such "wilful desertion (by the true wife or hus- 
 ed, if I direct your attention to some things in band) as can in noway be remedied by the church 
 your letter, which can hardly fail to be regarded or magistrate." Here there is no mention of 
 even by your friends, as a reprehensible want of " adultery" — " wilful desertion" is recognied as 
 courtesy on your part. For example, when you sufficient to authorise Polygamy ! ! This is pretty 
 o* 
 
•27i& 
 
 moralily. Neither is it the opinion of hidrvklu- 
 als. It is the doctrine of the Presbyterian Church 
 proposed in her Standard of 1821. Does the 
 Scripture say any thing of" this case of" wilful de- 
 sertion," and yet your ministers are obliged to re- 
 ceive the " standard" as the summary of the Scrip- 
 tures, 
 
 As to the intolerance of Presby let ianism, I estab- 
 lished it by logical demonstration in a way which 
 bids defiance to all your gratuitous assertions to 
 the contrary. As long as my arguments r^re un- 
 answered, I need not return to the subject. You 
 say it is liberal, I have proved the contrary from 
 its own standard testimony. I am content there- 
 fore to leave tbe matter as it is. 
 
 The same observation applies to your review of 
 my arguments on the Eucharist. Not a single 
 argument of mine have you touched ; not a single 
 authority have you disputed. You had appealed 
 to Scripture. I showed that Scripture positively 
 slates the Catholic dogma, as it is believed in the 
 church. You had appealed to the fathers. I 
 showed that all the fathers of the first six hundred 
 years believed and taught with the church and 
 with the Scriptures. You had appealed to reason 
 and the senses. 1 showed that the doctrine of the 
 real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, like other 
 mysteries, is believed by virtue of Revelation. And 
 that having been revealed, it rests, not. on the testi- 
 mony of reason, or what you call by that name, but 
 on the omnipotence and veracity of God. With Cod 
 it is perfectly reasonable. But I have so little 
 cause to be dissatisfied with your late production, 
 that I willingly leave the matter to the sincere judg- 
 ment of our readers. Let them compare letter with 
 letter and see whether a single difficulty has been 
 raised by you, not excepting the dcistical sophisms 
 which you have introduced, that lias not been an- 
 swered or anticipated in the arguments of my last. 
 
 For the information of the reader, however, I 
 shall make a few remarks by way of explanation. 
 I have already observed, that, in the primitive 
 church the doctrine of the Eucharist was concealed 
 from Jews, Pagans, and even Catechumens, until 
 after their initiation by the sacrament of Baptism. 
 This practice was derived from the doctrine of Je- 
 sus Christ directing that holy things should not 
 be given to dogs, nor pearls, placed before swine 
 (Math. vii. 6.) 
 
 It was derived from his practice : "To you, he 
 said, is given to know the mysteries ol the king- 
 dom of God, but to the rest in parables.'''' (Luke 
 viii. 10.) And again "I have many things to say 
 to yoii, but you cannot bear them now." (Jolnrxvi. 
 12.) So also after his resurrection, " He opened 
 their understanding, that they might understand 
 the Scripture." (Luke xxiv. 45.) In the Acts, 
 the celebration of the mysteries of the Eucharist 
 is referred to, in a way which indicates that it was 
 not to be exposed to the Jews or Pagans " con- 
 tinuing daily in the temple, and breaking; bread, 
 from house to house, they took their meat, with 
 gladness and simplicity of heart." (ii. 18.) "And 
 It came to pass, whilst they were at table with 
 him (after the resurrection) he took bread and 
 blessed, and brako and gave to them and how 
 
 they knew him in the breaking of bread*" (Luke 
 xxiv. 30 and 35.) So in like manner St. Paul — 
 " And 1, brethren, could not speak to you as to 
 spiritual, but as to carnal. As to little ones in 
 Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not meat : for 
 you were not able as yet : but neither are you now 
 able: for you are yet carnal." (1 Cor. iii. 1, 2.)" 
 Thus Justin Martyr in his "Dialogue with Trypho"" 
 the Jew, refers to the Eucharist as the sacrifice 
 of the new law, spoken of by Malachy, of bread' 
 and wine in commemoration of Christ's passion, 
 because the mystery of that sacrifice was not to be 
 exposed to Jews. We have the testimony of Cle- 
 mens Alex. (lib. 1. Stromatum,) of Tertulliaiv 
 (Apol. c. 7. and lib. 2. ad uxorem,) of Origen 
 (Horn. 9. in Caput. 16 Lev. No. 10.) of the Apos- 
 tolical Constitutions (lib. 3. cap. 5.) of St. Cyril 
 of Jerusalem, (Pref. ad Catech. No. 12.) of St. 
 Basil (lib. de Spir. s. c. 27. No. GO.) In short, of 
 Gregory Nazianzen, St. Ambrose, St. Epiphani- 
 us, St. Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Cyril of 
 Alex. Theodoret, of all the fathers to prove that in 
 their discourses to mixed assemblies, while either 
 Pagans, Jews or even Catechumens were present, 
 they spoke of the holy Eucharist with caution and 
 concealment, so that whilst the faithful, who wene 
 initiated, knew the mystery, the knowledge of it 
 should be withheld from the profane, lest being 
 as they were carnal, thej' should be scandalized' 
 and scoff at it, as Protestants do now. They said 
 in the figurative language of our blessed Redeem- 
 er, that holy things were not to be given to dogs, 
 nor pearls cast before swine. It was on such oc- 
 casions they used those ambiguous expressions, by 
 which Protestant books and Protestant ministers 
 would persuade the people that the fathers did not 
 believe the Eucharist to he flesh and blood of Jesus 
 Christ. Hear St. Cyril of Jerusalem. " We de- 
 clare not to the Gentiles the hidden mysteries of 
 the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; nor do we 
 speak openly of the mysteries the Catechumens: 
 but we frequently employ obscure expressions, that 
 they may be understood by those who are already 
 instructed, and that the uninstructed may not be in- 
 jured by them." (Catech. vi. No. 29.) It is of 
 these " obscure expressions" that Protestants take 
 advantage, when they would persuade the people 
 that the fathers beleived in mere bread and wine. 
 But I showed in m) r last letter the doctrine of the 
 fathers and of the primitive church, by their in- 
 structions to the faithful initiated, in which there 
 was no necessity for concealment, and in which, 
 they consequently teach the doctrine of the real 
 presence of the body and blood of Jesus Christ in 
 the Eucharist, so strongly and. so unequivocally that 
 no Protestant minister would dare la repeat their 
 expressions in his pulpit. 
 
 Now I maintain that this very concealment of 
 the Eucharist from Pagans, Jews and Catechu- 
 mens is by itself a powerful proof of the Catholic 
 doctrine. For in the first place, if it were mere 
 bread and wine, what motive could there exist to 
 conceal it] 2. When they were accused of 
 "murdering a child, and feasting on its flesh in 
 their assemblies," it would have been easy and 
 natural to refute the calumny, and say that it was 
 
273 
 
 merely a ///7/ebread and wine they took figuratively 
 in memory of Christ's body and death. But this 
 they never said ; even when they were tortured, as 
 was sometimes thecase, to force them intoa confes- 
 sion of what it was! 3. They would not have 
 celebrated the Eucharist with doors inviolably 
 closed, for even the High Priest would not be 
 scandalized, at seeing them eat bread and drink 
 wine; though he might be, if he saw them adoring 
 the flesh of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist as they 
 invariably did (see my last letter") before they re- 
 ceived it. But their positive testimony, when 
 speaking to the faithful alone, leaves no room to 
 doubt on the subject. So much so that Zuinglius, 
 in reading the Fathers, acknowledges that on 
 every page in which they referred to it, he found 
 nothing but " bread of life" fa 'flesh of Christ," 
 " body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.'''' 
 
 How well then, would it be for Protestants and 
 their ministers, to hearken to the beautiful advice 
 of St. Chrysostom. " Let us believe God in all 
 things, and gainsay him not, although what he 
 says appears to be contrary to the testimony of our 
 eyes and our reason. Let the authority of his 
 word supercede the testimony of our eyes and our 
 reason. Since therefore, his word said, " this is 
 my body," let us rest satisfied and believe, let us 
 behold it with the eyes of faith." (Horn. iv. in 
 Joan). 
 
 The principal exception which you make to 
 the arguments of my last letter, is that " admitting 
 some of the Fathers to be for the real presence," 
 I have not their unanimous consent. I answer, 
 that I have. They all taught, and believed, as 
 Catholics do. But say you, St. Augustine tells ns 
 that " when the Scripture seems to command a 
 ivicked thing it is to be understood figuratively. 
 Thus of the words ' unless you eat the flesh, &c." 
 Answer. In this St. Augustine speaks not of the 
 substance of the Eucharist. He speaks of the 
 action or manner in which the flesh of Christ was 
 to be received. If the Jews understood the pre- 
 ceutfo eat, in the literal-or natural sense, it would 
 lead to a wicked consequence, viz. tearing the 
 flesh from the bones of Christ and so eating it. 
 He points out the error of the Capharnaites : they 
 understood Christ to speak of his flesh, in this 
 they were right, but they imagined that it was to 
 be eaten, in the g>-oss r/tantoer of human, natural 
 flesh, instead of the supernatural manner, in which 
 it exists in the Euchurist, and he showed, that in 
 the former sense " the Scripture would seem to 
 command a wicked thing," and in so much was 
 not to be understood literally. How you could 
 have read the passage and not know this, or know- 
 ing not mention it, I am at a loss to conceive. 
 But read the testimonies from St. Augustine in 
 my last letter, and you will be compelled to ac- 
 knowledge, in your own mind at least, that he was 
 the believer and adorer of Christ's body in the Eu- 
 charist. 
 
 Again you quote Tertullian. But the context 
 shows that you pervert him. The scope of his 
 passage is to show that, according to the Prophet 
 Jeremias, bread had been the ancient " figure," of 
 Christ's body. To prove this, he quotes the 
 
 words of the institution to show that the figure of 
 the prophet had received its fulfilment, adding im- 
 mediately, the words which you suppress, " figu- 
 ra auteinnon faisset, nisi veritatis esset Corpus," 
 that is, " but it (the bread) would not have been a 
 figure, if it (the holy Eucharist) were not the 
 body in truth. P Why did you mistranslate this 1 
 
 You mention Erasmus as asserting that until 
 the year " 1215" the Catholic doctrine of the Eu- 
 charist was a disputed point. You give no 
 quotation, but I shall, to show how far you have 
 injured him by the assertion. " Since the an- 
 cients," says he, "to whom the church, not with- 
 out reason, gives so much authority, are all agreed 
 in the belief, that the true substance of the body, 
 and blood of Jesus Christ is in the Eucharist: 
 since, in addition to all this, has been added 
 the constant authority of the Synods, and so 
 perfect an agreement of the Christian world, let 
 us also agree with them in this heavenly mys- 
 tery, and let us receive here below, the bread 
 and the chalice of the Lord under the veil of the 
 species, until weeat and drink him without veil in 
 the kingdom of God. And would that those, who 
 followed Beringarius in his error, would follow 
 him in his repentance." (Prcef. in Tract. deEuch.) 
 Is this the language of a man who held that the 
 Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist was a disputed 
 point till the year " 1215 !" We should have had 
 another article in our rules, couched in something 
 like the following terms : " It is understood be- 
 tween the parties, that Mr. Breckinridge shall 
 make as many unfounded assertions and false quo- 
 tations as confidence, without experience, may dic- 
 tate ; and that Mr. Hughes shall have nothing to 
 do, hut go after him and refute them." 
 
 In your quotation from Epiphanius (In Aneio- 
 rat,) you again suppress the part that goes against 
 you. He was showing that man is made after the 
 likeness of God, although the resemblance is not 
 perceptible to the senses. This he shows by com- 
 parison with what appears to the senses in the Eu- 
 charist. It does not sensibly resemble the body of 
 Christ. But referring in the very next sentence to 
 the words of Jesus Christ in the institution of the 
 Eucharist, he says "there is no one who does not 
 believe them; fir he that does not believe it to be 
 himself truly, (ipsiini vei'um) falls from grace and 
 sa/vu/ion." Why was this suppressed? 
 
 Did the Fathers believe that the body of Christ 
 cannot be in two places at once'? So says Mr. 
 Breckinridge: but hear St. Chrysostom. "Wo 
 always offer the same victim, (here is the sacrifice) 
 not as in the old law, sometimes one and some- 
 times another : but here it is always the same, for 
 which reason there is but one sacrifice; for if the 
 diversify of places, in which the sacrifice, is offer- 
 ed, mutiplied the sacrifice, v e should have to al- 
 low that there were many Christs, But there is 
 but one Christ, who is entire here, and entire there, 
 possessing still but one body : for which reason 
 there is but one sacrifice.'''' (Horn, in Epist. ad 
 Hcebr.) 
 
 This language, Rev. Sir, indicates the true be- 
 lief of the real presence as it is in the church, and 
 as it was from the beginning of Christianity. 
 
374 
 
 Carlostadius, however, originated a contrary doc- 
 trine or rather opinion, and Protestants go with 
 Carlostadius. It is the belief of a mystery ; no- 
 thing greater, however, than what Protestants 
 who beLeve the Scriptures, 'acknowledge respect- 
 ing the presence of Christ's body on the way to 
 Damascus, or its entrance into a closed apart- 
 ment. The latter difficulty you have solved by 
 an explanation which may be original, but it is 
 not very ingenious. " Christ could remove out of 
 the wall or door, space for his body to enter by, 
 and then close it up again" ! ! This of course 
 explains the mystery. 
 
 When you take offence at "Omnipotence wrap- 
 ped in swaddling clothes," you forget that I quo- 
 ted the expression from a Protectant sermon! 
 
 On the couplet of Watts, 
 
 "This infant is (lie Almighly God 
 Come to be suckled and adored," 
 
 you make no comment. But when you come 
 out boldly, and proclaim that to adore Jesus 
 Christ as man, "would be gross idolatry," 
 you show the downward tendency of Protestant- 
 ism. Protestants generally, adore Jesus Christ 
 without distinguishing between his divine, and 
 human nature, which are hypostatically and inse- 
 parably united in the person of Christ. Your 
 separation of them savours strongly of Nesiorian- 
 ism ,- and I should not answer for your safety if 
 you had proclaimed this " idolatry" in Geneva, 
 during Calvin's days. All the " Old School" 
 Protestants have acknowledged that if the body 
 of Christ be in the Eucharist, it is to be adored 
 in it. This is precisely the point which Beza 
 and the first Calvinists urged against the Luther- 
 ans, who taught the real presence, and yet did 
 not require adoration. (Beza de Ccena Dom. p. 
 270.) (Balaeus in Exam. Recit. p. 220.) And 
 Chemnitius, himself a Lutheran, says: "There 
 is no one doubts but that the body of Christ is to 
 be adored in the Supper, unless he who doubts 
 or denies with the Sacramentarians that Christ is 
 really present in the Supper." (Exam. Con. 
 Trid. Sess. 31. c. v.) 
 
 Still a "new light" has beamed on Mr. Breck- 
 inridge, and he has discovered that these Protes- 
 tants and all who believe with us that the body is 
 to be adored wherever it is, no less than his di- 
 vinity, "are gross idolaters." Then the Reformers 
 were idolaters. What will the Unitarians, Rev. 
 Sir, say to all this 1 Will they not begin to look 
 upon you, as one of their own ] Although I am 
 persuaded that you are not. 
 
 You once threatened us with the testimony of 
 the ancient Liturgies, on the subject of the Eu- 
 charist; but you have withheld them on second 
 reflection, having been admonished, probably, 
 by some one more correctly informed, that you 
 were treading on dangerous ground. There is 
 one, however, the Syrian Liturgy of the "Chris- 
 tians of St. Thomas," (Protestants if we may be- 
 lieve Mr. B.) to which you invite my attention. 
 By this I understand you to give up the others, 
 and if so, you are wise. 
 
 About the year 1500 the Portuguese having 
 
 doubled the Cape of Good Hope penetrated into 
 India, and to their amazement these Christians 
 of St. Thomas, were found on the coast of Mala- 
 bar. This was reported in Europe, and gave rise 
 to much speculation ; but unfortunately it was 
 made known that their faith had been corrupted 
 by the errors of Nestorianism. They were here- 
 tics; and the Reformers, who had just separated 
 from the faith of the Church and of the world, 
 took it into their heads that, of course, they were 
 Protestants. La Croze, a Protestant, wrote a 
 treatise to maintain this supposition, under the 
 title of " History of Christianity in India." But 
 Assemini (Biblioth. Orient. Tom. 4. c. 7. § 13.) 
 refuted La Croze's book and convicted him as 
 usual in such cases, of twelve or thirteen gross 
 misrepresentations. Their errors were condemn- 
 ed by the Catholic Archbishop of Goa, but the 
 denial of the real presence was not among them. 
 In their Liturgy to which Mr. B. refers, are found 
 the following words : 
 
 "With hearts full of respect and fear, let us 
 all approach the mystery of the precious body and 
 
 blood of our Saviour and now, O Lord, that 
 
 thou hast called me to thy holy and pure altar, 
 to offer unto thee this living and holy sacrifice, 
 make me worthy to receive this gift with purity 
 and holiness." At the communion the Priest 
 says, " O Lord, my God ! I am not worthy, 
 neither is it becoming that I should partake of 
 the body and blood of propitiation, or even so much 
 as touch them. But may thy word sanctify my 
 soul and heal my body." In the thanksgiving 
 after communion he says, " strengthen my 
 hands which are stretched out to receive the 
 
 holy one. Repair by a new life, the bodies 
 
 which have just been feeding on thy living body. 
 ......God has loaded us with blessings by his 
 
 living Son, who for our salvation descended from 
 the highest heavens, clothed himself with our 
 flesh, has given his own flesh, and mixed his 
 venerable blood with our blood, a mystery of pro- 
 pitiation." (Renaudot's Latin translation.) 
 
 Such is the language of the Lituroy of those 
 " Christians of St. Thomas," to whom Mr. B. 
 has referred as holding the Protestant doctrine of 
 mere bread and wine! The Catholic missiona- 
 ries among them had nothing to correct in their 
 belief of the real presence. And to show what 
 kind of Protestants they were, it is sufficient to 
 state that they believed in the remission of sins 
 by the Priest's absolution; held three Sacra- 
 ments, Baptism, Holy order, and the Eucharist; 
 and taught that in Christ there were two persons, 
 the^divine, and human: that the divinity dwelt 
 in Jesus, as in a temple. Are these the doc- 
 trines of Protestants ] So much for those pure 
 and unpopish Christians of St. Thomas and their 
 
 LITURGY. 
 
 When you say that Christ commanded the cup, 
 and that we "nullify," the Sacrament, you must 
 have forgotten, that in my Letter No. XXIX, 
 1 gave, besides other, and better proofs, the Pro- 
 testant authority of a Presbyterian Synod in 
 France, and an act of British Parliament, to 
 prove the contrary. Read, I pray you, the argu- 
 
275 
 
 merits tliere adduced, and either answer them, or 
 be silent. Assertions are cheap, and cost too 
 little to deserve that I should repeat the same 
 arguments and authorities, as often as you make 
 them. 
 
 In refuting your attempt to answer the "stale 
 questions," I shall have occasion to show how far 
 the unsuspecting Protestant reader is liable to be 
 led astray by your representations. 1. To the 
 question " what is the Protestant religion," you 
 answer as before, " it is the religion of the Refor- 
 mation." This is no definition, unless we know 
 what the religion of the Reformation is. When 
 you enumerate, in anotber part of your letter, the 
 denominations that constitute " the Protestant re- 
 ligion," you expose the definition. For if "Epis- 
 copalians, Lutherans, Moravians, Baptists, Me- 
 thodists, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians" 
 constitute " the religion of Christ;" then, " the 
 religion of Christ" should be made up of contra- 
 dictions!.' Did Christ infuse such contradictions 
 into his religion ] To say that " it is exclusively 
 derived from the Bible, as the only infallible rule 
 of faith and practice," is not a definition; but an 
 assertion, which remains to be proved, and the truth 
 of which, I utterly deny. Every sect claims the 
 Scripture for its notions. This you admit, and 
 ask whether " claims are facts," — " whether 
 " false claims destroy true ones V I answer No, 
 and therefore "the false claims" of the Reforma- 
 tion, could not destroy the true claims of the 
 Catholic church. She was, and had been, from 
 the beginning of Christianity, in possession of 
 the Scriptures and their meaning. So that turn 
 it as you will, every new aspect only shows more 
 clearly that " the Protestant religion" mocks the 
 powers of definition. What is it] 
 
 In reply to my second question, you say that 
 "every society of Christians on earth from the 
 days of the apostles to the Council of Nice, held 
 the doctrines of the Protestant religion." Here 
 there is something tangible, and since you appeal 
 to the test of comparison, between Protestant and 
 primitive doctrines, I shall try you by it. The 
 Ante-Nicene Fathers and ancient liturgies were all 
 Protestant, you have told us. Then of course 
 you will have no objection to correct your doc- 
 trine, if it should happen to be different from 
 theirs. Liturgy of Jerusalem — " We offer thee 
 O Lord, this tremendous and unet.oody sacri- 
 fice." "Send down thy most holy Spirit on us 
 and on these holy gifts; that he, by his holy, 
 kind and glorious presence, may make this 
 bread the holy body of Jesus Christ" Answer, 
 " Amen." " And this chalice the precious blood 
 of Jesus Christ." Answer, " Amen." Is this 
 the doctrine of our modern Protestants on the sa- 
 crifice of Mass 1 ? No. They call it a " blasphe- 
 mous fable." 
 
 The Liturgy of Constantinople. At the com- 
 munion the deacon says, " Father, give me the 
 holy and precious body of our God and Saviour 
 Jesus Christ." The priest in giving it says, " I 
 do give thee the precious, holy, and most imma- 
 culate body of the Lord God, our Saviour Jesus 
 Christ, for the remission of sins and eternal life." 
 
 The deacon then confesses his unworthiness, and 
 concludes with these words, " O Thou ! who art 
 goodness itself forgive all my sins, through the 
 intercession of thy unspotted and ever Virgin Mo- 
 ther." 
 
 Here is the intercession of saints in addition to 
 the sacrifice and the adoration, as marked in the 
 same page. Are these the doctrines of our mod- 
 ern Protestants ; — yet Mr. B. claimed the Litur- 
 gies ! ! The one just quoted from, ascribed te St. 
 Chrysostom, is used by the western Greeks, 
 Mingrellians and Georgians, by the Bulgarians, 
 Russians, Muscovites and all the Melchile Chris- 
 tians. 
 
 The Alexandrian and Coptic Liturgy, used by 
 the Jacobite Copts of the east for more than 1200 
 years, at the oblation has: — " O Lord Jesus 
 Christ... bless this bread and this chalice, which 
 we have placed on the sacerdotal table: sanctify 
 them, consecrate them and change them in such 
 manner, that this bread may become the holy body, 
 and that what h mixed in the chalice, may be- 
 come thy precious blood.'''' A little before the 
 communion, the people prostrate and adore it. 
 At the profession of faith, the priest says: "This 
 is the most hoi}' body, and the pure and precious 
 blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. This is, 
 in truth, the body and blood of Emmanuel our 
 God. Amen. I believe, I believe, I believe, 
 and I confess to the last breath of life, that this 
 is the life-giving body of thine only begotten 
 Son. "••••Is it thus that modern Protestants " be- 
 lieve?' 1 '' This liturgy goes back GOO years before 
 " 1215," and 900 before the Reformation. It is 
 the testimony of our adversaries — who erred on 
 other points and were cut off from the church. 
 
 The Liturgy of St. James (Syriac version,) 
 " Bless us, O Lord, by this holy oblation, this 
 propitiatory sacrifice,'''' which we offer to God««»» 
 a "blasphemous fable" says Mr. Breckinridge, 
 which I proved b_y referring to the Fathers before 
 the Council of Nice, and to " the ancient Litur- 
 gies.'/.'" 
 
 As for those " Christians of St. Thomas." in 
 India, their doctrine on the Eucharist i3 the Ca- 
 tholic doctrine as we have seen. But besides 
 that, they venerated the crucifix, made the sign 
 of the cross, fasted from food on certain days, and 
 abstained from meat on others, celebrated festi- 
 vals in honour of the blessed Virgin, and prayed 
 for the dead. (Le Brun. Tom. III. Dis. xi. Art. 
 15.) They hold not therefore the doctrines of 
 Protestantism. The learned Protestants Grotius, 
 (votum pro pace,) and Bishop Bull, (vol. i. p. 
 342.) give up the Liturgies, as far as Protestant- 
 ism is concerned, and the few extracts here made, 
 show they were as correct as they were candid. 
 Still Mr. Breckinridge asserted "that there was 
 not one word of truth'''' in my statement touching 
 the ancient Liturgies. If I have proved the con- 
 trary, the reader will appreciate the veracity and 
 politeness of my opponent, as they deserve. 
 
 Let us now glance at the Protestant Fathers 
 before the Council of Nice. Take for example 
 the invocation of Saints; and let us hear Origen. 
 "O ye saints of heaven, I beseech you with sor- 
 
976 
 
 rowful sighs and tears, fall ye at the Feet of 
 the Lord of mercies for me a miserable sinner." 
 (Origen Lament.) Would Mr. Breckinridge join 
 in prayer with this (Protestant'?) Father? 
 
 Irenaeus. "As Eve was seduced to fly from 
 •God, so was the Virgin Mary induced to obey 
 him, that she might become the advocate of her 
 that had fallen." (Adver. Hoeres. L. V. c. 19.) 
 
 On the subject of Tradition, and the Scriptures, 
 let ue see if they agree with the doctrine of mo- 
 dern Protestants. Hear St. Clement of Alexan- 
 dria, (second century.) " They (Heretics,) make 
 use indeed of the Scriptures ; but then they use 
 not all the sacred books ; those they use are cor- 
 rupted ; or they chiefly use ambiguous passages. 
 They corrupt those truths which a^iee with the 
 inspired word, and were delivered by the holy Apos- 
 tles and teachers, opposing the divine tradition by 
 human doctrines, that they may establish heresy. 
 But it is clear from what has been said, that 
 there is only one true Church, which is alone an- 
 cient ; as there is but one God, 'and one Lord." 
 [Strom. Lib. vii. p. 891, 890, 899. Edit. Oxon. 
 1715.] Is it thus that Mr. Breckinridge distin- 
 guishes heresy ? 
 
 On penance and satisfaction, what said these 
 Protestants of Mr. B 1 
 
 Tertullian addressing the sinner, "Thou hast 
 offended God, but thou canst be reconciled ; thou 
 'hast a God to whom thou canst make satisfaction, 
 and who desires it--- .Believe mo the less thou 
 ■■jpare thyself, -the more will God spare thee." St. 
 -Cyprian against those who Mitigated the austerity 
 of penance, "What do they intend by such inter- 
 ference I unless it be that Jesus Christ is less ap- 
 peased by pains and satisfactions !" (E p. ad Com. 
 55.) Is this the doctrine of modern Protestants "! 
 ■ Did those ante.-Nicene Fathers know any thing 
 of "indulgences 1 '] We are not to understand 
 Protestant "indulgences" however, for of these 
 they knew nothing. In the Catholic church an 
 indulgence is "the remission of canonical penance 
 or temporal penalty which often remains due to 
 sin after the guilt and eternal punishment have 
 been remitted in the sacrament of penance." To 
 prove the exercise ofsucli remission, by indulgence, 
 I refer you to Tertullian, (Lib! dc pudicit, c. 21. 
 22. p. 1014) to Cyprian, (Ep. 27. pi 39 and Ep. 
 29. p. 41, 42.) I refer to the Council of Ancyra, 
 in 314, (Cone. Gen. L. i. Cant. v. p. 1458.) All 
 • these were before the Council of Nice ! 
 
 Did these Fathers, whom Mr. B. has converted 
 into Protestants, know any thing of Purgatory 1 
 Hear Tertullian, directing " Oblations for the dead 
 on the anniversary day." (de Coron. Milit. p. 
 -289.) Again, " Reflect," says he, to widowers, 
 •" lor whose soiils you pray, for whom you make an- 
 nual oblutiom. , ' > ("Exhort, ad Cast. c. xi. p. 942.) 
 Js it thus that our modern Protestants speak of the 
 .■duty of praying for the dead 1 
 
 St. Cyprian. " Our predecessors prudently ad- 
 vised, that no brother, departing this life, should 
 •nominate any churchman his executor; and should 
 he do so, that no oblation should be made fur him, 
 nor sacrifice offered for his repose".. ..(Ep. 1. p. 
 2.) These are some of Mr. Breckinridge's (sup- 
 
 posed) Protestants before the Council of Nice! } 
 These ' protestants,' speak of ' oblations,'' then, 
 they believed in the sacrifice of mass, which ex- 
 ists still in the Catholic church. They prayed 
 for the dead : then, they believed in purgatory. 
 Be assured, Sir, that the General Assembly would 
 not extend the right hand of fellowship to those 
 primitive witnesses of the Christian faith. They 
 were Catholics, and the man who says they were 
 any thing else, only proves, by the assertion, that 
 until he is better acquainted with ecclesiastical 
 antiquity, it were wiser not to speak of them atall. 
 This was before the Council of Nice. Tertullian 
 calls the Pope in his days, the "supreme pontiff, 
 the Bishop of Bishops." (de pudicitia Cap. 1.) 
 " Remember, he adds elsewhere, that Christ 
 gave the keys to St. Peter and through him to the 
 church (Scorp.) St. Cyprian speaks of the Pope 
 in his day as occupying " the chair of St. Peter 
 in the head church, from which proceeds the 
 unity of the Priesthood." (Ep. 55. ad Corne- 
 lium.) Flow, says he again, can any one ima- 
 gine himself to be in the church, if he forsake the 
 chair of peter, on which the church is founded. 
 (De Unit. Eccl.) Now, Rev. Sir, since, as you 
 say, all these Ante-Nicene Fathers were Protes- 
 tants, it is to be hoped you will learn to speak of 
 the See of Rome as they did. Tell your congre- 
 gations with St. Cyprian, that if they forsake the 
 " chair of Peter," they cannot belong to the true 
 church. 
 
 Eusebius of Ccesarea, describing the funeral of 
 Constantine, says, "the ministers of God, surround- 
 ed by the multitude of the faithful, advanced into 
 the middle space, and with prayeis performed the 
 ceiemonies of the divine worship. The blessed 
 prince, reposing in his coffin, was extolled with 
 many praises ; when the people, in concert with 
 the Priests, not without sighs and tears, offered 
 prayers to heaven for his soul,- in this manifesting 
 the most acceptable service to a religious prince." 
 (De vita Constant. L. iv. c. 71. p. G(J7.) Is it 
 thus that our modern Protestants bury their dead ? 
 Do they pray to heaven for the soul of the deceased? 
 .St. Ephrem of Edessa, addressing his brethren 
 on the approach of his death requests them to re- 
 memember him after his departure. "Go along 
 with me," he says, "in psalms and in your prayers; 
 and please constantly to make oblations for me. 
 When the thirtieth day shall be completed, then re- 
 member me ; for the dead are helped by the offerings 
 of the living:' 1 (In Testam. T. iii. p. 294.) Do 
 Protestants say this 1 
 
 St. Cyril of Jerusalem. "Then (he is speak- 
 ing of the liturgical service of the church) we 
 pray for the holy fathers and bishops thai are 
 dead,- and in short for all those that are departed 
 this life in our communion; believing that their souls 
 receive very great relief by the prayers that are offer- 
 ed for them, while this holy and tremendous vic- 
 tim (i.e. Christ in the Eucharist) lies upon the al- 
 tar." (Catech. Mystag. v. n. vi. vii. p. 297.) Do 
 Protestants hold this doctrine, of prayers for the 
 departed, round an altar, with a victim lying on it ? 
 
 St. Ambrose (Serin, in Psal. clxviii. T. ii. p. 
 1073.) St. Ephiphanius (Hares. T. i. p. 911.) 
 
*f77 
 
 St. Jerome (ad Jovin ii. L. i. p. 538.) In a word 
 all the fathers testily that prayer for the dead was 
 the practice of the Christian church, and founded 
 on the doctrine of that middle state of temporary 
 suffering and purification, which is called purga- 
 tory. St. Augustine states the doctrine as distinct- 
 ly as it could he stated hy the present Bishop of 
 Rome or of Philadelphia. "Before the most se- 
 vere and lastjudginent," says he, " some undergo 
 temporal 'punishments in this life ; some after death ; 
 and others both now and then. But not all that 
 suffer after death, are condemned to eternal 
 flames. What is not expiated in this life, to some 
 is remitted in the life to come, so that they may 
 escape eternal punishment." (De Civ. Dei. L. 21. 
 c. 13. vol. 5. p. 1432.) 
 
 St. John Chrysostom. " // was ordained by the 
 Apostles, that, in celebrating the sacred mysteries, 
 (viz. the sacrifice of mass) the dead should be 
 remembered ; for they well knew, what advan- 
 tage would be thence derived to them. Will not 
 God be propitious, when he looks down on the 
 whole assembly of the people raising their hands 
 up to him ; when he beholds the venerable choir 
 of the priests, and the sacred victim lying on the 
 altar:'' (Homil 3. in Ep. ad Philip. T. xi. p. 32.) 
 Were these Protestants'? Then why do not Pro- 
 testants believe as they did] 
 
 With respect to extreme unction, St. James 
 says: "Is anyone sick among you 1 ? Let him 
 bring in the Priests of the church, and let them 
 pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name 
 of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the 
 sick man and the Lord shall raise him up, and if 
 he be in sins, they shall be forgiven Aim." (v. 1-1, 15.) 
 This Scripture has lost its meaning among Protes- 
 tants. It so offended Luther that he expelled the 
 whole Epistle from the canon of Scripture, calling 
 it "an Epistle of Straw," and unworthy of an 
 Apostle. 
 
 The testimonies of the Fathers referring to this 
 text for the proof and practice ot " Extreme Unc- 
 tion" are equally clear and numerous. The text 
 itself however is so plain, that those who disbe- 
 lieve or pervert its testimony, would not be con- 
 vinced even if" one were to rise from the dead." 
 The apostles were not priests, neither was it "ex- 
 treme unction" they administered in the case re- 
 ferred to, Mark. vi. 13. 
 
 Let us now see what was their doctrine on the 
 Supremacy of the Pope. The faith of the Ca- 
 tholic Church is, that Jesus Christ invested St. 
 Peter with prerogatives of superiority above the 
 other Apostles. To the twelve he imparted gener- 
 al powers, but to Peter special and personal pre- 
 rogative. The language which he addressed to 
 Peter was not addressed to the other Apostles, 
 either collectively or individually. 
 
 The college of the Apostles were addressed by 
 their divine Master in their collective capacity, but 
 Peter, in the singular number, and in language 
 which included none besides. For proof of this 
 see, Matth. xvi. 15, 16, 17 ,18. 19. Luke xxii. 
 31, 32. John xxi. 15, 16, 17. Did the Fathers 
 on these passages believe as Mr. Breckinridge 
 would persuade us they did ? 
 
 But I would' first ask, if Christ had not meant' 
 to impart superiority to Peter in the external ad- 
 ministration of his spiritual kingdom, the church:, 
 why address him singularly above all the rest?' 
 The general commission given to all would have 
 been sufficient. 
 
 Tertullian, IVeamus, and Origen, the best Wit- 
 nesses of the faith, during that period of the 
 church, in which we have your assertion for be- 
 lieving that "all Christians were Protestants," I 
 mean before the Council of Nice, attest the supe- 
 riority of Peter. Origen, commenting on the 
 words " I will give to thee the keys of the king- 
 dom of heaven," says : " This was done before 
 the words whatsoever ye shall bind, &c. were, in 
 the 18th chapter, uttered. And, truly, if the words 
 of the Gospel be attentively considered, we shall there 
 find that the last words were common to Peter, 
 and the others ; but that the former spoken to 
 Peter, imported distinction -and superiority." (Com- 
 ment in Matth. Tom. x-iii. p. 613.) 
 
 I might quote innumerable other passages to- 
 show that this superiority was recognized in St. 
 Peter and his successors in the See of Rome, from' 
 the Apostolic days until this hour, and that the 
 denial of its existence was; as we have just seen,, 
 incompatable with the communion of the church. 
 It is true, that St. Paul withstood Peter, but this 
 proves nothing except the zeal of the one and the 
 meekness of the other; the matter besides had no 
 reference to faith, and did not involve any ques- 
 tion of superiority. It is true, that St. Cyprian,, 
 withstood Pope Stephen, on the subject of baptism 
 administered by heretics; but here again the 
 question was not about the Pope's superiority, 
 which Cyprian distinctly recognized, since he ad- 
 vised this same Pope to exercise his supreme au- 
 thority in correcting certain abuses which exisled 
 among the Bishops in Gaul. It is true, that in 
 every age the Popes have received counsel, and 
 sometimes severe reprehension from those who ac- 
 knowledged their spiritual supremacy. The let- 
 ters of St. Bernard to Pope Eugene, are as re- 
 markable for their freedom and almost severity, as 
 they are for the evidence that theirauthor consider- 
 ed himself as addressing the vicarof Jesus Christ, 
 and visible head of the church upon earth. 
 
 But Mr. Breckinridge says that even one of the 
 Popes, Gregory the Great, denounced John, 
 Patriarch of Constantinople for assuming the 
 title of Universal Bishop. Answer. He did, be- 
 cause it belonged to the Bishop of Rome, .to Gre- 
 gory himself, who in the very same place claimed 
 and exercised the rights of Universal Bishop. 
 In that very letter he asserts that the Bishop of « 
 Constantinople is subject to the See of Nome, and 
 adds " when Bishops commit a fault, I know not 
 what Bishop is not subject to it." 
 
 What did those Fathers believe respecting ce- 
 remonies 1 Jesus Christ used them, when he mix- 
 ed clay and spittle and spread it on the eyes of 
 the blind man. Also when he touched the ears of 
 the deaf man with spittle. Both instances might 
 furnish theme for Protestant ridicule, as well as 
 any ceremonies used in the church. But let us 
 sccVhether Mr. Breckinridge's " Protestants, be- 
 
278 
 
 fore the Council of Nice," were averse to ceremo- 
 nies, as their would-be descendants. Tertullian 
 says, speaking of the Christians of the 2d century 
 " whenever we move ; when wc enter and go out ; 
 in dressing and washing; at table, when we retire 
 to rest, during conversation, we impress on our fore- 
 head the si gn of the cross." (De Corona Milit. c. 
 iii. iv. p. 289.) Would it not sound odd to hear 
 Mr. Breckinridge at the commencement of his 
 next sermon saying to the people, " My Brethren, 
 let us begin like our Protestant Fathers before the 
 Council of Nice, by making the sign of the cross 
 upon our foreheads, in the name of the Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost." He might go on to en- 
 courage them by the following quotation from St. 
 Augustine. "It is not without cause that Christ 
 would have his sign impressed on our foreheads, as 
 the seat of shame, that the Christian should not 
 blush at the indignities offered to his Master." 
 (Enar in Ps. xxx. 7. viii. p. 73.) What would 
 the congregation say to this specimen of Ante- 
 Nicene Protestantism 1 
 
 Here then, we have the testimony of these 
 (supposed; Protestants before the Council of Nice 
 as well as after, by which it appears that they be- 
 lieved as Catholics on the Eucharist, Penance, 
 Indulgences, Purgatory, Prayers, andlhe Euchuristic 
 sacrifice of Mass for the dead, the supremacy of Peter 
 and his successors in the See of Rome, Ceremonies 
 even down to the sign of the cross, which the Pa- 
 gans ridiculed in their days, as the Protestants do 
 in ours. 
 
 , All this proves that the second of my "stale 
 questions," in which " 1 called upon you to say 
 what society of Christians ever taught this pre- 
 tended " religion of Christ, previous to the 
 Reformation'?" is still to be answered. You once 
 referred to " the Waldenses and the Greek 
 church." But I exposed the ignorance betrayed 
 by this answer, so effectually, that you did not 
 venture to repeat it. After some three months, 
 you have again returned to the " stale questions," 
 and just told us that " every society of Christians 
 on earth, from the days of the Apostles, to the 
 Council of Nice, held the doctrines of the Protes- 
 tant Religion!!!" When you were determined 
 to make an assertion so extraordinary, you should 
 have adduced something like proof. Even "Ush- 
 er's authority," would have been better than none. 
 But in addition to the evidence just produced, let 
 me ask did " eve^ society of Christians on 
 earth," pass into Popery at the time of the Council 
 of Nice, and yet so effectually conceal the chancre, 
 that neither themselves, nor the rest of mankind 
 knew any thing about it ? What ancient history 
 mentions it] Where did if begin ? Who was its 
 author? How did it spread ? What fine Protestants 
 they must have been, to give up the pure doctrines 
 of Calvinism, without a struggle; and become 
 Roman Catholics, without being conscious of the 
 change ! ! They must have gone to bed Protes- 
 tants, and got up Papists, having forgotten that 
 they had ever been any thing else! ! But this is not 
 all. How is it that in the days of their " pure 
 Protestantism," they furnished such anti-protes- 
 tant testimonies of their belief in all the doctrines 
 
 on which the children of the Reformation disagree 
 with Catholics — even to making the sign of the 
 cross ? an act which their would-be descendants 
 sometimes denounce as the " mark of the beast." 
 The Fathers ivere Catholics ,- believing in the doc- 
 trines, and glorying in the Unity, Holiness, Catho- 
 licity, and Jpostolici/y of the Catholic church. 
 Their language glows with eloquence, when they 
 riointed to these her attributes, which are exclu- 
 sively peculiar to the church of Christ. The wea- 
 pons with which they confounded heresy in their 
 day, have been transmitted from century to centu- 
 ry, in the unbroken succession of the ministry, 
 and constantly been employed for the same pur- 
 pose. 
 
 But he must be very indifferent about his repu- 
 tation as an ecclesiastical scholar, who ventures 
 to assert that the Fathers were Protestants, either 
 "before the Council of Nice," or after. Such 
 bold strokes of the pen evince too great a dispropor- 
 tion between a man's knowledge and his zeal. 
 They may do, however, when entrusted exclusively 
 to the partial inspection of Protestant criticism. 
 In writing theological epistles to Presbyterian 
 ladies, for example, you may make latin quota- 
 tions, and take an extract from a Protestant Arch- 
 bishop, as in the case of Usher, to show that 
 Catholics are idolaters, by the admissions of their 
 own writers ! But when you condescend to invite 
 " priests and bishops" into the field of discussion, 
 the case is materially altered; and where you as- 
 sert, for instance, that the Fathers were Protes- 
 tants, you merely give your opponent an occasion 
 to prove the contrary. This I have done, in the 
 present case, to the satisfaction, I trust, of every 
 sincere reader. So that it will be necessary to 
 search again for that unheard-of society of Chris- 
 tians, that professed the doctrines of Protestant- 
 ism, previous to the Reformation. And because 
 no such society ever existed, the "stale questions" 
 will remain unanswered, and unanswerable to eter- 
 nity. The consequence is, that if the Religion of 
 Christ was professed in the world before the six- 
 teenth century, it is not, and it cannot be, that 
 which Protestantism in the mass, or any sect in 
 particular, has professed since the Reformation. 
 
 The 3d question wss that in which "I called 
 upon you to say whether Christ revealed all the 
 doctrines of the Protestant Religion, beginning 
 with Episcopalians and ending with Unitarians'?" 
 
 To this Mr. B. opposes a remark of my own in 
 which I admitted the existence of "orthodox doc- 
 trines among Protestants." But my remark was 
 intended to show that for all the orthodox doctrines 
 that exist among Protestants, they are indebted to 
 the tradition or constant teaching of the Catholic 
 church, and not to private interpretation of the 
 Scripture; since Unitarian Protestants, on the con- 
 trary, reject some of those doctrines, contending, 
 with arguments, which Presbyterians at least, can 
 never answer — that they are ?iot co7itained in the 
 sacred, volume. 
 
 This observation he converts, with much more 
 ingenuity than ingenuousness, into an admission 
 on my part, " that there are orthodox Protestants." 
 I never said so. I merely said that there are some 
 
279 
 
 orthodox "doctrines" among Protestants. Pres- 
 byterians believe in the Trinity, Unitarians, in the 
 existence of God — both doctrines are orthodox. 
 Yet both denominations are heterodox, the latter 
 for denying the Divinity of Christ, the former for 
 teaching that Christ did not die for all, and that 
 God created some men under the unavoidable 
 necessity of being damned. 
 
 By transfering the word " orthodox, "J to Pro- 
 testants, instead of " doctrines," Mr. B. attempts 
 to shake off all those Protestant denominations 
 which he condemns as heterodox, and rallies a 
 few sects under his own perversion of my words. 
 He goes so far as to include "Episcopalians, 
 Lutherans, Baptists, Congregationalists, Metho- 
 dists, Moravians, and Presbyterians," in "the re- 
 ligion of Christ," but here his charity seem3 to 
 fail. Why he should exclude the Quakers, Swe- 
 denborgians, Universalists and Unitarians, I am, 
 as no doubt they will be, utterly at a loss to con- 
 ceive. Do not all these, profess to follow the true 
 doctrines of the Reformation, as well as Mr. 
 Breckinridge? Are they not threading the laby- 
 rinth of vScripture by the same "rule of faith" as 
 himself? Be this^s it may, he has not enume- 
 rated them among the sects that compose the 
 Protestant religion, alias the religion of Christ. 
 
 But, Rev. Sir, considering the doctrinal con- 
 tradictions, by which even the sects you men- 
 tion are divided from one another, will any reason- 
 able man say that Christ could have revealed all 
 their doctrines. If Baptists are right, as you 
 admit, must not Presbyterians be wrong? Can 
 the same Jesus Christ be the author of both doc- 
 trines ? Does the same Bible teach both ? Do 
 any two of these denominations teach alike on all 
 points ? Do any two congregations hold identi- 
 cally the same doctrines ? Does not the whole 
 amount to this — that every Protestant believes ex- 
 actly what he pleases ? 
 
 When you talk of "various sects" in the Catho- 
 lic church, you evidently forget that a few lines 
 before, you had acknowledged the confran/, and as- 
 cribed our " uniformity" of belief to " compul- 
 sion." Now even this will not account for our 
 uniformity in countries where compulsion cannot 
 reach us. In England, vScotland, Ireland, and 
 North and South America we are uniform in faith, 
 and are increasing by conversions from Protes- 
 tantism, so much so, that all the bigots of the land 
 affect to be frightened, at the rapid growth of poper}^. 
 Do they not from the pulpit and the press endea- 
 vour to perpetuate prejudice and excite hatred against 
 Catholics and their religion? Are we not. denounced 
 by even your Reverend self, as idolaters? And 
 still we are uniform and increasing! Is this by 
 compulsion? The unity of Catholic faith, in 
 all ages, and throughout the world, is one of the 
 maiks of its Divine origin. Protestants, on the 
 contrary, have never ceased to divide and sub- 
 divide since their separation from the church. 
 
 They set out with the principle that Scripture is 
 plain. Then, it would be expected that all should 
 understand it alike. But no: -Luther and Car- 
 lostadius, and Zuinglius, and Socinus, and Cal- 
 vin quarrelled, on tbe very threshhold of the Re- 
 
 formation, about the mca. Ing of Scripture. The 
 battle, after three hundred years, is still going on 
 among their descendants, less fiercely indeed, 
 because the parties are now scattered over a 
 larger surface of ground, and of doctrine. The 
 Reformers felt and foresaw all this ; and whilst 
 they preached the right of private, they substituted 
 public, interpretation of Scripture in the form of 
 " Creeds and Confessions of Faith." Yesterday 
 they set at defiance the authority of the whole 
 Christian world, and to-day they prescribe on a 
 piece of parchment, what their own followers are 
 to believe ! Mr. Breckinridge alludes with ap- 
 parent complacency to those Creeds of Protestant- 
 ism, and singularly enough, lays considerable 
 emphasis on their number. He says they were 
 twelve. But would not one be better than twelve. 
 And why make so many ? 
 
 There was, 1st. The Helvetian Confession, 
 drawn up in Basle in 1536. Amended and en- 
 larged in 1566. Then there was, 2d. The. Cal- 
 vinistic Confession, drawn up by Beza, and pre- 
 sented to Charles IX. in 1561. Then there was, 
 3d. The English Calvinistic Confession, drawn 
 up in 1'5G2, and published under Elizabeth, in 
 1571. Then, 4th. The Creed of Scotland, by 
 Parliament, in 1568. Then, 5th. The Belgic 
 Confession, 1561, approved in the Synod of 1579, 
 and confirmed in that of Dort, 1619. Then, 6th. 
 The Calvinistic Confession, in Poland, composed 
 in the Synod of Czenger, in 1570. Then, 7th, 
 That ol' the four imperial cities presented to 
 Charles V. in 1530, In the same year, was 8th, 
 The Augsburg Confession, drawn up by Melanc- 
 thon. Then, 9th, the Saxon Confession at Wit- 
 temburg. in 1551. Then, 10th. Another in the 
 sacred city, presented afterwrds at the Council 
 of Trent. Then, 11th. The Confession of Fre- 
 deric, published ten years after his death, in 
 1577. There were several others, all publish- 
 ed within the short period of forty years. And 
 all these for what, it the Scripture was plain, 
 and every man had a right to judge of, for him- 
 self? Now it is evident that these confessions 
 varied in doctrine, one from another; otherwise, 
 one would have been a model for the rest. All 
 these confessions were by the Lutherans and Cal- 
 vinisfs alone. But we have, since then, had the 
 Westminster Confession, which was to have 
 been the Inst ; and the reader will recollect, that 
 when I quoted it some time ago, Mr. Breckin- 
 ridge advised me of my mistuke, and informed 
 me, that certain "offensive passages," had been 
 expunged out of it "some fifty years ago," The 
 present standard of Presbyterian Orthodox)', pro- 
 fesses in its title page, to have been " anund-d"' 
 in the year 1821. How soon it will require to be 
 amended again, no one can tell. But judging by 
 the decay of old doctrines, and the growth of new 
 ones, the period cannot be distant. It has run a 
 long time now, nearly twelve years! 
 
 Such are the harmony and unchangeableness of 
 Protestant doctrines ! Can these cotemporane- 
 ous and consecutive contradictions of doctrine, con- 
 stitute " the Religion of Christ" even though 
 they had existed previous to the Reformation ? 
 
28© 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge also tells how rapidly Pro- 
 testantism, "this (supposed) Religion of Christ," 
 spread in Europe, Asia, (!!!) Africa, (!!!) and 
 America. As history has not made us acquainted 
 with its triumphs in either Africa or Asia, we 
 must he content to notice those which it boasts 
 of in Europe. It is a fact, however, founded on 
 the general authority of the Protestant Dr. Hey- 
 lin's History of the Reformation, that Protestant- 
 ism was introduced info every country in Europe, 
 either by the rebellion of the subjects, or the ti/raitui/ 
 of the governments. Take Heylin's History, and 
 the map of Europe, and see whether a single ex- 
 ception can be found. Its footsteps in every di- 
 rection were marked with bloodshed and desola- 
 tion, when it wanted power, and with oppression 
 after power had been obtained. But Mr. Breck- 
 inridge will say that this was owing to the per- 
 secution it suffered. I deny the assertion; but 
 even if it were true, he should remember that 
 " the Religion of Christ" waited patiently 
 through a martydom of persecution for three hun- 
 dred years, and never unsheathed the sword, nor 
 raised the arm of rebellion against its Pagan per- 
 secutors. 
 
 Protestantism in its establishment, did not 
 trust much to its own evidences. It did not 
 wait to gain its ascendency over the minds of 
 men by the influence of gentle persuasion. It 
 owes its propagation more to the corrupt passions 
 of men, than to any other cause. It flattered 
 princes, and magistrates ; by making them heads, 
 and as your standard has it, "nursing Fathers^ of 
 the Church. It flattered the lusts of faithless 
 ecclesiastics, by teaching them that celibacy was 
 contrary to the law of God. It flattered the 
 pride of the multitude by telling them that each 
 one of them, could understand the Scriptures bet- 
 ter than all the Fathers, Councils, and Pastors of the 
 Catholic Church. It formed intrigues with civil 
 power; worked by revolution and violence; re- 
 warded its votaries with the spoils of sacrilege, 
 torn from the Catholic Clergy, Convents, Monaste- 
 ries, and Churches. Read the Protestant Doctor 
 Heylin, and you will see the proof of what is 
 here stated. 
 
 Is it not then, somewhat surprising that you 
 should have referred to the spread of Protestant- 
 ism in Europe, as a proof that it is "the Reli- 
 gion of Christ ;" whereas the very reference fur- 
 nishes evidence of the contrary ! Has it not 
 been propagated by violence, and maintained by 
 acts of Parliament ? 
 
 If then, as Mr. Breckinridge asserts, "Me Reli- 
 gion of Christ" is composed of "Episcopalians, 
 Lutherans, Baptists, Congregationalists, Metho- 
 dists, Moravians, and Presbyterians," I ask 
 him whether Christ revealed all the doctrines, on 
 which these denominations are divided 1 Until 
 he has answered this, my third " stale question" 
 remains ; and what he has said is only the eva- 
 sion of the difficulty. As to the fourth and fifth 
 questions about the nullity of Protestant ordina- 
 tion, they seem to have taken him by surprise, al- 
 though they are as " stale" as the others. " Want 
 of room, compels him to delay an answer until the 
 
 next letter, in which, Providence permitting, he 
 will give one at large." But is it not curious, 
 that room should be wanting? And that after 
 nearly three months of evasion, the answer to a 
 preliminary question should still be crowded out 
 for "want of room ?" 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
 John Hughes. 
 
 P. S. Translation of the eighth paragraph in 
 which Mr. B. makes the author say that the 
 church "was governed by strumpets and for- 
 gotten by God." 
 
 " Who, considering these things would not be 
 scandalized, and think in amazement, that God 
 had forgotten his church, which he permitted to 
 be disgraced at thewill, (or caprice) of strumpets * 
 So indeed the holy Fathers sometimes complain- 
 ed, the suggestion, whether God had forsaken his 
 church, sometimes striking their minds, whilst 
 they saw the church almost overwhelmed by tow- 
 ering waves from every side. For hear the great 
 Basil thus oppressed with the sense of these evils, 
 writing as followslo the Alexandrians : " But this 
 thought has come to these speculations of my 
 mind ; whether the Lord has entirely forsaken 
 his churches, &c. whilst for example (which our 
 own Bede also says) the church is sometimes not 
 only afflicted but also disgraced by such oppres- 
 sions from the Gentiles, that (if it were possible) 
 her Redeemer would appear to have deserted her 
 for a season, &c." The lamentation of the church 
 is the voice of the mourning dove : " I am for- 
 saken and alone." Put not so, because it is in 
 these evils particularly that we recognise the 
 more earnest vigilance of Divine Providence to- 
 wards his church, and the closer indwelling of 
 his protection, solicitude and care. For although 
 such great evils prevailed through this whole 
 century, and scandals multiplied, still there was 
 no one found to separate on this account from 
 the church of Rome, by schism, or rise against 
 her by heresy; but all, in every part of the world, 
 united by the bond of faith, continued in the 
 covenant of obedience. So that the saying of 
 Nahum is applicable ; ' why do you think against 
 the Lord 1 He will effect a consummation, a two- 
 fold tribulation shall not arise.' For whilst the 
 church was labouring under these evils, she was 
 not suffered to be divided by schisms, nor torn by 
 the deceptions of heresies, but God preserved all 
 the faithful in obedience to her. Which certainly 
 would not have been the case if God had not pro- 
 vided with supreme vigilance, for her safety and 
 integrity; in such a manner that the farther he 
 seemed exteriorly to have withdrawn from her, 
 so much the more do we recognize his interior 
 presence, supporting her with his hand, lest, agi- 
 tated by the shocks of wicked men, she should 
 be overthrown. W T ho will deny but this is to 
 be considered as miraculous 1 For, if something 
 be thrown in the fire and is not consumed by 
 it, we acknowledge greater power of God, than 
 if the same thing is preserved, being remote 
 from fire. And as St. Paul says, ' the fire shall 
 try every man's work of what kind it is ;' cer- 
 
SSI 
 
 tainly the evidence of the fact proves it to have 
 been the work of God, when the Roman church, 
 to which so man}'' firebrands were applied, could 
 not be consumed to destruction, and reduced 
 to nothing-. The declaration and promise of 
 Jesus Christ to the See of Peter, 'that the 
 gates of Hell shall not prevail against it, has 
 clearly stood, and will stand forever immoveable.' " 
 
 Is this, Rev. Sir, saying that the church "was 
 forgotten by God ?" 
 
 In the former letter, your quotation ran thus : 
 «« That Theodora, a courtezan of noble family ob- 
 tained supreme controul in Rome ; that she ex- 
 pelled the lawful Popes and put violent and nefa- 
 rious men into the Papal chair, that the Pope Ser- 
 gius III. committed adultery with her daughter, 
 and their son John, the offspring of their crimes, 
 was afterwards Pope himself; he says they were 
 apostate Popes and not Apostolical ; calls the 
 times deplorable ; and the scandal overwhelming; 
 says the church was governed by strumpets and 
 forgotten by God." 
 
 This quotation, it will be remembered, you 
 made under the threat of exposure, and from its un- 
 fairness the reader may infer what must be your 
 quotations when you are under no such advisement 
 of impending exposure. The reader would sup- 
 pose that this quotation was taken out of one place 
 in the original, that the context was unbroken^ 
 But no. Mr. Breckinridge made it up of scraps 
 taken out of four different paragraphs of a folio 
 page, divided. The first scrap is from the 5th 
 paragraph, the 2d scrap from the 6th, the 3d scrap 
 from the 5th again, the 4th scrap from the 4th 
 paragraph, the 5th scrap from the 5th again, and 
 the tith scrap from the 7th paragraph. All these 
 he transposes as suits his purpose ; tacks them 
 together, and produces, without indicating a single 
 breach of context, the quotation, as it stands above ! 
 Has not Protestantism found in him, an able de- 
 fender ? One it may be proud of? But this is not 
 all. 
 
 The words of the author to which he refers for 
 the penultimate "scrap," are " meretricum arbi- 
 trio infamaii," by which Baronius, says that God 
 permitted the Church "infamari," to be disgraced, 
 
 " arbitrio," at the caprice " meretricum," of strum- 
 pets. But Mr. Breckinridge takes a short cut; 
 and makes Baronius say that the Church was 
 "governed by strumpets." Nor is this all yet. 
 He makes Baronius say that the Church "was 
 forgotten by God ; whereas Baronius not only 
 does not say this, but says directly the contrary ! 
 And Mr. Breckinridge has the blushing modesty, 
 to refer to the first words of the 7th paragraph, 
 and call it the "proof" (See Mr. B's. last post- 
 script,) of an untruth ,• and which he must have 
 known to he an untruth, if not when he first uttered 
 it, at least, when he attempted the deception of prov- 
 ing it ; since, with the same pen he rates Baronius 
 as a ' Jesuit, ' because he (Baronius) goes to prove, 
 on the contrary, that the Church was not forsaken by 
 God! This proves that Mr. Breckinridge must 
 have known at the time what Baronius said: and 
 knowing this, how could he have the blushing 
 modesty, as I said before, to write the word 
 " proof," when he himself furnishes the evidence 
 that he knew the assertion to be proved, was un- 
 true? Does not all this look strange? Does 
 Protestantism require such defence? If it does, 
 you may say of it, on reviewing the labours of 
 ^our pen, what Hector said of Troy, 
 
 Si P»r<rnmn dextra 
 
 Delendi posseut. eiiam hoc clefcnsa fuissent. 
 
 J. H. 
 
 To the Rev. John Hughes, 
 
 As the note from Mr. A. S. Langley, appended 
 to the Rev. Mr. Breckinridge's last letter, is cal- 
 culated to carry abroad a conviction of falsehood 
 against rr>£, I feel it a duty which I owe to my- 
 self to assert that the impression made upon my 
 mind, on his declining to receive any more of the 
 Review, was, that he had been forbidden to keep 
 it for sale. Now, if Mr. L. had allowed me 
 the benefit of misconception of what he did actu- 
 ally say, in reference to the sale of the Review, I 
 should have remained satisfied with the guilt of 
 having indiscreetly mentioned the circumstance 
 through an error of my own understanding. 
 
 M. FITHIAN. 
 
 Sept. 13th, 1833. 
 
CONTROVERSY,. ...N°. 34. 
 
 Is the Protestant Religion the Religion of Christ? 
 
 Philadelphia, September 20th, 1833. 
 To the Rev. John Hughes, 
 
 Sir, — I consider it worth all the labour and 
 trial to my feelings connected with this contro- 
 versy, to have brought to the view of the Ameri- 
 can people the true system of the Church of 
 Rome, in her treatment of the Bible. What 1 
 peculiarly value in these disclosures is, that they 
 have been made by her professed advocate in the 
 progress of this discussion. First, you asserted 
 that the Bible was not a sufficient rule of faith ; 
 though God revealed it for that very end : next 
 you contended that it had no fixed meaning with- 
 out an authoritative interpretation : then you con- 
 ceded that if left to itself it did not teach the 
 doctrines of the Papacy ; and finally, you almost 
 abandon its use, and retreat to the forlorn hope 
 of ' the Fathers.' If you had written in Italy 
 or Spain, you might with more frankness have 
 spoken your whole mind. You would have 
 owned that for these and other reasons (as I have 
 proved already) it stands at the head of ' Libros 
 Prohibitos ;' prohibited books at Rome. With 
 Pighius you might have called it (See Hierarc. 
 Lib. 3. c. 3.) ' a nose of wax which easily suf- 
 fers itself to be drawn backward and forward ; 
 and moulded this way and that way, and however 
 you like;' or with Turrian, 'a shoe that will 
 fit any foot, a sphynx's riddle, or matter for 
 strife ;' (calceus utrique pedi aptus, sphyngis 
 aenigma, materia litis ;) or with Lessius, 'imper- 
 fect, doubtful, obscure, ambiguous, and perplex- 
 ed:' or with the author ' De Tribus veritati- 
 bus;' 'a forest for theives, a shop of Heretics;' 
 lucus Prcedonum, officina Hsereticorum. These 
 are honest Romans ,■ but such candour would not 
 have suited the latitude of an enlightened, and 
 Bible-reading people. 
 
 Finding that you renounced the defence of the 
 Apocrypha, and the use of the Bible, I followed 
 you to 'the Fathers,' 'whose unanimous con- 
 sent' you delared to be in your favour, and 
 which is made in your creed, a part of the rule of 
 faith, 'according to which the sacred Scriptures 
 are to be received and interpreted.' Now we 
 Protestants reverence the earliest Fathers ; and 
 though we hold them to be fallible, and not 
 unanimous, sometimes fanciful, erroneous, and 
 pruned and corrupted by your Church ; yet we 
 still find the body of their testimony with us, and 
 especially on fundamental doctrines. I think af- 
 ter the last four letters, the community are pre- 
 pared to admit these two positions : 1. That you 
 depend far more on the Fathers, than on the 
 Bible ; and 2, that their ' unanimous consent' if 
 it has a being, is by no means in your favour. 
 
 But whatever you may assert, presuming on the . 
 fact that very few of your readers have access to 
 them, it will not be denied that other Roman Ca- 
 tholic writers are as learned, and honest as your- 
 self. Let us see what they say of some of the 
 very Fathers whom you claim, and on the very 
 doctrines in proof of which you quote them. 
 Cardinal Baronius, 'who is a Catholic historian,' 
 (Vol. I. p. 275. Sec. 213. Ann. 34.) thus writes : 
 'Although the most Holy Fathers, whom for 
 their great learning, we rightly call the Doctors 
 of the Church, were indeed above others, imbued 
 with the grace of the Holy Spirit, yet the Catho- 
 lic (Roman) Church does not always, in all things 
 follow their interpretation of the Scriptures.' 
 Bellarmine, (De Verbo Dei Lib. 3. c. x.) 'It 
 is one thing to interpret the law as a Doctor, and 
 another thing, as a Judge : for expounding as a 
 Doctor learning is required ; as a Judge, authority. 
 For the opinion of the Doctor is to be followed so 
 far as reason persuades ; that of the Judge from 
 necessity •-•• Wherefore in their commentaries, Au- 
 gustine and the other Fathers supply the place of 
 teachers ; but the Popes and Councils, of a 
 Judge commissioned by God.' Cardinal Caje- 
 tan, [In Gen. 1.] ' We must not reject a new 
 sense of the Holy Scriptures because it differs 
 from the ancient Doctors ; but we must search 
 more exactly the context of Scripture ; and if it 
 agree [Si quadrat] praise God who has not tied 
 the exposition of the sacred Scriptures to the 
 sense of the ancient Doctors.' Such are the 
 principles laid down by three of your Cardinals, 
 two of whom have received your sanction. Now 
 let us for a moment see their application. Bel- 
 larmine [De Amiss. Gra. B. 4. c. 15.] tells us, 
 that " the immaculate conception" of the Virgin 
 Mary though not an article of faith, is not to be 
 condemned; and ' that they who do it resist the 
 decrees of Trent, and of two Popes ; and are not 
 to be considered as Catholics.' Yet your 
 Bishop Cane says, (Theol. b. 7. c. 1.) ' All the 
 Holy Fathers with one voice (uno ore) affirm the 
 blessed Virgin to have been conceived in original 
 sin.' Here they flatly contradict each other, and if 
 Bellarmine is right, none of the Fathers were 
 Roman Catholics: or if wrong the Council of 
 Trent erred. Which do you choose! Cardinal 
 Cusanus (Exerc. lib. 6) writes, ' certain of the 
 ancient Fathers are found of this mind, that the 
 bread in the sacrament is not transubstantiated, nor 
 changed in na/ure.' Yet Mr. Hughes claims all 
 the Fathers for this doctrine ! Who shall be be- 
 lieved, the learned Cardinal, or the Priest expec- 
 tant 1 Bellarmine cites Ignatius (as Mr. Hughes 
 did) in proof of the real presence. (Lib. 2. c. 2. 
 
284 
 
 De Euch.) But when we adduce Ignatius to 
 prove that the cup is to be given to all, in the sa- 
 crament, viz. on his epistle to the Philadelphians 
 ' one bread is broken lor all ; one cup is distribut- 
 ed to all .•' Bellarmine rejects the author, saying 
 * not much faith is to be put in the Greek copies of 
 Ignatius/' (Euch b. 4. c. 26.) Augustine especial- 
 ly is grossly trifled with in this way. He says (De 
 Mor. Eccles. c. 36.) ' I know certain worshippers 
 of tombs and pictures whom the Church condemn- 
 eth.' Bellarmine remarks on this (Delmag. c. 16.) 
 'Augustine wrote this book soon after his conver- 
 sion to the Catholic faith !' On the famous passage 
 against Transubstantiation cited by me from Au- 
 gustine in my last letter in which see (1 Corinth. 
 X. 3, 4.) he speaks of the manna, and the rock 
 Christ: Maldonat the Jesuit thus remarks : 'I 
 am verily persuaded that if Augustine had been 
 living in these days and had seen the Calvinists 
 so interpret .St. Paul, he would have been of 
 another mind, especially being such an enemy to 
 heretics.' (In John 6. n 50) Augustine says, 
 (contraduos Eps. Pelag. &c.) ' The works which 
 are done without faith, though they seem good, are 
 turned into sin.'. Maldonat says of this : ' We 
 may not defend that opinion which the Coun- 
 cil of Trent did of late justly condemn; although 
 the great Father St, Augustine seemed to be 
 of that opinion.' (Com. in Matth. vii. 18.) Here 
 is a Roman Catholic author, of at least as good 
 title to infallibility as Mr. Hughes, who con- 
 demns Augustine, the ' great Father,' and held 
 him up as contradictory to, and condemned by 
 the ' great Council' of Trent ! Augustine (De 
 verbo Dom. serm. 13) on the words of Christ, 
 * Thou art Peter and on this rock I will build my 
 church,'' says ' The rock ioas Christ.' Stap'eton 
 answers (Princip. Doc. lib. 6. c. 3.) ' It was a 
 human error caused by the diversity of the Greek 
 and Latin tongue, which either he was ignorant 
 of, or marked not.' Bellarmine (b. 1. de Pont. c. 
 10) condemns the Father saying 'Augustine was 
 deceived by his ignorance only of the Hebrew 
 tongue.' Bishop Cane (Loc. Theo. 1. 7. c. 3) owns 
 that ' the ancient Fathers sometimes err, and 
 against the ordinary course of nature bring forth a 
 monster.' 
 
 I could fill sheets with these exceptions to 
 the Fathers. But it is unnecessary. Here then 
 we clearly discover that in the judgment of a 
 crowd of Roman Catholic authors, some of 
 whom you have publicly approved, the Fath- 
 ers often err; they contradict each other, they 
 oppose the Catholic (Roman) faith, they are igno- 
 rant of the learned languages, they speak like 
 Calvinists, they misunderstood Christ, they are 
 fanciful, they are not to be followed, the Council 
 of Trent condemned them, and as for their 
 'unanimous consent,' it is fietion which was 
 never found ; while ' the Bible is a nose of wax,' 
 the Fathers have as many faces as Proteus, and 
 are to be used or rejected as occasion may require 
 or their varying opinions permit. When we add 
 to this, that the Fathers have been altered and 
 many of their works erased and Romanized, it 
 would seem indeed a slender and unstable foun- 
 
 dation, to build a religion on ; especially when 
 ' their unanimous consent' is your rule of faith. 
 
 Never did sons treat Fathers so uncourteous- 
 ly as the loyal Jesuits treat the ancients, while 
 they torture them into their service, or chastise 
 them for their Protestant partialities. Like the 
 ancient necromancers (Isaiah viii. 19, — 21) who 
 forsook ' the law and the testimony' of God, they 
 roam through the ' wilderness' of the Fathers 
 ' hungry and hard bestead and fret themselves,' 
 while they search in vain for their unanimous con- 
 sent in support of the Papacy. As the Scriptures 
 fail you in the time of need, so we find the Fath- 
 ers cannot help you ; and the higher you rise in 
 antiquity the more decidedly Protestant do they 
 become, until the last traces of Romanism disap- 
 pear amidst the better light of the ante-Nicene 
 Fathers. Before I dismiss this subject it is due 
 to myself to say, notwithstanding all your pee- 
 vish charges and unworthy reflections, that I 
 have suppressed nothing in my various extracts 
 from the Fathers which, to my knowledge, in the 
 least degree favoured your cause, or injured mine. 
 So far from this, ample matter of the strongest 
 kind in my favour, has been omitted to make 
 room for other departments of the argument. If 
 their writings could be presented in unbroken 
 connexion, the argument againstyou would appear 
 in tenfold strength. Itisyou whoprofitby insulated 
 sentences and figurative terms uptorn from their na- - 
 turai relations and true coherence. Your readers 
 cannot forget Tertul!ian,and Wesley, and Luther, 
 and Jewel, who were made by you to speak a 
 language so foreign from their meaning by the 
 citation of disjointed extracts. Even in your last 
 letter, while charging me with such unfairness, 
 you leave unnoticed all the strong passages and 
 enlarge upon those which seem to you most easily 
 explained, like feeble commentators who skip 
 the hard places, and are profound and redundant 
 on those which are easy. 
 
 II. I may here, as properly as elsewhere, allude 
 to your last and feeble struggle for Transubstan- 
 tiation. You say, 'I maintain that this very con- 
 cealment of the Eucharist from Pagans, Jews, 
 and Catechumens, is by itself a powerful proof 
 of the Catholic doctrine.' You allude in this 
 sentence to what has been called the secret dis- 
 cipline of the early Church, i. e. the custom 
 which originated in the second century of with- 
 holding the mysteries of Christianity from those 
 who were not initiated. You say, 1st, 'if it 
 were mere bread and wine what motive could 
 there exist to conceal it V Answer, here you 
 take for granted, that the only thing concealed 
 was the doctrine of the Eusharist. Yet, two 
 sentences above Cyril of Jerusalem, whom you 
 cite, distinctly contradicts you; for he says, 'we 
 declare not to the Gentiles the hidden mysteries 
 of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.' Then the 
 Trinity, the Incarnation, &c, were among these 
 mysteries? I return then your question upon 
 you, and ask what motive they had to conceal 
 these mysteries? Besides there is no evidence 
 (as Faber triumphantly shows in his answer to 
 the Bishop of Aire,) that the doctrine of the Eu- 
 
285 
 
 charist was among the doctrinal mysteries at all. 
 Cyril does not even mention it in the passage 
 just quoted. Of course your inference falls to 
 the ground. 
 
 2. You say, ' When they were accused of mur- 
 dering a child and feasting on its flesh in their 
 assemblies,' it would have been easy and natural 
 to refute the calumny, and say that it was merely 
 a little bread and wine they took figuratively in 
 memory of Christ's body and death. But this 
 they never said ; even when they were tortured, 
 as was sometimes the case, to force them into a 
 confession of what it was.' Here you are still 
 more unfortunate than before. The fact is di- 
 rectly against Transubstantiation. During the 
 persecution at Lyons, A. D. 1'77, 'the Pagans 
 wishing to ascertain the secret ceremonial of the 
 Christians, apprehended their slaves, and put 
 them to the torture. Impatient of the pain, and 
 having nothing to tell which might please their 
 tormentors, the slaves, who had heard their mas- 
 ters say that the Eucharist was the body and 
 blood of Christ, forthwith communicated this cir- 
 cumstance. Whereupon the tormentors, fancy- 
 ing that it was literal flesh and blood served up 
 in the mysteries of the Christians, hastened to 
 inform the other Pagans. These immediately 
 apprehended the martyrs, Sanctus and Blandina, 
 and endeavoured to extort from them a confession 
 of the deed. But Blandina readily and boldly 
 answered, how can those Who through piety ab- 
 stain even from lawful food, be capable of perpe- 
 trating the actions which you allege against 
 them ?' These are the words of Irse'neus pre- 
 served by Ecumenius. Those slaves, and the 
 Pagans whom they had informed, mistook the 
 doctrine of the Eucharist as the Jews did, and 
 you do now, supposing the Christians to feed on 
 real flesh. But these Christians denied from first 
 to last that it was literally flesh dad blood which 
 was served up for them. Was not this a denial 
 of the real presence? Could they in truth have 
 denied that they did eat literal flesh if they had 
 believed Transubstantiation ? How then, this ar- 
 gument can help your cause I confess myself 
 wholly at a loss to determine. 3. You add il They 
 would not have celebrated the Eucharist with 
 doors inviolably closed, for even the High Priest 
 would not be scandalized at seeing them eat bread 
 and drink wine, though he might if he saw them 
 adoring the flesh of Jesus Christ.' It would have 
 been hard indeed for them to close their doors to 
 conceal a doctrine which they did not believe, and 
 which until ages after was never heard of! They 
 closed their doors because they were persecuted, 
 as well as because of their mysteries ; and they 
 were persecuted, and they worshipped with closed 
 doors long before they were charged with eating 
 human flesh. And as to the Jews and High 
 Priest, it was worshipping Christ as God which 
 scandalized the Jews before the Eucharist was 
 instituted ; and you have sense enough to know, 
 that the early Christians might worship Christ 
 as we do now, without worshipping the bread. 
 The Jews would have been scandalized by the 
 Protestant doctrine as much as the Papal, exclud- 
 
 ing however the dreadful absurdity and idolatry 
 of Transubstantion. 
 
 You must have been nodding over your mid- 
 night lamp, when you make me to say, that 
 ' Christ could remove out of the wall or door, 
 space for his body to enter by and then close it up 
 again.' My words were, « do you forget that 
 Christ had power miraculously to open a passage 
 for his body through the door or wall and close it 
 again V Besides this perversion you entirely omit 
 the preceding and the succeeding illustrations 
 drawn from the miraculous opening of the prison 
 doors for the Apostles; and from the transmission 
 of light through a pain of glass. But it is plain 
 that you write for those who from prohibitions 
 and the fear of light read your letters alone, 
 and see my arguments as they are reflected in 
 distorted forms from your pages only. The coup- 
 let from Watts to which you refer, needed no 
 comment. In expression it is most unhappy ; yet 
 as conveying the doctrine that He who was born 
 of a woman was also God, I fully subscribe to it; 
 and we are willing to bear all the censures to 
 which you subject us for refusing to worship the 
 body of Christ, if separated from his divinity. It 
 is his divinity which we adore; and believing 
 his divinity and humanity inseparably blended in 
 the person of Jesus Christ, we worship him. But 
 the doctrine of Transubstantiation is idolatrous 
 because it worships his body alone ; and as I 
 proved in my last letter, you are guilty of idolatry 
 whether the doctrine be true or false. But why 
 are you silent on the argument brought against 
 you from Hume? Why do you not defend youf 
 doctrine from the proof, of leading to infidelity, or 
 else give it up? And where is the expected an- 
 swer to my seven separate exposures of the sacri- 
 fice of the mass ? Can you not meet them ? And 
 yet own that it is your chief business to offer this 
 sacrifice ? Will you leave your chief business and 
 your chief gain thus unsheltered in the field of ar- 
 gument? And where is now your communion in 
 one kind ? Have you nothing to say for this dar- 
 ing act? Must not our readers see that it is no 
 answer to all I have said on this subject to remind 
 me that a Protestant Synod in France once said 
 half-communion was right? Neither you nor I 
 hold to the infallibility of a Protestant Synod. 
 You leave us then to sing the mournful coronah 
 of these departed doctrines; while you take up 
 the lamentation of the poet, 
 
 " Come then expressive silence, muse their praise." 
 
 How you will next look your friends in the face 
 during the sacrifice of Mass, or withhold from 
 them .again the cup in the Eucharist, it mustbe for 
 conscience and pained memory to answer. You 
 have at least this consolation uttered once by way 
 of comfort, ' You could do no more ; for you have 
 done all you could.' 
 
 As to the ancient Liturgies, every scholar 
 knows that they are replete with forgeries of the 
 church of Rome. The Liturgy attributed to St. 
 Peter, mentions St. Cyprian, who died some two 
 hundred years after Peter ! Cardinal Bona" owns 
 it to have been spurious. The Ethiopic Liturgy, 
 
386 
 
 attributed to St. Matthew, speaks of the Synods 
 of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus, which 
 were held centuries after Matthew's death. St. 
 James's Liturgy speaks of Monasteries, which 
 every one knows originated ages after his day ; 
 and it quotes from Paul's Epistles, most of 
 which were written after James's death. The 
 ceremonies mentioned in these Liturgies were also 
 wholly unknown in the Apostles' days. If you 
 say these things were added to them in after 
 ages ; then why not those too on Transubstantia- 
 tion 1 They did not exist at that day ; but allow 
 they did ; then, as they have been corrupted, 
 ■What proof do they afford you 1 As to the Litur- 
 gy of the Jacobites which you adduce, it is 
 strang-e that their book of Homilies and Brevi- 
 ary, should contradict their Liturgy ; and still 
 more strange that the Roman Catholic Inquisi- 
 tion at Goa, should condemn these books for re- 
 jecting ' Transubstantiation ; and ) 7 et that their 
 Liturgy should contain this doctrine. As to 
 your own, you do not deny that it has been alter- 
 ed to suit your doctrine ; for whereas the ancient 
 form ran thus, ' make this oblation to us allow- 
 able, rational, and acceptable, which is the figure 
 of the body and blood of our Lord,' 1 it is now 
 changed to read thus, ' that the oblation may be 
 made to us the body and blood of our Lord;" 1 drop- 
 ping ' figure' from the ancient form which was 
 plain Protestant doctrine. Who then can trust 
 to your testimonies 1 
 
 III. As the matter of the present letter is ne- 
 cessarily multifarious, we may as properly here 
 as any where, canvass your answers to my seve- 
 ral questions. 
 
 1st Question. ' Did Pope Liberius subscribe 
 the Arian creed 1 ?' Mr- Hughes's answer. 'I say 
 that Pope Liberius did not sign the Arian Creed 
 in the Arian sense or meaning.'' It is obvious that 
 this answer is a most disingenuous evasion; I 
 therefore repeated the question in my last letter, 
 wishing to know in what sense Liberius did sign 
 it. But the oracle is dumb ; it gives no response 
 to this question. I have already proved (in Letter 
 No. 28,) that this Pope did adopt the Arian Creed. 
 IUmay be proper, however, here to add, that Du- 
 pin with bis usual candour, says, (pa^e 62. vol. 
 2.) ' Liberius did not only subscribe the con- 
 demnation of St. Athanasius, but he also consent- 
 ed to an Heretical Confession of Faith.' The 
 sainted Hilary (In Fragm :) says of the Confession 
 of Faith signed by Liberius; ' this is the Arian 
 perfidy. I anathematize thee and thy compan- 
 ions, O Liberius, and again, and a third time I 
 anathematize thee.' Athanasius confirms the re- 
 lation of Hilary, and denounces the apostacy of 
 Liberius ' who through fear of death, subscribed.' 
 Jerome, in his Catalogue and Chronicon, states the 
 same fact; so also Fortunatian, Philostorgius, 
 Damasus, and Sozomen; and in more modern 
 times Platina, Eusebius, Mezeray, Bruys, Peta- 
 vius, &c. &c. all testify to the same fact. From 
 these statements there result two conclusions. 
 1. The head of the infallible church from whom, 
 according to Mr. Hughes, all right to preach the 
 Gospel and administer its sacraments proceed, 
 
 and to whom 'every creature must be subject in 
 order to be saved', apostatized into damnable he- 
 resy. 2. It appears, I regret to say, how little 
 faith is to be put in the statements of my Rev. 
 opponent, who flatly contradicts the testimony of 
 antiquity on this subject. 
 
 2d Question. 'Did the Councils of Sirmium and 
 Ariminum adopt Arian Greeds V Mr. Hughes's 
 answer. ' No council recognized by the Catho- 
 lic church, ever adopted the Arian Creed. For 
 the errors of other councils or general assemblies, 
 the church is not accountable.' This reply is 
 curious enough. It involves however the admis- 
 sion that the said Councils did adopt the Arian 
 heresy. This 1 have already proved (see Letter 
 No. 28,) and as one of them was certainly approv- 
 ed by the Pope, so on your own definition it was 
 an infallible council ; and therefore it is an article 
 of faith in the Roman church, binding on all her 
 members at this day, that Jesus Christ was not 
 God, that his divinity is a figment, and Unita- 
 rians are right. It is a striking fact, which I hope 
 to have the opportunity soon of publicly proving, 
 that it is not agreed in the church of Rome which 
 ere infallible councils; and there is just as much 
 evidence that the Pope and council who adopted 
 the Arian Creed were infallible, as that the Coun- 
 cil of Trent was. 
 
 3. 'Does the validity of ordinations, adminis- 
 trations of the sacraments, &c, depend on the 
 intention of Popes, Bishops, and Priests' ? Mr. 
 Hughes's answer. ' In heaven or on earth, in 
 time or in eternity there is no motive for him (the 
 Priest) to withhold his intention ; and deliberate 
 wicked actions without any motive or inducement, 
 are not to be presumed.' This is strange logic 
 indeed ! The Council of Trent must have 
 thought very differently when they enacted as 
 follows. (Gth Chap. 11th Canon.) 'Whosoever 
 shall affirm that when ministers perform and con- 
 fer a Sacrament, it is not necessary that they 
 should at least have the intention to do what the 
 church does, let him be accursed.' Bellarmine 
 must have thought differently, for he says, (Lib. 
 3. c. 8. Justif :) ' no man can be certain with the 
 certainty of faith that he receives a true Sacra- 
 ment; because it depends on the minister's inten- 
 tion to consecrate it ; and none can see another's 
 intention.' Now if all Popes and Priests be not 
 perfect and infallible they may lack this inten- 
 tion. Your answer concedes, impliedly, that if 
 they should lack it, evils must result. The 
 fact is we have divers examples of sacrilegious 
 Priests and concealed Jews, who have owned at 
 their death that during their whole Priesthood in 
 the Roman church they never had, in any of their 
 consecrating acts that intention which the church 
 of Rome prescribes. Then in such cases these 
 men having many thousand souls under their 
 care must, on your own doctrine, have ruined 
 them all. The infants they appeared to baptize, 
 were not baptized, therefore by your creed they 
 are lost; when they appeared to consecrate the 
 bread in the Eucharist, they did not, and there- 
 fore the thousands to whom they administered it 
 were guiltv of idolatry ; no marriage ceremony 
 
2S7 
 
 performed by them was valid, therefore all who 
 were thus united by them lived in adultery, and 
 their children were illegitimate; all their uses of 
 Extreme Unction were fraudulent, therefore all 
 who died under their hands are lost forever ; the 
 innumerable souls in Purgatory for whom they 
 offered up the sacrifice of the Mass are still held 
 there, because, from lack of intention it was no 
 real sacrifice. The same remarks may be ex- 
 tended to every Bishop and every Pope. A 
 Pope, centuries ago, may have lacked intention in 
 conferring orders, and all the Bishops, and all 
 the Priests who derived orders from him, remained 
 laymen for life, because he lacked intention ; and 
 all their acts were invalid: the sacraments they ad- 
 ministered were null and void, so were their ordi- 
 nations ; and the innumerable millions of souls to 
 whom they and their successors administered from 
 age to age were lost, and the ten thousand Priests 
 and Bishops who got their ordination from this 
 poisoned source, acted without authority, and the 
 Rev. Mr. Hughes may be one of them. Who 
 can tell ] Surely Pope Sergius III ; Pope John 
 XI; Pope Alexander VI ; (whom Baronius owns 
 a true Pope) could not have had intention to do 
 their duty in any of these acts ; and yet from 
 these filthy fountains the stream of ordination has 
 flowed in successive centuries through all the 
 Roman church, and down from geueration to 
 generation of the Priesthood unto the Rev. Mr. 
 Hughes himself! Catharin, Bishop of Minori, 
 stated this evil with appalling force before the 
 Council of Trent. ' Behold (says he,) here, how 
 by the wickedness of a minister, we find in one 
 
 sole act a million of nullities in Sacraments 
 
 If it should happen that a Priest who hath charge 
 of four or five thousand souls, should be an 
 unbeliever, but withal a great hypocrite, and that 
 in the absolution of penitents, and the Baptism of 
 little children, and the consecration of the Eu- 
 charist, he should have a secret intention not to do 
 what the church doth, we must conclude the little 
 children damned, the penitents unabsolved, and 
 all deprived of the fruits of the holy communion.' 
 Father Paul, the Roman Catholic historian of 
 the Council of Trent, says (B. 2. p. 226.) ' the 
 divines (of the Council) did not approve this doc- 
 trine, yet were troubled and knew not how to re- 
 solve the reason; but they still defended that the 
 true intention of the minister was necessary, 
 either actual or virtual.' If then, there is the 
 least certainty in any sacrament or ordination of 
 the church of Rome, or if there is the least salis- 
 factory proof that the living Pope, Cardinals, 
 Arch-bishops, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons of 
 the church of Rome embrace one single ordained 
 man, who has 'any divine right to exercise the 
 Christian ministry more than other educated lay-' 
 men ;' (See Mr. Hughes' 5th Question.) then I 
 will own that it is possible to prove, and right to 
 believe an impossibility. 
 
 The 4th question, on the subject of schisms in 
 the Popedom, plurality of Popes, &c. Mr. Hughes 
 has also evaded ; but my previous letters have so 
 fully laid this subject bare, that I need not dwell 
 on it here. 
 
 My 5th question, touching the liberty of the 
 press, a'nd the ' prohibiting committee' at Rome, 
 Mr. Hughes. tnus obliquely touches. "About the 
 freedom of the press at Koine, and the ' Prohibit- 
 ing Committee' which you arc pleased to imagine 
 fbr the benefit of 'all the church,' I answer, that 
 the latter docs not exist, and the former is a ques- 
 tion on which every man may abound in his own 
 sense." Here then, you again deny an historical 
 fact. The Council of Trent, in its 25th session, 
 enacted that a Committee which that body had 
 appointed, acting for the council and under the 
 Pope, should draw up and publish an Index of 
 books which were to be prohibited to the whole 
 church. This committee did accordingly draw 
 up such an Index, and published it, accompanied 
 by ten most tyrannical rules sanctioned by the 
 Pope, and binding on all the church. This Com- 
 mittee is permanent, and from year to year has 
 added to their work, until now the Index which 
 is only a catalogue of prohibited books, makes a 
 large volume. I have a copy of this book now in 
 my possession, printed at Rome A. D. 1787, by 
 order of the Pope. In the title page it is written, 
 ' In this edition are inserted in their proper places, 
 the books recently prohibited, even to the year 
 1787.' The Brief of the Pope, of the same date, 
 and the ten rules of the standing Committee, are 
 prefixed to the work, as also Decrees concerning 
 prohibited books, Instructions, Constitutions, &c. 
 for regulating the press. The Pope tells us in 
 his Brief, that the said Index is binding on all 
 persons, every where, under pain of such punish- 
 ment as is therein and elsewhere denounced. In 
 this base book we find such works as Locke's, 
 Milton's, Galileo's, &c. &c, and in fact all wri- 
 tings containing any thing contra-religionem 
 Catholicam, ' against the Catholic Religion.' 
 Thus is a war of extermination waged by the 
 authority, of the church against letters, liberty, 
 and conscience ; and thus does the church of 
 Rome shrink in conscious error and by ivicked 
 means from free inquiry ; and thus is Mr. Hughes 
 exposed when he denies that such a Committee 
 exists. This book is open for inspection at the 
 Education Rooms, No. 29 Sansom street, where 
 gentlemen may call and see for themselves. The 
 4th rule which we have often quoted, prohibits the 
 having, or reading, or selling of God's holy ivorcl in 
 any living language, except by a written permis- 
 sion from the Inquisitor, or Bishop, with the advice 
 of a priest or confessor. In Letter No. 26 I pre- 
 sented at large a decree of the great Lateran Council 
 against the freedom of printing, which you have 
 never noticed. The first rule of the standing com- 
 mittee at Rome, condemns all books which had 
 been condemned by the Popes or general Coun- 
 cils, hi/ore A. D. 1515; the creed of Pius IV. 
 confirms all previous canons and decrees of Ge- 
 neral Councils, and of course this decree against 
 the freedom of the press ; and the reigning Pope de- 
 n ounces the liberty of the press as ' that fatal li- 
 cence of which we cannot entertain sufficient 
 horror.' From these facts it appears that the 
 liberty of the press is proscribed by the decrees 
 of Councils and acts of Popes, which are binding 
 
288 
 
 upon every Roman Catholic on earth ; and that a 
 standing committee exists at Rome, (of which 
 Mr. Hughes is ashamed, and which he has the 
 hardihood to deny) to enforce these decrees 
 against personal and civil liberty. In your an- 
 swer you utter this extraordinary sentence : 
 'About the freedom of the press, at Rome, every 
 man may abound in his own sense.' Then it 
 seems you are afraid to condemn these decrees, 
 lest haply you be found fighting against Rome; 
 and you are afraid to defend them before the Ame- 
 rican people, who justly consider the freedom of 
 the press the palladium of their civil and reli- 
 gious rights. Will not such evasions convince 
 a free people that your system is at enmity 
 with the freedom of the press ? Are not such 
 unmanly subterfuges anti-American as well as 
 anti-Christian? What! an American citizen de- 
 cline approving the liberty of the press ? Is it 
 not apparent that you are afraid of the subject, and 
 that the Papacy and the republic cannot flourish 
 together? « fW 
 
 In answer to the seventh question, you say, ' I 
 answer, that in my opinion, religion and science 
 suffered by the supression of the Jesuits, and that 
 both are gainers by their restoration. This opin- 
 ion is founded on the fact that they are hated for 
 their zeal, and admired for their learning by all the 
 infidels in Europe. As to the Inquisition it may 
 have been a good thing abused.' This is an omi- 
 nous avowal ! I have before me the Bull or 
 Brief of Clement the 14th, dated A. D. 1773, for j 
 the suppression of the order of the Jesuits. In 
 the course of this Bull the Pope tells us that not- j 
 withsanding his own, and his predecessors efforts, 
 the most violent contentions pervaded nearly 
 the whole world concerning both the doctrines 
 and morals of the Jesuits, and that these dis- 
 sensions especially from without, were created 
 by accusations against the society for amassing 
 wealth; that to his great grief, all the remedies 
 applied by him to restore the peace of the church 
 had failed, so that these clamours against them 
 daily increasing, at length seditions, tumults and 
 scandals occurred, which weakened and dissolved 
 the bonds of Christian love, and violently inflamed 
 the minds of the faithful with party animosities 
 and rancour; that at length the king of France, 
 the king of Spain, the king of Portugal, and the 
 king of the two Sicilies, who had once been fa-; 
 mous for their great liberality to the Jesuits, ex* 
 pelled them from their kingdoms, finding that to 
 be the only way to heal the divisions by which 
 their Christian people were torn even in theTm- 
 som of the Holy Mother Church. He proceeds 
 to say, that lasting peace could not be restored to 
 the church while the society existed ; that it had 
 ceased to do the good for which it was establish- 
 ed, and that the laws of prudence, and the best go- 
 vernment of the universal church, required him°to 
 extinguish and suppress the order of the Jesuits ; 
 which he accordingly did. This, you will mark, 
 was only sixty years ago ; and it was done for the 
 above reasons, not by ' infidels,' but by the head 
 of the Universal Church ,- and became a law bind- 
 ing on the conscience of all the faithful. How 
 
 Mr. Hughes will settle this question with the 
 Pope, it is not for me to say. These Jesuits have 
 in succession been expelled from almost every 
 kingdom upon earth. Bishop Taylor, in his Dis- 
 suasive from Popery, has proved, with masterly 
 skill, that their principles and practices are incom- 
 patible with the safety of governments, destruc- 
 tive of Christian morals, and even of Christian 
 society, where they prevail. Pascal* who was 
 himself a Roman Catholic, has written his Provin- 
 cial Letters for the purpose of exposing the detes- 
 table principles and infamous morals of the order 
 of the Jesuits. The Jesuit's Catechism is an- 
 other work, which in a large volume exposes 
 their enormities, intrigues, assassinations, disso- 
 lute principles, and dangerous influence in the 
 church and state. Their own Secreta Monita, 'se- 
 cret instructions,' now published in this country, 
 in a separate volume, having been providentially 
 brought to light, expose their true character upon 
 their own showing. This Society has recently 
 been revived by the Pope, as -a fit instrument to 
 aid the Papacy in its expiring struggle. The 
 successive revolutions of Europe have shaken the 
 Papacy to its centre ; the advancing light of the 
 age, the increasing love of liberty among the peo- 
 ple, and the repeated conquests which they 
 liave made of their dearest rights, both civil and 
 religious, from priest-craft and king-craft in the 
 old world, have lessened beyond measure the 
 power of the Papacy, and left crowds of off-cast 
 Priests and Jesuits without employment. These 
 men, in augmenting numbers, are seeking our 
 shores. -The fall of tl%Papacy in Europe thus 
 gives it a temporary impulse in our beloved coun- 
 try. These are the accessions of which you boast : 
 not proselytes from Protestants, as you would have 
 us think, but the dregs of Jesuitism cast from 
 Europe upon our country. Once, guileless Pro- 
 testants confided their children to the training of 
 these men. But it is becoming apparent that they 
 will do so no more. Let them work their machi- 
 nations ; but Protestant parents have learned, at 
 length, not to trust a Jesuit with the formation of 
 their children's minds and hearts. I speak of the 
 Priesthood and not of the people of your church. 
 The people are the most enlightened Roman Ca- 
 Jbolics on earth. We have much to hope from 
 the influence of liberty and Gospel-light upon 
 them: and even now you retain their allegiance 
 by hiding from their view the real deformities of 
 the Papacy; and by repressing, without ceasing, 
 that aspiration after religious liberty which has 
 begun to glow in the breasts of all men. 
 
 Your apology for the Inquisition shall stand as 
 its own expressive comment." 'May have been 
 a good institution !' And can you say this in the 
 face of your country ? Have you read its his- 
 tory ? Have you counted its racks ? Have you 
 heard the groans of its innumerable victims ? 
 Have you examined its filthy seraglios? Paul 
 the IV. called it the 'battering-ram of heresy;' 
 and the Rev. Mr. Hughes, in a late letter, talked 
 of the Roman church as having ' branded'' every 
 heresy. I wish that my limits allowed me to give 
 "he history of the institution, that I might tell 
 
1v 
 
 jsaaes, its inqiiis 
 
 289 
 
 and 
 
 my country of its crusades, its inquisitors 
 its victims, (who are only considered innocent 
 when, hy mistake, a Papist is arrested for a Pro- 
 testant;) of its warfare against the press, the 
 Bible, the morality of the Gospel, and the rights 
 of man. Let my readers consult Baker, or Lim- 
 borh, or Geddes, or Lavalle, or the Key to Po- 
 pery, or any history of those countries in which 
 it has been established, if they would learn how (as 
 Bellarmine says) the church destroys Heretics, and 
 how useful the Inquisition is. In the mean time, 
 *let it not be forgotten that the Rev. Mr. Hughes 
 says, 'it may have been a good thing abused.' 
 Perhaps the next most dreadful engine of ty- 
 rannic power beside Jhe Inquisition and the jjj^ 
 sade, is the Papal Im ^ict.. (Phis is no 'loss 
 than stopping the connexion between Heaven and 
 a whole state or nation that has offended the 
 Pope. This tremendous censure has been exe- 
 cuted in France, Italy, and Germany, not to men- 
 tion the famous effort of the Pope to crush the 
 Republic of Venice, for daring to interfere with 
 the property of Ecclesiastics within that state. 
 Hume, who surely was not a friend to Protestants, 
 (See Hist, of England, Chap. XL reign of John.) 
 gives us the following fearful account of the 
 Pope's Interdict on that realm: "The sentence 
 of interdict was at that time the great instru- 
 ment of vengeance and policy employed by the 
 court of Rome ; was denounced against sove 
 reio-ns for the lightest offences ; and made the 
 guilt of one person involve the ruin of millions 
 even in their spiritual and eternal welfare. Tl 
 execution of it was calculated to strike the sens* 
 in the highesi degree, and operate with irresist- 
 ible force on the superstitious minds of the peo- 
 ple. The nation was of a sudden deprived of all 
 exterior exercise of its religion : the altars were 
 despoiled of their ornaments; the crosses, the 
 relics, the images, the statues of the Saints were 
 laid on the ground ; and, as if the air itself were 
 profaned, and might pollute them by its contact, 
 the Priests carefully covered them up, even from 
 their own approach and veneration. The use of 
 bells entirely ceased in all the churches; the 
 bells themselves were removed from the stee- 
 ples, and laid on the ground with other sacred 
 utensils. Mass was celebrated with shut doors, 
 and none but the Priests were admitted to that 
 holy institution. The laity partook of no reli- 
 gious rite, except baptism to new-horn infants, 
 and the communion to the dying; the dead wer< J 
 not interred in consecrated ground ; they wer 
 thrown into ditches, or buried ip common fields 
 and their obsequies were not attended with pray 
 ers or any hallowed ceremony. Marriage was 
 celebrated in the church yards ; and that every 
 action in life might hear the marks of this dread 
 ful situation, the people were prohibited the use 
 of meat, as in Lent, or times of the highest pen- 
 ance ; were debarred from all pleasures and en- 
 tertainments, and even to salute each other, or so 
 much as to shave their beards, and give any 
 decent attention to their person and apparel. 
 Every circumstance carried symptoms of the 
 deepest distress, and of the most immediate ap- 
 
 - 
 
 (prehension of divine vengeance and indigna- 
 tion/' The Pope afterwards proceeded to excom- 
 municate the King ; next, to absolve his subjects 
 from the oath of allegiance, and to declare every 
 one excommunicated, who had any intercourse 
 with him; he promised John's throne to the 
 King of France, who raised an army to secure 
 it; and it was not until John had resigned Eng- 
 land and Ireland to the Pope, and agreed to pay 
 the annual tax of one thousand marks, as feud- 
 atory to the Pope, that he was permitted 
 again to wear his crown. Here is the blessed- 
 ness of Papal domination ; ' a good institution 
 abused !' 
 
 8. A word upon your answer to the 8th ques- 
 tion, in which you say, ' so far as they (that is, 
 the Jewish traditions) regarded the proof of Jew- 
 ish faith, before the coming of Christ, I do not 
 reject them.' You owned in a previous letter 
 that the Jewish church was infallible, until su- 
 perseded by Christ; of course all their traditions 
 to that time were infallible. And now, from the 
 above answer it follows, that the Jewish tradition 
 of the canon was true ; for this regarded their 
 faith at the very foundation. But they rejected 
 the Apocryphal Books. Hence, your church errs 
 in holding them. Again, it was a Jewish tradi- 
 tion touching faith that the Messiah was to he a 
 temporal Prince; even Christ's Apostles, when 
 first called, held this article of faith- Hence, on 
 your admission, this doctrine, though so absurd 
 and false, must be true. I need not multiply 
 points ; but it is a fact, that the Jewish traditions 
 were better supported than those of your church ; 
 and yours and theirs must stand or fall together. 
 As Jesus said of theirs, so is it true of yours, that 
 you 'make the word of God of none effect by 
 your Traditions, teaching for doctrines the com- 
 mandments of men.' (See Mark 7th chap.) 
 The character of these questions induced you, I 
 suppose, to pass in silence those which remain. 
 They are certainly unanswerable on your princi- 
 ples. Let me simply repeat them here almost 
 without comment as unartswered by you. 
 
 Is there any evidence of the Pope's supremacy 
 before the Council of Nice 1 I answer, no. The 
 6th canon of the Council of Nice, passed A. D. 
 325, puts the Bishop of Alexandria, the Bishop of 
 Antioch, and of Rome, on the same footing. Has 
 the Pope a right to put a kingdom under interdict, 
 or to depose a monarch or chief magistrate 1 No: 
 and yet the Pope claims it; Popish writers defend 
 it; Popes have often done it; and Mr. Hughes is 
 afraid of the question. 
 
 Did the second Council of Pisa decree a Refor- 
 mation in faith or not] It did. Did the council 
 of Lateran, in 1215, pass an anathema against 
 those rulers who should tax ecclesiastics ? It did : 
 
 there is a decree on that subject. Is not the second 
 commandment dropped from the Catechisms 
 which are in common use in your church in Europe 
 ind America'? I have proved that it is. Have 
 lot ' the Fathers' been altered and pruned by au- 
 hority in your church 1 Yes; there is ample evi- 
 lence of the fact. Are the Missal and the Bre- 
 
 / 
 
viary authorized and standard works ? They are; 
 but Mr. Hughes seems ashamed of the latter. 
 
 To the only remaining- question, viz : ' Were 
 the Apostles priests when they administered Ex- 
 treme Unction, Mark vi. 13.?' You answer: 'The 
 Apostles were not Priests; neither was it 'Extreme 
 Unction they administered in the case referred to, 
 Mark vi. 13.' The Council o<" Trent (Sess. 14. 
 Can. 1.) expressly says, ' that Extreme Unction 
 was instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ;' and you 
 allow that none hut Jesus Christ could institute a 
 sacrament; yet you say "It was not Extreme Unc- 
 tion they administered.' Mark vi. 13. Pray then 
 when was it instituted ? If not then. Christ never 
 
 tion of fact. If the Reformers protested without 
 pause, it was heresy ,- and if they left the church 
 without cause, it was schism.- if they had cause, 
 then the church of Borne was guilty both of 
 heresy and schism. Now, I have, in a long- series 
 of almost unnoticed expositions, proved that there 
 ioas cause to protest, and necessity to separate.- 
 I showed that a Reformation had been for a long 
 time needed deplorably in faith and morals: the 
 latter was acknowledged by all : the Council of 
 Pisa decreed the former; and the necessity of 
 the Reformation became an article of faith .- that I 
 a false canon of truth, and a false Rule of faith and 
 practice were forced upon our Fathers: that the 
 
 did it; for this is the only mention of it in all the Ua^ was a spiritual tyrant and usurper of" Jesus 
 Gospels; and James did not and could not insti- jChrist's place and -authority : that the doctrines 
 
 tute it in his epistle; for it was not competent to 
 an Apostle to do such a thing. So it appears that 
 there is, on your interpretation, no such sacrament. 
 Again; the Council of Trent says, (Sess. 10. chap. 
 I.) ' this sacred unction was first intimated by 
 Mark vi. 13,' but yon say this was not extreme 
 
 f grace were universally corrupted, and that all 
 he members of the church were required to be- 
 ieve these errors, and all her ministers to preach 
 hem ; that they were required to practice gross 
 dolatry in the worship of saints, images, relics, 
 and even bread, or be cut off from the church : that 
 
 unction ; wherefore you contradict the Council of f force was applied by the inquisition, by crusades, 
 Trent. Finally there is a dilemma here from |by censors of the press to compel uniformity, im- 
 which it is impossible to escape; for if this sacra- Fplicit faith, and unqualified submission; that all 
 men was instituted Mark vi. 13. (as it was, if j who disbelieved were in danger of the confisca- 
 ever) then the Apostles administered a sacrament ijtion of their goods, excommunication, interdicts, 
 not being Priests; but the Council of Trent says jand the stake; that there was no liberty of con- 
 fess. 14. chap. 3.) Bishops, or Priests properly Iscience; that even the word of God was torn from 
 ordained by them, are the proper Ministers of thelthe people by law ; and that all the errors which I 
 sacrament of extreme unction;' and yet they say |iave exposed in these letters were 
 
 (Sess. 22. chap. 3.) ' that the Apostles were" first 
 made Priests at the last supper.' Here then, while 
 you contradict the Council on one point, it contra- 
 dicts itself on another; and which ever way you 
 take it, the Council has erred. 
 
 IV. Having now seen how you answer some of 
 my questions, and wholly pass by others, I pro- 
 ceed to reply to the fourth and fifth in yonr series; 
 they are in substance this: Did the Reformers 
 receive any new ministerial authority after the 
 withdrawal of that which they had received from 
 the church; and if not, had they any divine right 
 to exercise the Christian ministry ? The proper] 
 answer to these questions turns on the settlement; 
 of a previous question, viz: 'had the church of' 
 Rome the right or power in this case to withdraw 
 their ministerial authority?' When AthanasiusJ 
 was deposed, 'unfrocked,' as you say, by the! 
 Arian bishops, bad he a right to preach or not?! 
 If he had not, then the Arian majority in the 
 church did right in deposing him for holding the 
 divinity of Jesus Christ. Rut you will hardly de- 
 fend them. It was an unlawful stretch of pow- 
 er, and he was not actually deposed, nor his minis- 
 terial power really recalled. Then the principle 
 is plain," that when a church deposes ministers of 
 Christ 'fur refusing !o preach ruinous errors, and fori 
 refusing to submit to oppressive usurpations, thbde-4 
 posing act is null, and mid. 
 
 If a minister of Christ be deposed, for refusing t\ 
 sin, the deposition is nullandvoid. If thisbe not true] 
 then you hold that a man must sin, knowing it id 
 be sin ; and that Christ has given the church lh<| 
 right and power to wake a man sin, or to depos<| 
 him if he will not. Tt is therefore strictly aques-£ 
 
 forced upon 
 Ihe people and the preachers. Now, if these things 
 Kvere so, it was their right, their duty toprotesf,- and 
 When forced on them, to separate. Indeed, they had 
 no choice ; the church of Rome would not let them 
 stay in her communion. Look at J. Huss, Jerome 
 of Prague, Luther, &c. &c. She burnt the two 
 former ; she sought to burn Luther, and failing to 
 do that, excommunicated him ; that is, forced him 
 from her. Then I say, it was the right, the 
 \duty, the necessity of the case to go out of her. 
 Rut if this he once admitted (and I have fully 
 proved it) then they carried their ministerial au- 
 thority with them ; and you might as well say 
 that the Apostles had no right to preach after the 
 Sanhedrim silenced them, nor Athanasius after the 
 Arian majority in the Council deposed him, as to 
 say that the church of Rome, under such circum- 
 stances, could reca! the ministerial authority of 
 the Reformers. But still farther; by her errors, 
 and tyranny, and vile immoralities, the church of 
 JRome herself became heretical, and was guilty 
 >n ,- she it was who divided Christ's btfdy, 
 
 \ 
 
 of 
 
 [and left the true ehurch, as the Arians did in the 
 days of Athanasius. The true church depends 
 not on numbers (once it was all assembled in an 
 upper chamber in Jerusalem,) but on the holding 
 and preaching of God's truth, and administering 
 Christ's sacraments as he commanded. Besides^ 
 millions of God's people, and hundreds of his min- 
 isters united with the Reformers, and left the cor- 
 rupt church of Rome. If these things be so, and I 
 have proved them, then the deposing of the Re- 
 formers was an empty and a wicked act ,- and there- 
 fore they claimed, as they needed no new autho- 
 thority ; they had all they required or ever had. 
 
291 
 
 2. On your own principles, the act of ordination j 
 leaves l an indelible character J The Council of 
 Trent, session 23. canon 4. decreed ' that a char- 
 acter is impressed (by ordination) and that he 
 who was once a priest can never become a lay- 
 man again.' Hence* you hold that the acts of a 
 person ordained, though a heretic, are valid; though 
 cut off, deposed, and even an atheist, he is still 
 indelibly a minister of Jesus, and his acts are still 
 valid, and he begets a like character to his own 
 on the ordained person, and though both parties 
 sin in the act, yet the act is valid. If so, the 
 Reformers did not lose their indeliable character 
 and they had power to communicate the same to 
 others. Therefore, what you gave them you could 
 not take away, on your own principles. 
 
 3. There is not a church on the globe in which 
 the ordination of ministers is so defective as the 
 church of Rome. 1. You call orders a ' sacra* 
 ment. 1 But there is nothing in its nature like a 
 sacrament ; nor one word in all the New Testa- 
 ment to rest it on. I defy you to bring one text, or 
 one fact to prove it. 2. Priests in your church are 
 ordained to offer up Jesu s*Christ in the mass, and 
 you say ' it is the chief business of a Priest to offer 
 sacrifice.'' Yet 1 have proved, in my last letter, 
 and you have not disputed one of the points, that 
 this sacrifice is blasphemous, anti-Christian, and 
 unfounded. Your chief business, therefore, for 
 which you are are ordained, does not exist. You 
 might just as well, for all the ends of ordination, or- 
 dain a man to search for the philosopher's stone, 
 or to find out perpetual motion. The business of 
 Aaron's priesthood was to offer up sacrifices, but of 
 ChrisTs ministers to ' preach the word,' to publish 
 salvation, to administer his true sacraments; to 
 serve, (not lord it over,) but serve the church, and 
 seek to save the world. 3. The manner of ordina- 
 tion in your church is grossly heathenish, and whol- 
 ly unlike the simple ' laying on of the hands of the 
 Presbytery,' (1 Tim. iv. 14.) practised in primi- 
 tive days. A more unmeaning mummery can 
 hardly be invented or conceived. 
 
 4. And then you have seven orders of minis- 
 ters. Now there is not one word for all these in 
 the Bible; and you know it full well. 
 
 5. The ordination of your church is wrapped 
 in utter uncertainty. 
 
 I refer, in proof of this, to my discussion in 
 this Letter on ' intention.' I refer again to my 
 Letter, No. XXVIII. where it is shown that the 
 Papal succession cannot he made out; that is, 
 never existed : and that you do not, to this day, 
 know, nor can you know, a false from a true 
 Pope. Yet your ordination hangs on his button, 
 and distils through his polluted hands. 
 
 Your only reply to this was — that try in vain 
 to break the golden chain which connects the 
 chair of St. Peter with the present Pope ! Fi- 
 nally, see what your own Baronius (on the famous 
 page 7t*>G of 10th vol.) makes Segebert say from 
 Auxilius. 'Auxilius writes a dialogue under the 
 persons of Infensor and Defensor, confirmed by 
 divine and canonical examples, against the intes- 
 tine discord of the church of Rome, forsooth con- 
 cerning the ordinations, and ex-ordinations, and 
 
 super-ordination, of the Popes ; and of the ex- 
 and super-ordination of those ordained by them.' 
 In such giving, recalling, and confounding ordi- 
 nations by false Popes and true, who could be 
 certain of his scrip or staff"? Who could tell 
 whether the Pope who authorised his ordination, 
 or the Pope who recalled it, was the true Pope? 
 Yet in divers cases after one Pope was deposed, 
 or died, his ghostly successor nullified all his 
 acts of ordinations; and, in return, on his re- 
 moval, his acts of ordination were thus treated. 
 And for fifty years there were two reigning Popes, 
 one at Avignon and one at Rome, who excom- 
 municated and anathematized, and deposed each 
 other, and all their respective followers ; and of 
 whom we can say this good thing at least, that 
 they always spoke truth when they denounced each 
 other. But under such circumstances, who can 
 unravel the riddle of this mangled subject; or 
 trace his ordination with any certainty through 
 this Cretan labyrinth 1 
 
 Before, therefore, you question our authority to 
 preach, look better to your own ; and let your 
 holy lives, your faithful preaching, your success 
 in saving souls, be added as living seals to your 
 ministerial authority. If you can make your own 
 out, we have all that you ever had. But since 
 the Reformation, it is a grave, and, to say the 
 least, a debateable question, whether yours is a 
 church of God at all. God said to his people at 
 that day, ' come out of her ,•' and they came. 
 Jerusalem had her Pella ; the church of Rome, 
 had the Reformation. Let God's people come 
 out of her. He who returns to her 'loves dark- 
 ness rather than light.' 
 
 V. Your exceptions to my twofold answers to 
 your first, second, and third questions, need 
 scarcely any additional notice. The inquiry, as 
 to the existence of Protestantism before Luther, 
 and where, and when, (besides my previous re- 
 plies) may thus be finally settled. You admit 
 that the doctrines taught by the Apostles, and 
 recorded in the Bible, are true Christianity — so 
 do I. We both also allow that these doctrines 
 have been, according to Christ's promise to his 
 church, held and taught by the true church ever 
 since. Then if your present doctrines contradict 
 the Bible, at every step, and if ours harmonize 
 with it, it follows, that we are the true church, 
 and that our doctrines have been taught and held 
 in every age. But I have proved this at large, 
 as to both faith, and morals, and worship; I have 
 showed the Pope to be a usurper; that ' indul- 
 gences were a bundle of licenses to commit sin,' 
 and that heaven is set up for sale by them ; I 
 have exposed the anti-christian and idolatrous 
 character of Transubstantiation. the sacrifice of 
 the Mass, and adoration of the Host ; — I have dis- 
 proved purgatory, extreme unction, your false 
 doctrine of human merits, and priestly absolu- 
 tion : I have proved, that sheer idolatry, immo- 
 ralities the most gross, persecution, the des- 
 truction of personal, religious, and civil liberty, 
 crusades, inquisitions, &c, involving the murder 
 of some 50,000,000 of men, women and children, 
 were not only tolerated, but made lawful and ne- 
 
292 
 
 Cessary in your church ; in a word, I have show- 
 ed, that your church has corrupted the very Bible 
 itself, by spurious books, false interpretations, 
 and unfounded traditions, and even dared to say 
 that God's word would, and did injure his crea- 
 tures, and prohibited it to the people. In con- 
 trast with all this, I have presented the Protes- 
 tant doctrines and morals, and worship, as har- 
 monizing with the word of God. Now if this 
 has indeed been made out (as I think it has) then 
 it follows, that the Protestant religion was taught 
 by the Apostles, and of course has been held by 
 the true church in every age ; whereas your doc- 
 trines were not taught by the Apostles; are nov- 
 elties and corruptions ; and the true church never 
 did, does not, and cannot hold them. My argu- 
 ments, for many letters, have borne steadily on 
 the cumulative proof of this position; and, if well 
 founded, the conclusien is irresistible. As to Pro- 
 testant unity, I stated that the various denomina- 
 tions mentioned in my last letter, were more united 
 with each other, than the Papal church in suces- 
 cessive ages. I stated also, that the twelve Con- 
 fessions of Faith issued at the Reformation all 
 presented esssential and wonderful unity. The 
 fact that they were many and yet agreed, without 
 trick or force, is far better proof of honest and 
 real unity, than the forced uniformity of all your 
 people in the one creed ; and as these twelve 
 creeds agree in the truth, and as your people 
 agree in error, so their unity is Christian unity, 
 but yours, like that of Jews or Mohammedans, if 
 ever so great, being unity in error, is the more 
 dangerous. Again, if any one of the many Protes- 
 tant communions be a true church, my argument 
 against you is still sound and good; and those in 
 error may be reformed. But if you are wrong, it 
 is not only a universal heresy, but a desperate one. 
 For, as you claim to be infallible, so you are inca- 
 pable of Reformation, and the case is without re- 
 medy. The Bible foreshows in lines clear as 
 light, that your church must be destroyed, for she 
 rejects reform, and is therefore incurable. The 
 Jews themselves shall be recovered, ' and grafted 
 in again;' but the church of Rome ' shall be cut 
 off.' Who can read the 11th chapter of Romans, 
 or the 2d chap, of 2 Thess. or the book of Revela- 
 tions, and doubt that the church of Rome is to be 
 cast off'? It is a curious fact, that in Malta, and 
 even Rome itselt, it is a common opinion (not an 
 article of faith) that the present will be the last 
 Pope. Prophecy travails in the speedy dissolu- 
 tion of the Papal dominion. 
 
 VI. I promised in my last letter to say something of 
 the sects and variations of your church. These are 
 subjects replete with matter, and require volumes for 
 their elucidation. Since the Council of Trent, and es- 
 pecially since the Reformation which tore the jewel 
 from the Pope's crown, and delivered better than half 
 of Europe from his dominion, and poured a flood of 
 light on the world, necessity and growing weakness 
 have compelled more union ; and the progress of the 
 Reformation has shed its twilight even on the Vatican. 
 Thus, in self-defence some excesses have been reform- 
 ed, and more union engendered. But look at the 
 church before the Reformation; yea, look at her par- 
 tics and opinions even now. It is not agreed to this 
 
 day, which are the general councils, there are parties 
 on this subject; nor whether the Pope be infallible; 
 nor where infallibility is lodged; nor whether the Pope 
 has power over both swords, to depo-e princes, &c. &,c; 
 nor whether all the human race were born in original 
 sin; nor in what the true consecrating act in Transub- 
 stantiation consists ; nor in what the matter and essence 
 of the sacrifice of the Mass consists; nor what the in- 
 fallible Traditions are ; nor whether the Pope be above 
 a Council, or a Council above the Pope ; all these have 
 their parties in trie church of Rome at this day. It is 
 true, (as at the council of Trent,) where they cannot 
 agree, they call them opinions ; and where they can, 
 doctrines. But this is absurd. On this plan, the Pro- 
 testant communions, named in my last Letter, are now 
 more united, than the present church of Rome. But 
 again, if we ascend into earlier days we shall find old 
 Rome and new, far, far at odds.- The Council of Nice, 
 A. D. 325, put the Pope on a level with the other lead- 
 ing Bishops; and Pope Gregory called the title of Uni- 
 versal Bishop, (not as Mr. Hughes says, in the Bishop of 
 Constantinople's, but in any hands,) the mark of anti- 
 christ. Now, the Pope is universal monarch, and head 
 of all Bishops. Is not this a vast variation ? The 
 Council of Laodicca decreed, "we ought not to leave the 
 church of God, and go to invoke angels, (Angeli.) But 
 as this directly forbids what the Council of Trent di- 
 rectly commands; so it has been changed to read, Anguli- 
 corners; i. e. '■worship corners.'' By this, and other for- 
 geries and erasures, H. Boxhorn, Professor of Divinity, 
 at Loraine, had his eyes opened, and left the church of 
 Rome forever. (See his 3d Book, de Euch.) The 
 church of Rome once gave the cup to the laity in the 
 communion, now she takes it away; once she and 
 all the church prayed in the known tongue of the peo- 
 ple, and Paul expressly forbids an unknown tongue, 
 unless accompanied by an interpreter. (See 1 Cor.xiv.) 
 Once too, the Bible in the church of Rome was in the 
 known tongue of the people, and open to all. Now the 
 church-prayers and Bible, are in the unknown tongrue, 
 and the church curses those who condemn it. There 
 have been four different systems of infallibility, at dif- 
 ferent times and places : 1. That of the Pope ; 2, that 
 of the Council; 3, the Pope and Council ; 4, that the 
 universal church was the scat of infallibility. There 
 have been also three systems as to the nature of the 
 Pope's supremacy: 1, a Presidency ; 2, a Monarch ; 
 3, a God on earth. There have been three systems of 
 image worship : 1, Their use as a help to devotion ; 2, 
 the lower worship of them: 3, the same worship 
 of them as of the originals represented by them. 
 And three periods as to Priests' marriage: 1, It was 
 allowed; 2, forbidden under Gregory VII.; 3, prefer- 
 ence of fornication to it, and permission to keep concu- 
 bines. Also there are now three parties as to the doc- 
 trine of celibacy: 1. That it is a divine interdict; 2. 
 only a human institution, though binding and good ; 3. 
 (as now in France,) that celibacy is useless and inju- 
 rious. Once the church of Rome gave the Eucharist 
 to infants as necessary to their salvation ; now she for- 
 bids it. Once she held the doctrine of the millennium ; 
 afterwards she stoutly rejected it. In these two last 
 she not only varied, but on one side or other must have 
 erred. Now is not this the very essence of variation, 
 and party dissensions in the bosom of the Roman 
 church 1 She boasts of never changing, and Jerome 
 says (Praef. to Evang.) ' What changes is not true ; 
 verum non esse quod variat. Was there ever such ver- 
 satility and variation ? Yet this is the unchangeable 
 church, reigning in the eternal city. Finally, once 
 confession of sin was public in the church of Rome, and 
 
293 
 
 the penitent was referred for pardon to God. Now the 
 priest pardons, and to him confession is made in pri- 
 vate. He is now like a 'common sewer, the depository 
 ot all the sins of all his people. What an effect must 
 it produce on the priest's soul, and what a power does 
 it give him over other men, and then he must keep 
 every villain's secret, and pardon the villain confessing. 
 The questions asked at confession, are enough to ruin 
 a chaste mind. I wish you would publish them. I 
 have a list of them in Spanish ; but I dare not render 
 them into English. Even 'The Christian's Guide' 
 published by Mr. Cummiskey, Philadelphia, and in 
 use here, under the Bishop's approval, contains in its 
 1 Table of sins,' such matter, as no man should, on any 
 account permit his child to sec, and which no lady 
 ought to read, much less use in confession. Yet the 
 penitent is directed to consult this very ' table of sins,' 
 in preparation for confession ; and at it to confess all 
 her sins. I forbear to publish this horrible catalogue. 
 
 VII. I had desired to say something of the effects 
 of the reformation, in proof of its divine origin and 
 intrinsic excellence. Who ever would be truly inform- 
 ed on this subjec!, should read " Villers on the Refor- 
 mation," lately rcpiinted in this city by Messrs. Key 
 & Biddlc, in the Christian Library. We may read the 
 influence of the Reformation in the history of Spain 
 contrasted with Holland, Italy with England, Portugal 
 with Scotland, or Mexico and the South American 
 States with our own happy country. Heie in broad extent 
 and for successive generations, the two systems have 
 been exhibited in their practical effects. The first 
 named state in each of the above contrasts, is Papal, the 
 last Protestant. And now, where is most freedom, 
 most happiness, most moral dignity, most science, most 
 national greatness? We are indebted to the Reforma- 
 tion under God, for the rights of conscience, for civil 
 liberty, for the revival of letters in chief part, and fur 
 the circulation of the Bible, for the virtue and piety of 
 the people, and the eternal salvation of innumerable 
 souls. The love of power is the very genius of the 
 papacy, and it rises on the ruins of holiness, light and 
 liberty. In our country as elsewhere, the liberties of 
 the people must expire with the general prevalence of 
 Popery. But it is impossible it should prevail if Pro- 
 testants are only true to their master, and to their prin- 
 ciples. We glory in the principles of universal tolera- 
 tion. Truth wants no help but its own power, directed 
 by the hand of its author It must finally triumph; it 
 will at last prevail. Magna est Veritas, and prsevale- 
 bit. 
 
 In my imperfect efforts to assert its evidences, and 
 to vindicate its sacred doctrines, I have at every step 
 felt my own unfitness for so great a work ; and should 
 never have ventured to assume such a task, had it not 
 been forced upon me. During the progress of this dis- 
 cussion, I have been absent from home half the time ; 
 and during the whole, engaged in an arduous and pcr- 
 'plcxing agency. I say this not for my own, but the 
 cause's sake. But I have done what I could. As the 
 second limit set to the time for continuing the contro- 
 versy has now been reached, the future renewal, or final 
 close of the discussion, will be referred to the decision 
 of my Rev'd opponent. 
 
 John Breckinridge. 
 
 P. S. I have but a few words to say in answer 
 to your Postscript. It will be perceived that the 
 first five assertions are admitted to be correctly 
 
 quoted from Baronius, as you do not give us a 
 word to the contrary. That this silence arises from 
 inability, rather than want of will, to prove their 
 incorrectness, is too evident to those who observe 
 how eagerly you catch at a straw in endeavouring 
 to disprove the sixth. It avails you nothing to 
 object, that the quotation is given as a continuous 
 passage, and therefore ' unfair,' when our readers 
 know, and you know, that I referred for it to two 
 folio pages, 705, 7(i6. The only question is, Is 
 every fact contained in this passage proved to 
 have been stated by Baronius'? For an answer 
 to this question, I am willing to appeal to any 
 man, who has a competent knowledge of the ori- 
 ginal, and whose judgment is not perverted by 
 sectarian influence. Let any such man read the 
 proofs I gave in the Postscript, to my last letter, 
 compare them with the context in the original, 
 and then say whether the facts I have stated on 
 the authority of Baronius are not fully made out 
 by reference to the pages quoted. Whether it 
 was, or was not, the opinion ofBaronius, that 'God 
 had forgotten the (Roman Catholic) church' is a 
 matter of very little importance, while the facts 
 which he states, clearly prove that such was thef 
 case, as I have shown in my last ; and the object 
 of your call, as well as the point of my proof, was 
 the depravity of the Popes. On this you said 
 you would expose me. It is rather amusing to 
 see, to what a pitiful shift you are driven, to 
 disprove the sixth assertion quoted from Ba- 
 ronius, ' that the church was governed by strum- 
 pets.' Have you forgotten that you stated in 
 your ' Notes' 1 left at the Athenaeum, that Alber- 
 tus ' could expel lawful Popes, and put in usur- 
 pers, just as his mistress directed?'' Wa3 not the 
 church then governed by a strumpet 1 But while 
 ringing your changes on the word arbitrio, did you 
 forget, or think your readers would forget, that I 
 quoted from Baronius, such unequivocal expres- 
 sions as ' cam Bomce dominarentur-* .. /were/Wees' 
 when strumpets governed Borne — ' cum Tlieodora-- 
 scortum monarchi am- "'obtineret in urbe, 1 when 
 Theodora a strumpet held supreme control in the 
 city — HnvaluitmeretricumiMYtotLlVVLf the sovereign- 
 ty of strumpets prevailed/ Will you please to 
 construe these expressions word for word, as you 
 have meretricum arbitrio infamari ? 
 
 But now I come to the very essence of your 
 Postscript. You tell your readers that this quo- 
 tation was made by me ' under the threat of 
 exposure'. f J and intimate that it would have been 
 much more 'unfair,' if it had not been made un- 
 der such awful circumstances ! ' Risum tencalis, 
 amici .?' I fear I shall be set down as one .under 
 the guilt of mortal sin, and destitute of all grace; 
 but truth compels me to confess, that from the 
 beginning of this controversy, to the present time, 
 I have not for a moment had the fear of the Rev. 
 John Hughes, nor of his ' Lord God the Pope,' be- 
 fore my eyes ! No, Sir, I thank my God, that 
 the time is not yet come, and it is my grand ob- 
 ject in this controversy to keep that day far off, 
 when the 'threat' of a Roman priest can make 
 me tremble for my reputation, my liberty, or my 
 
294 
 
 hopes of heaven. Even the Bulls of your mas- 
 ter become very harmless animals, when sent to 
 pasture on our happy soil. Your arrogant and 
 impotent threats only show what you would do, if 
 you could. 
 
 k O, tua cornu 
 Ni foret exsecto frons, quid faceres quum 
 Sic mutilus minitaris?" — Hor. 
 
 " If you can threaten now, what would you do, 
 Had not the horn been rooted out, that grew 
 Full in thy front?" J. B. 
 
CONTROVERSY N°. 35. 
 
 Is the Protestant Religion the Religion of Christ? 
 
 Philadelphia, October 3d, 1833. 
 
 To the Rev. John Breckinridge. 
 
 Rev. Sir, — By a note received from the 
 Editor of the Presbyterian, I am informed 
 that your letter closed the controversy, and 
 this communication is admitted by the cour- 
 tesy of the editor, to remove the " semblance 
 of partiality." Of course, I am bound to ac- 
 knowledge this courtesy, and I shall avail 
 myself of it, simply for the purpose of cor- 
 recting the erroneous statements of your last 
 letter. 
 
 1. You charge me as follows — "You as- 
 serted that the Bible was not a sufficient rule 
 of faith, though God revealed it for that very 
 end: next you contended that it had no fix- 
 ed meaning without 1 an authoritative inter- 
 pretation: then, you conceded that if left to 
 itself it did not teach the doctrines of Pa- 
 pacy; and finally, you almost abandon its 
 use and retreat to the forlorn hope of the Fa- 
 thers." 
 
 Every sentence in this statement is a mis- 
 representation. In the first place, I never 
 said that God had appointed the Bible for the 
 " very end" that it might be the sufficient or 
 only rule of faith. On the contrary, the er- 
 rors and opposite doctrines which Protestants 
 deduce from it, are the proof that God did not 
 appoint it exclusively for this end. If he had, 
 it would be understood in the same sense by 
 all — since God cannot be the author of those 
 contradictory doctrines which Protestants pro- 
 fess to find in the Bible. 
 
 2. 1 never said that the Bible " has no fix- 
 ed meaning without an authoritative inter- 
 pretation." But I said, and argued that with- 
 out an authoritative interpretation men can- 
 not be assured of what that u fixed meaning" 
 is. Because, as'we see among Protestants, 
 Unitarians, Universalists, &c. &c. have as 
 good a right to charge their errors to the Bible 
 
 as the Presbyterians themselves. Every one 
 has the right" to unfix the true meaning of the 
 Bible and substitute his own favourite folly, 
 error, opinion and fanaticism. This is what 
 I said, what I supported, and I think, esta- 
 blished under the head of the rule of faith. 
 
 3. I never said that the Bible does not 
 teach the Catholic doctrines, "if left to it- 
 self." Left to itself, it is " the Bible on the 
 shelf" — and teaches nothing. Rightly in- 
 terpreted, it teaches Catholicity — Wrongly 
 interpreted, it is made to teach a thousand 
 doctrines, which it does not contain — Cal- 
 vinism, Socinianism, or any other ism, which 
 the interpreter, for the time being, may hap- 
 pen to prefer. 
 
 4. I have not abandoned the use of the 
 Scriptures for the testimony of the Fathers. 
 On all the questions I have shown that the 
 Scriptures and the Fathers spoke the same 
 language — that the doctrines of Catholicity 
 are supported by the testimony of both; and 
 that the opinions of Protestantism are not 
 drawn from the Bible, but from the Protest- 
 ant mode of interpreting the Bible, of which 
 the Fathers knew nothing. 
 
 Finally, you would make me say that the 
 Bible is a " nose of wax," a kk shoe that fits 
 anv foot," &c. &c- To all which I reply that 
 the Protestant rule of interpretation makes 
 of the Bible just whatever the interpreter 
 thinks proper. This you did not deny, but 
 thaught to account for, by saying that such 
 interpretation is the "abuse of the Bible." It 
 is, at all events, the Protestant rule of faith, 
 as I have had occasion to show under the first 
 cpiestion. I have no hesitation in stating that, 
 according to the use which Protestants make 
 of it, the Bible maybe called a musical in- 
 strument, on which every sect of Protestants 
 may play its own favourite tune. Which sect 
 is right? W T ho can tell — when all have the 
 same patent of interpretation, and each claims 
 
£!>0 
 
 the Bible in opposition to all the rest? Who 
 is to decide among them? 
 
 Having thus corrected your misstatement, 
 and misrepresentation of my arguments, 
 I shall follow you to your next twofold posi- 
 tion — which "you think the community are 
 prepared to admit," viz: 1. That I depend 
 far more on the Fathers than on the Bible — 
 and, 2. That their "unanimous consent,'' if 
 it has a being, is by no means in my favour." 
 
 To the first of these positions I answer, that 
 the Catholic doctrine is established on the 
 evidence of the Scripture — the attestation of 
 the Fathers — the testimony of all the ancient 
 Liturgies, of the heretics themselves — the 
 testimony of the Syrian Christians, (whom you 
 once called "Protestants,") — of the Greek 
 church — of all the eastern sects — in fine, of 
 all Christians, from the preaching of Christ, 
 to the days of Martin Luther. And, this 
 being the case, it follows, that either "the 
 Protestant religion is not the religion of 
 Christ," or else, that the religion of Christ 
 had no professors in the world before the 
 days of Martin Luther. All this accumulated 
 testimony shows that the Catholic doctrines 
 were the doctrines of the Bible, down to the 
 sixteenth century; and that no Christians, in 
 the whole world, understood the Bible to teach 
 the doctrines which Protestants profess to 
 find in it. 
 
 As to the " UNANIMOUS CONSENT," 
 it is undeniable- You find that all, who speak 
 on the doctrines, now disputed between Ca- 
 tholics and Protestants, are clear and unequi- 
 vocal in their testimony in our favour. They 
 do not indeed, always speak equally clear. 
 But whilst you may cite passages that are ob- 
 scure, and which, by themselves, might har- 
 monize with either doctrine, I have cited 
 others, which settle the matter of their belief 
 — on the real presence of Christ in the Eu- 
 charist — the sacrifice of the Christian Litur- 
 gy, called the mass — the invocation of saints 
 — prayers for the dead — purgatory — fasting 
 —sign of the cross — supremacy of St. Peter, 
 and his successors in the visible government 
 of Christ's church upon earth — and, in short, 
 of all the doctrines which the innovators of 
 the sixteenth century have rejected. These 
 testimonies, clear and unequivocal, may be 
 found in the quotations of my last two letters 
 —taken from the writings of the Fathers — 
 both before the Council of Nice, and after — 
 for the first five hundred years of the Chris- 
 tian church. Neither were they of one coun- 
 try alone, but taken indiscriminately from 
 Asia, Europe and Africa. You seem to ad- 
 mit that there is no way of evading their pow- 
 
 erful testimony on these matters, except by a 
 grammatical quibble on the word ''unanimous 
 consent." Taking it for granted that there 
 are exceptions, you infer that these excep- 
 tions destroy the force of the rule. The great 
 body of testimony must go for nothing, pro- 
 vided that, by the distortion of his language, 
 you can make it appear that any one Father 
 disagreed from the rest. In fact you cannot 
 find such disagreement. Ail have not, it is 
 true, expressed themselves equally plain — nor 
 have the same Fathers, in alt the parts of their 
 works — but when so great a number of them 
 have expressed themselves so clearly and so 
 strongly in attestation of the Catholic doc- 
 trines, as they still exist in the church, the 
 "consent" of all is rendered "unanimous," 
 by the acquiescence of the rest. 
 
 We do not profess to receive our belief 
 from the Fathers, as if they were the au- 
 thors of it. They are only the channel 
 through which it descended, but the fountain. 
 is Jesus Christ. They are the witnesses of 
 what was the belief of the church, at the 
 times when they lived and wrote. And as 
 Protestants pretend that the primitive 
 church believed as they do, we quote the 
 Fathers to show, on the contrary, that the 
 belief of the church was then, what Catho- 
 lics still hold. Thus, Rev'd Sir, you ap- 
 pealed to the Fathers; and having selected 
 the tribunal, one should suppose that you 
 would consent to be judged by it. But no. 
 The moment I furnish their verdict — you 
 attack their authority, and say that their 
 writings have been "erased and Roman- 
 ized!!" Then why did you appeal to them? 
 But the Fathers have been recognised by 
 the University of Oxford — and is it possi- 
 ble, that the learned body of Protestants 
 who presided at their publication, would 
 palm on the world writings which have been 
 "erased and Romanized?" Again, how 
 could the church " erase and Romanize" 
 these writings in the hands of her enemies? 
 They have been preserved by the various 
 sects of Heretics, separated from the com- 
 munion of the church, some of them, since 
 the very days of the Fathers. They have 
 been preserved by the Greek Schismatics- 
 would they suffer their copies to be " erased 
 and Romanized?" Does not the fact of 
 your having uttered this charge, under your 
 present circumstances in this controversy, 
 imply the consciousness, that the Fathers 
 are against you — whilst the charge itself is 
 refuted by its own absurdity? 
 
 Mr. B., after all these expedients re- 
 sorted to — for the purpose of sustaining hia 
 
£97 
 
 cause, with great apparent gravity makes a 
 new assertion, and tells us that««««"the 
 higher we rise in antiquity, the more de- 
 cidedly Protestant do they (the Fathers) be- 
 come, until the last traces of Romanism dis- 
 appear amidst the better light of the Ante- 
 Nicene Fathers." Does Mr. B., imagine 
 that the quotations of my last letter, taken 
 from the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers 
 are to be overturned by empty declamation, 
 and mere assertion, without the least proof? 
 Does he suppose that those proofs, which are 
 undeniable, are already forgotten by our 
 readers? In reference to the authorities 
 quoted by Mm, and which 1 had occasion to 
 expose, he assures us that nothing unfair, 
 was done by him, " to Ms knowledge." He 
 then, no doubt, copied from others, who 
 wrote for Protestants only, and whose false 
 or garbled quotations, passed unexposed, 
 and even unsuspected. It was on this ac- 
 count, at an early stage of the controversy, 
 I advised, him to beware of his quotations; 
 and it is but a poor plea for the false quota- 
 tions which he has since put on record, to 
 say now that, indeed, it was not done " to 
 his knowledge." As an offset, however, 
 he arraigns me in connexion with the au- 
 thorities quoted by me from Tertullian, 
 Wesley, Luther, and Jewell, Now I refer 
 the reader to the particular passages, in 
 which I quoted from these writers, and he 
 will see that you, Rev'd Sir, revive a charge, 
 which was promptly resented, and trium- 
 phantly refuted in each particular instance. 
 Such charges come with a bad grace from 
 you, in as much as they are not only un- 
 founded, but have been already refuted. 
 Of Tertullian's, you may recollect that you 
 misrepresented the object for wliich it ivas 
 adduced as a proof— and that the charge of 
 garbling was refuted by my correcting your 
 misrepresentation of my argument. Of 
 Wesley, I proved, from his own writings, 
 all I had asserted. Of Luther, the same. 
 Of Jewell, I spoke on the strength of au- 
 thorities wliich you did not dispute. These 
 being thei"acts of the case, our readers will 
 not be imposed upon by your gratuitous 
 charge against me, of garbling, mistransla- 
 tions, perversions, and false assertions of 
 authorities, charges, which have been not 
 only preferred, but undeniably established 
 
 AGAINST YOURSELF. 
 
 Not less curious is the manner in which 
 you allude to my proofs of Christ's real pre- 
 sence in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist. 
 You had pretended that the Protestant doc- 
 trine could be found, at least in the LITUR- 
 
 GIES of the ancient Heretics of the East; 
 as if men could not err from the unity of 
 Christ's religion, without necessarily falling 
 into the Protestant doctrines. Now I have 
 shown the belief of the Catholic church 
 on all the doctrines that appertain to the 
 Liturgy, viz,: The sacrifice of the Eucha- 
 rist — the rkal presence of Christ's body 
 and blood, after the consecration, under the 
 appearance of bread and wine; the priest- 
 iiood of the new law; the altar, the vic- 
 tim, in the unbloody manner — the. invoca- 
 tion of saints; — the sacrifice and prayer 
 for the dead, as well as the living. Such is 
 the testimony of these neutral documents, 
 which are neither Catholic nor Protestant, 
 but which, being preserved by the enemies of 
 the Catholic church, from the very first ages 
 of Christianity, must be received by all can- 
 did men, as unimpeachable vouchers for the 
 primitive belief of Christians, on these 
 points. For, these sects would not borrow 
 their liturgy, after the separation, from their 
 enemies, the very church which had excom- 
 municated them. Consequently, the litur- 
 gies and the doctrines which they contain 
 are to be referred to a date anterior to the 
 separation. They all agree with the Catho- 
 lic church; and it must be this conviction, 
 and the argument which it furnishes, that 
 have obliged my opponent, after having 
 claimed these liturgies for the Protestant 
 side, a few letters since, to shrink now from 
 their withering testimony against him, and 
 tell the public that, indeed, "every scholar 
 knows them to be replete with forgeries of 
 the Church of Rome"!!! Why then did he 
 claim them ? And having claimed them, 
 without knowing their contents, why now 
 does he make a bad cause worse, by charg- 
 ing them with ''forgery?" 
 
 He then turns to a new question and says 
 they were not written by the authors to 
 whom they are ascribed. This is nothing to 
 the purpose. It is known that the first 
 liturgies were not, for a long time, commit- 
 ted to ivriting at all. And the name of St. 
 Cyprian, in the liturgy ascribed to St. Peter, 
 is no proof that the substance of it, as rela- 
 tes to the Eueharistic sacrifice, had not been 
 taught by St. Peter. The Scriptures furnish 
 a case in point. The Book of Deuteronomy 
 is ascribed to Moses, yet the last chapter 
 contains an account of his death and burial, 
 which shows that this part was written by 
 some other. This turning away from the 
 doctrine, to the authorship of the liturgies, is 
 in keeping with all the rest. But the im- 
 plicit acknowledgment of all the documents 
 
298 
 
 of antiquity being adverse to Protestantism, 
 is easily gathered from your charges of 
 " forgery," "erasure and Romanizing," and 
 the interrogatory with which the whole winds 
 up, "who then can trust your testimonies?" 
 
 After having established the Catholic be- 
 lief, bv arguments founded on the testimony 
 oftheHoly Scripture; by the very incredu- 
 lity of the Jews at Capharnaum when the 
 doctrine was first proposed; by the plain, 
 and positive words of the Redeemer, in the 
 institution of the Sacrament; by the testi- 
 mony of St. Paul, who warned the Chris- 
 tians against- the sin of eating or drinking 
 the body and blood of the Lord unworthily; 
 by the testimony of the apostolic Fathers, 
 Ignatius in particular, who states that the 
 Heretics of that age abstained from the Eu- 
 charist, because they would not acknowledge 
 it to be the "flesh of christ ;" by the 
 unanimous consent of the Fathers, both be- 
 fore and after the Council of Nice; by the 
 very testimony of the enemies of the Catho- 
 lic Church, the Greek schismatics and here- 
 tics of the East generally; by all the liturgies 
 in the world, before the days of Carlostadiu«, 
 with whom the Protestant doctrine of mere 
 bread and wine began: — after all this, to 
 which no positive testimony has been oppos- 
 ed, it is curious, I say, to perceive the tone of 
 nonchalance with which you introduce " my 
 last and feeble struggle for transubtantia- 
 tion!" Do you suppose, Rev. Sir, that this 
 manner of affecting to see no strength in 
 evidences which you cannot deny, and argu- 
 ments which you cannot answer, will not be 
 duly appreciated by the intelligence of out- 
 readers? Do you suppose that such a mass of 
 testimony is to be outweighed, in the public 
 mind, by your naked assertion? 
 
 You say that it is 1 who profit ' ; by in- 
 sulated sentences" from the Fathers, and 
 that " if their writings could be presented in 
 unbroken connexion, the argument against 
 me would appear in ten fold strength." 
 Then, Rev. Sir, it was your business to give 
 some specimens of this " unbroken connex- 
 ion." But let us test the truth of your ipse 
 dixit, even on this. St. Chrysostom is one 
 of those, whom Protestants are pleased to 
 claim as friendly to their opinions. Allow 
 me then, to give an extract from a sermon 
 which he preached at Antioch in the year 
 386, (Horn. 61.) and mark well its doctrine. 
 
 "It is necessary, my dear brethren, to 
 learn what is the miracle, wrought in our 
 mysteries, why it has been given to us, and 
 what profit we ought to derive from it. We 
 are all but one body the members of his flesh 
 
 and bones. Let us who are initiated, follow 
 what I am about to say. In order then that 
 we may be mixed up with the flesh of Jesus 
 Christ, not only by love, but really and 
 truly, he has given the food that effects this 
 prodigy, being desirous thus to manifest the 
 love he bears us. For this purpose he has 
 mixed and incorporated himself in us, in 
 order that we might form but one with him, 
 in the same manner as the members form but 
 one body, being all united to the same head. 
 In tact those who wish to love tenderly, 
 always wish to be but one with the object of 
 
 their love Wherefore, like lions which 
 
 inhale and breathe forth flames, let us leave 
 this table, having ourselves become formida- 
 ble to the devil, reflecting on our head, and 
 the love he has so wonderfully and manifest- 
 ly shown us. Mothers not unfrequently put 
 out their children to be nursed by strangers, 
 'but I, says he, (Christ) feed my children 
 with my own flesh: I myself am their food: 
 for it is my desire to ennoble you all, and to 
 give you an earnest of future blessings. 
 Giving myself to you, as I do, in this world, 
 I shall be able, with much more reason, to 
 treat you still better in the other. I wished 
 to become your brother, for you I have 
 taken flesh and blood; and now moreover I 
 give you this flesh and blood by which I am 
 become of the same nature with yourselves.' 
 This blood produces in us a brilliant and 
 royal image: it prevents the nobleness of the 
 soul from suffering, when it frequently 
 sprinkles and nourishes it-- •••This blood is 
 spread through the soul, as soon as drunk : 
 it waters and fortifies it. This blood, when 
 worthily received, puts the devil to flight: 
 it invites and introduces to us the angels 
 and the Lord of the angels. ••••This blood, 
 being shed, washed and purified the world. 
 • •••And if in the capital of Egypt, the sym- 
 bol of this blood, being merely sprinkled on 
 the door-posts, possessed such virtue and 
 efficacy, the truth and reality is infinitely 
 more efficacious. ""It death so much feared 
 the figure and the shadow, how much', let me 
 ask you, will it not fear the reality? ■•••Thus 
 every time we partake of this body and taste 
 this blood, let us think that HE who sitteth 
 in heaven and whom the angels adore, is the 
 self-same whom we taste and receive here 
 below." 
 
 "But what! Do you not see these ves- 
 sels, upon the altar, of dazzling brightness 
 and purity? Our souls ought to be still 
 more resplendent with purity and sanctity. 
 And why so? Because if these vessels are 
 so well polished, it is on our account; they 
 
*29» 
 
 can neither taste nor feel Him whom they 
 contain, but we most certainly." . ... 
 
 " Consider O man ! the royal table is laid 
 out, the angels attend: the King himself is 
 present : and thou remainest in a stupid in- 
 difference! Thy garments are soiled, and 
 thou carest not? But they are clean thou 
 wilt say. Well then, adore and comma- 
 
 Here is the " miracle" stated, the caution 
 of the secret discipline removed, because he 
 spoke to the "initiated;" tire true body and 
 blood of Jesus Christ, presented, ^ adored," 
 and received in the Eucharist. This is the 
 " unbroken connexion," which you told us 
 is so favourable to the Protestant " bread 
 and wine." This too, is from one of those 
 Fathers over whose testimony you charged 
 me with having passed lightly. Would you 
 venture to preach this doctrine in any Pres- 
 byterian pulpit in the city? The people 
 would stare, for matters have changed as re- 
 gards their mere shadow, of that adorable 
 mystery of the Eucharist, which a Chrysos- 
 tom proclaimed with such fervent eloquence 
 to the people of Antioch, 1400 years ago. 
 Pronounced in a Catholic pulpit, however, it 
 would be listened to as the ordinary doctrine 
 of the church, which teaches now, as she 
 taught when she numbered the Chrysostoms, 
 the°Augustines, the Ambroses, the Cyrils, 
 the Gregories, the Jeromes, the Cyprians, the 
 Iren^uses, and the other lights of primitive 
 Christianity among her disciples, her doc- 
 tors and defenders, against the heresies of 
 wicked men. 
 
 Let us now look into that "better light 
 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers," in which we 
 are told that the " last traces of Romanism 
 disappear." To avoid repetition, I request 
 the reader to turn to my last letter, and he 
 will see what Mr. Breckinridge calls "Ro- 
 manism," strongly asserted, in the testimo- 
 nies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers there quoted. 
 But I will add one quotation more, from 
 Justin. Martyr, who was put to death in the 
 year of our Lord, one hundred and sixty-six. 
 In his apology to the Emperor Antonnius 
 Pius, he says, describing the celebration of 
 the mysteries, — "Our prayers being finished, 
 we embrace one another with the kiss ol 
 peace. Then to him who presides over the 
 brethren, is presented bread, and wine tem- 
 pered with water, having received which, he 
 gives glory to the Father of all things in the 
 name of the Son and the Holy Ghost, and 
 returns thanks, in many prayers, that he has 
 been deemed worthy of these gifts. These 
 offices being duly performed, the whole as- 
 
 sembly, in acclamation, answers, Amen; 
 when the ministers, whom we call Deacons, 
 distribute to each one present a portion of 
 the blessed bread, and the wine and water. 
 Some is also taken to the absent. This food 
 we call the Eucharist, of which they alone 
 are allowed to partake, who believe the 
 doctrines taught by us, and who have been 
 regenerated by water for the remission of 
 sins, and who live as Christ ordained. Nor 
 do we take these gifts as common bread, and 
 common drink; but as Jesus Christ, our Sa- 
 viour, made man, by the word of God, took 
 flesh and blood for our salvation: in the 
 same manner, we have often been taught 
 that the food whtch has been blessed by the 
 prayer of the words which he spake, and by 
 which our blood and flesh, in the change, 
 are nourished, is iHE flesh and blood of 
 that Jesus incarnate. The Apostles in 
 the commentaries written by them, which are 
 called Guspels,* have delivered, that Jesus so 
 commanded, when taking bread, having given 
 thanks, he said: ' Dj this in remembrance of 
 me : This is my body.'' In like manner, tak- 
 ing the cup, and giving thanks, he said: 
 'This is my blood:' and that he distributed 
 both to them only." (Apol. 1. p. 95. Lon- 
 don Edit. 1722.) 
 
 This testimony was given about half a cen- 
 tury, after the death of St. John the Evan- 
 gelist, and it is so strongly Catholic, that no 
 Protestant would dare to repeat it in his pul- 
 pit, except as " one of the errors of Popery." 
 I might multiply quotations from the Fa- 
 thers, into the extent of a volume. But 
 what I have already produced, must suffice, 
 especially as you have nothing positive to 
 oppose them with — for I confess that three 
 sentences of St. Justin, St. Ignatius, TertuU 
 lian, or St. Cyprian, who were the almost 
 immediate successors of the Apostles— three 
 sentences from any of these, attesting the 
 real presenee of Christ's flesh in the Euchar- 
 ist, has more authority in my mind, than a 
 thousand letters filled with Mr. Breckin- 
 ridge's cavils, objections, and assertions. 
 
 On communion under one kind, I refer 
 him to Letter No- XXIX, where 1 showed 
 by arguments also unanswered, that the same 
 reasoning which would make it the right of 
 all to receive under both kinds, would 
 equally make it the right of all to conse- 
 crate. Until Mr. B. shall have condescend- 
 ed to notice my arguments, as I stated them, 
 I shall not consider his objections of mere 
 assertion, worthy of further reply. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge says, that I " take it for 
 granted, that the only thing concealed (by 
 
300 
 
 the discipline of the secret,) was the doc- 
 trine of the Eucharist." I never said any 
 such thing, noe-did I ever take it for granted. 
 This answer will be sufficient. 
 
 He says, " that there is no evidence that 
 the doctrine of the Eucharist was among the 
 doctrinal mysteries at all." Now, with all 
 due deference to Mr. Faber, from whom Mr. 
 Breckinridge copies the assertion, I shall 
 show that they are both mistaken. St. Au- 
 gustine, I should suppose, is a better wit- 
 ness, than either. " What," says he, " is 
 there hidden in the church? The Sacra- 
 ments of Baptism, and the Eucharist. The 
 Pagans see our good works, but not our Sa- 
 craments." (1 in Psal. 103.) 
 
 Mr. B. says the " discipline of the secret 
 originated in the second century." Tertul- 
 lian says in his Apology, "It is the common 
 law of all mysteries to keep them secret." 
 And common sense shows, that this disci- 
 pline would have been useless, if the Pagans 
 or uninitiated, had, at any time previously, 
 been acquainted with these mysteries. 
 
 Immediately after this, M. B. falls into 
 another train of blunders and misrepresen- 
 tations by following Mr. Stanley Faber. 
 Blandina the slave was tortured to make her 
 conless and disclose the " secret" of the 
 Christian mysteries. She replied, says the 
 original, " libere ct scite," that is, -'freely 
 and prudently ;" which Faber translated 
 "freely and boldly." Irena:us, who relates 
 the affair, was praising the constancy of 
 these martyrs and the prudence of Blandina, 
 who, though a slave, answered so prudently 
 that she betrayed nothing of the Christian 
 mysteries. Mr. Faber puts the word " bold- 
 ly," instead of " prudently," or " adroitly," 
 in order to make it appearthat Blandina had 
 no secret to confess. Mr. Breckinridge fol- 
 lows Mr. Faber, and neither, unfortunately 
 for their argument, follows exactly the truth. 
 
 Mr. Breckenridge in reference to this, 
 says, " these Christians denied from first to 
 last that it was literal flesh and blood which 
 was served up to them. " Was not this," he 
 asks, "a denial of the real presence?" Not 
 at all, Rev. Sir — Catholics believe in the real 
 presence, and in transubstantiation now, as 
 they did when Blandina was tortured — and 
 yet they do not say that they eat " literal 
 flesh." They do not, as Mr. B. constantly 
 misrepresents, hold that the flesh of Christ is 
 present in the Eucharist, in the natural con- 
 dition of human flesh. This I have repeatedly 
 explained in the course of these letters. But 
 still he does not hesitate to borrow the arti- 
 fice of Mr. Faber, in order to make the doc- 
 
 trine appear shocking to the minds of Pro- 
 testants. For this, even the purity of our 
 language must be sacrificed, to put forth 
 the solicisms of "literal flesh" and 
 "literal blood." The object of this is 
 to reflect on Protestant minds, ideas of 
 gross misconception — which wiH operate 
 instead of argument. We never hear of a 
 "literal" house, a ''literal" loaf of bread, or 
 a "■literaV stage-coach drawn by "literal" 
 horses. The word "literal" cannot be ap- 
 plied to a material object. Yet these gentle- 
 men would barbarize the language, in order 
 to pervert the doctrine of the Eucharist which 
 they cannot refute. (See St. Aug. De verb. 
 Apost. Serm. 2.) 
 
 Mr. B. says I perverted his argument 
 touching the manner of Christ's entrance into 
 the closed apartment where the disciples 
 were. His words, he says, were these: — 
 
 " Do you forget that Christ 
 had power miraculously to 
 open a passage for his body 
 through the door or wall, 
 and close it again." 
 
 I made him say, " that 
 Christ could ternove out of 
 the wall or door, space for 
 his body to enter by, and 
 then close it up again." 
 
 I willingly submit it to the reader whether 
 I have perverted, or Mr. B. has accused me 
 of it, without cause. He then refers to a sub- 
 ject, which he ought to wish forgotten, and 
 insinuates still that there is a "prohibition" 
 to read his letters. Does he forget, or does 
 he suppose that the public forgets, the man- 
 ner in which he crept out of this false and 
 unfounded charge, by exposing his friend 
 Mr. Burtt to the pity, or the contempt of our 
 common readers? 
 
 Then, as if frightened at the Nestorianism 
 of his former letter, Mr. Breckinridge shrinks 
 back from his declaration that " it was ido- 
 latry to worship the body of Jesus Christ." 
 But shunning Nestorianism, he seems to lean 
 to the heresy of Eutyches, and tells us that 
 " the Divinity and humanity are inseparably 
 blended in the person of Jesus Christ." A 
 better theology would have taught him to say 
 that the two natures are " inseparably unit- 
 ed" Even at Princeton, I am persuaded this 
 distinction would be recognized. He says 
 .that in transubstantiation we worship the 
 "body aZone." I reply, that when he thus 
 asserts what is untrue, he must expect to^be 
 contradicted. We worship Jesus Christ,* his 
 human and divine nature being as insepara- 
 bly united in the mystery of the holy Eucha- 
 rist as in that of-the Incarnation. 
 
 As to his "exposures of the sacrifice of 
 mass," I can see only his assertions foe them. 
 I have seen no refutation of my arguments 
 and authorities on that subject. He casts an 
 
301 
 
 imputation on my motives, by calling the sa- 
 crifice of mass "my chief gain." In reply 
 to this indelicate allusion, 1 have only to re- 
 peat, that if I coulil consent to give up my 
 soul for "gain," I should become a Protestant 
 at once. So far as the advantages of this 
 world are concerned in the matter, the scale 
 greatly preponderates in favour of Protest- 
 antism. 
 
 Now we come to " Pope Liberius." On 
 this, I have only to say, that whether he 
 signed the Arian creed or not, is a matter 
 of very little moment to the present ques- 
 tion. He might have signed it, and yet from 
 the act, none of those awful consequences 
 which Mr. Breckinridge is pleased to imag- 
 ine, would necessarily follow. Besides even 
 Mr. Breckinridge, whilst he accuses him, as- 
 cribes the act to compulsion, " through the 
 fear of death." Neither was Athanasius 
 condemned, even by the Arians, as a Here- 
 tic, but only as a disturber of the peace. 
 What Liberius is charged with having 
 done, was not the act of a free agent — 
 since, (if done at all,) it was done "through 
 fear of death" — as even his enemies ac- 
 knowledge. Though this persecuted Pon- 
 tiff had done what is charged, you must 
 remember that the defect, consisted, not 
 in signing a creed in which the Arian 
 heresy was approved, but in signing a creed 
 in which that heresy was not expressly con- 
 demned. The word ' consubstantial' "of the 
 Nicene Council, was omitted, and this omis- 
 sion was used by the Arians, as a proof that 
 Liberius had approved their doctrine, which 
 in fact, he condemned, with the sufferings 
 and constancy of a martyr. 
 
 With regard to the Councils of Sirmium 
 and Ariminum, I have only to reply as be- 
 fore, that no Council acknowledged by the 
 Catholic church, signed the Arian creed. 
 None but Mr. Breckinridge could discover 
 in this answer, the "admission that the said 
 Councils did adopt the Arian heresy." He 
 can extract admission and deduce conse- 
 quences, no matter what is said. He fol- 
 lows this pretended admission to its pre- 
 tended consequences, and in two or three 
 sentences makes it appear that, " therefore, 
 it is an article of faith in the Roman church, 
 binding on all her members at this day, that 
 Jesus Christ was not God, -that his divinity, 
 is a figment, and Unitarians are right." 
 The Pope signed the Catholic Council, 
 which condemned the Arian heresy; "there- 
 fore," Catholics are bound to believe the 
 doctrines — which their church condemned!!! 
 
 This is patent logic. But Mr. Breckinridge 
 is not the first of that race, who 
 
 Without the care of knowing right from wrong, 
 Always appear decisive, clear, and strong, 
 Where others toil with philosophic force, 
 Their nimble nonsense takes a shorter course, 
 Flings at your head conviction in a lump, 
 And gains remote conclusions at a jump. 
 
 Next in order, comes the doctrine of "in- 
 tention," in which Mr. Breckinridge fol- 
 lows the lucubrations of a Mr. Waddle, who 
 has been put, on a fair way to immortality as 
 an author, by the insertion, in the Catholic 
 Miscellany, and triumphant refutation, of his 
 — twaddle. On this, also, I repeat, that until 
 Mr. Breckinridge can produce some motive 
 or interest, in heaven or on earth, in time or 
 in eternity, for a Priest's setting his mind de- 
 liberately in opposition to the "intention" 
 of the church, in the administration of the 
 Sacraments, his objection is utterly inadmis- 
 sible. Supposing that Baptism, according 
 to the Presbyterian mode, is administered 
 on the stage, in mockery, would the Sacra- 
 ment be administered? The answer of this 
 will justify the decision of the "church, 
 upon this point. Luther, in one of the pro- 
 positions condemned by Leo X.* maintained 
 that a Sacrament was validly administered 
 even though the Priest did it in jest: (non 
 serio, sedjoco.) 
 
 Against this error, the church renewed, in 
 the council of Trent, the doctrine which had 
 been defined before, in the Council of Flo- 
 rence in the year 1439, viz. that the sacra- 
 ments should be administered according to 
 the intention of the church, or according to 
 the end for which Jesus Christ instituted 
 them. Still, even it a clergyman should in- 
 tend to cheat the recipient of the sacrament, 
 (which is not to be admitted) yet the conse- 
 quences would not be such as Mr. B. so pa- 
 thetically describes. In one part of his let- 
 ter, he treats the sacrifice of mass as " idola- 
 try;" in another, he makes the delivery of 
 souls from purgatory depend on the validity 
 of this " idolatrous" act! Such, and simi- 
 lar consequences does he draw from his own 
 imagination. His objections are founded on 
 his ignorance of the Catholic doctrine, or his 
 powers of perverting it. In order, however, 
 to show this, let me suppose for argument 
 sake, the particular case which he imagines, 
 yet it will not follow, as he pretends, that, 
 according to our doctrine, " little children 
 are damned." For we do not consign un- 
 baptized infants to eternal damnation, as 
 Presbyterians do all except those who " pro- 
 fess the true religion, and their children." 
 
309 
 
 Again, in the sacrifice of mass the multitude 
 would not " be guilty of idolatry," as he pre- 
 tends; " for no Catholic teaches that the 
 mere external symbols are to be adored." 
 (Bellar. Lib. 4. "de Euch. c 29.) Neither 
 would "the marriage ceremony be invalid," 
 as he pretends; nor, for want of extreme 
 unction, " would all who died under their 
 hands be lost forever." All these are false 
 consequences, which you deduce, not from 
 our doctrine, but from ignorance or the mis- 
 representation of it. But the supposition is 
 not to be admitted, seeing that men are not 
 gratuitously wicked ; — and that, for the sacri- 
 ligious wickedness, here supposed, there is 
 no motive, in time or in eternity. 
 
 Then comes the " popular misrepresenta- 
 tion" about the "liberty of the press and 
 the iNauisiTioN." Touching these topics, 
 Mr. B. dilates with no inconsiderable pow- 
 ers of declamation. But declamation is a 
 sorry expedient in grave theological contro- 
 versy. The Church of Rome might be op- 
 posed to the Liberty of the Press, and yet, it 
 would not follow, as a necessary conse- 
 quence, that '" the Protestant religion is the 
 Religion of Christ." Mr. B. should not 
 have forgotten the fines and imprisonment 
 enacted by Presbyterians against such as 
 should read the Episcopal Common Prayer 
 Book. This fact among others, proves that 
 the church to which he belongs was the 
 tyrannical enemy of the Liberty of the Press, 
 when she had power to control it; and, that 
 she would be so again, if she had the power, 
 is the decided conviction of many enlighten- 
 ed Protestants in this country. 
 
 As for the committee at Rome, whose pro- 
 hibition of books, Mr. B. asserts, is " binding 
 on the whole church," I have only to answer, 
 that if he will take pains to be informed on 
 the subject, he will find that there are many 
 countries in which the prohibitory Index is 
 not acknowledged — for example, Fiance, 
 England, Ireland, and our own country. Of 
 course, in saying that he has " exposed «ie," 
 it happens that he has only "exposed him- 
 self." 
 
 He says that THE BIBLE is on the pro- 
 hibitory Index. He should have added, in 
 ' truth and candour, that it is the Protestant 
 Bible, in particular, and not the Bible, in ge- 
 neral, as his statement would lead the reader 
 to suppose. This prohibition is quite natural, 
 when it is recollected that Catholics regard 
 the Protestant Bible as a spurious version, 
 mistranslated, and containing only a part of 
 the sacred Scriptures. Throughout his let- 
 ters, Mr. B. has kept up this unfounded ac- 
 
 cusation, that the church is inimical to the 
 perusal of the sacred Scriptures. It may be 
 well to state a few facts to show how false is 
 this charge, and how groundless is this Pro- 
 testant clamour, kept up without cause. 
 
 The Catholic church, by whose ministry, 
 and to whose faith, all the nations of the 
 earth, that have abandoned Paganism, were 
 converted, has always been zealous to disse- 
 minate the sacred Scriptures among her chil- 
 dren. Witness the fact, that so early as the 
 fourth century, St. Augustine testifies that 
 " the number of those who had translated the 
 Scriptures from the Hebrew into the Greek 
 might be computed, but that the number of 
 those who had translated the Greek into the 
 Latin, could not be computed." At that 
 period, Latin, we should observe, was the 
 language of the Western Empire. 
 
 Again, in 1552, when the Maronite Chris- 
 tians returned to the communion of the 
 church, under Pope Julius III. anew edition 
 of the Syriac version was printed at Vienna, 
 and transmitted to Syria. 
 
 Pope Paul III. in 1548, published at Rome 
 an Ethiopic version of the New Testament, 
 for the use of the Christians in Ethiopia. 
 
 In 1591, an Arabic version of the whole 
 Bible was published at Rome. And in the 
 year 1671, another edition, in three volumes 
 folio, of the same version, from the press of 
 the Propaganda. 
 
 Again, in 1591, an Arabic version of the 
 four Gospels was printed at the Medicean 
 press in Rome, for the use of the Arabic 
 Christians in communion with the church. 
 
 Even in the Chinese language, notwith- 
 standing it is "So difficult and so few can read 
 it, a harmony of the four Gospels was pre- 
 pared by the Jesuits, and is mentioned with 
 praise by the British and Foreign Bible So- 
 ciety in their first Report. 
 
 The fact is, that as soon as printing was 
 invented, the church availed herself of the 
 discovery, for the purpose of multiplying co- 
 pies of the Scripture in every language. Lu- 
 ther's translation in Germany in 1522 and 
 1530, had been preceded nearly a century, 
 
 1. by the Catholic edition of Fust, printed at 
 Mentz in 1462. 2. By that of Bemler, print- 
 ed at Augsburg, 1467. And 3. By the four 
 versions which Beausobre mentions in his 
 4th book of the History of the Reformation. 
 
 The French Protestant version is that of 
 Olivetan assisted by Calvin, published in 
 1537, it had been preceded by different Catho- 
 lic versions. First, the New Testament by Ju- 
 lian the Augustinian Monk, printed in 1477. 
 
 2. A version of the whole Bible, by Guyards 
 
303 
 
 des Moulins, printed 1490. 3. By that of 
 Estaple, printed , the New Testament in 1 523, 
 the Old Testament, in 1528. 
 
 The Italian Protestant version was printed 
 in 1562. It had been preceded by, 1. the 
 Catholic version of Malermis, in 1471. 2. 
 By that ot Brucciolis, in 1532; on which the 
 Protestant translation was generally founded. 
 
 In Belgium, the first Protestant transla- 
 tion was that of Luther, published in 1527, 
 It had been preceded by a Catholic version of 
 the four Gospels, printed in 1472; and by 
 another Catholic version of the whole Bible, 
 printed at Cologne, in 1475; and again at 
 Delft, in 1477; at Gouda, in 1479, and both 
 at Antwerp, in 1518. It is useless to extend 
 the testimonies ; when it is well known that 
 in Italy alone, and with the Pope's approba- 
 tion, more than TWENTY editions of the 
 Bible, have been published in the vulgar 
 tongue. 
 
 With'these facts on historical record, is it 
 not surprising to hear ignorant Protestants, 
 misleading other Protestants, yet more igno- 
 rant than themselves, by the false charge 
 against the Catholic Church, that she is hostile 
 to the Scriptures ? The rules established sub- 
 sequently, by the Church to regulate the use 
 of the Holy Scriptures, were dictated by the 
 glaring abuse to which the sacred Volume 
 was exposed in the hands of the Protestants, 
 during the fanaticism of the Reformation. 
 These abuses are acknowledged by learned 
 Protestants, no less than by Catholics. A 
 learned minister of the English Protestant 
 Church, describes some of these excesses, 
 and accounts for them, as Catholics do, not 
 by charging the Scriptures as the source of 
 impiety, buff by showing that they are liable 
 to be misunderstood, when left to the igno- 
 rance, and daring rashness of mere private 
 interpretation. As an example, he says, 
 "The private judgment of Munzer discov- 
 ered, in Scripture, that titles of nobility, and 
 large estates were 'impious encroachments 
 on the natural equality of the faithful,' and he 
 invited his followers to examine the Scrip- 
 tures whether these things were so?' They 
 examined — praised God — and proceeded 
 with fire and sword, to the extirpation of the 
 ungodly, and the seizure of their property. 
 Private judgment, also, thought it discover- 
 ed, in the Bible, that established laws were 
 « standing restraints on Christian lliberty;' 
 that the " elect were incapable of sinning," 
 and might innocently obey all the propensi- 
 ties of nature." 
 
 "John of Leyden, laying down his thimble, 
 and taking up his Bible, surprised the city of 
 a* 
 
 Munster, at,the head of a rabble of frantic 
 enthusiasts, proclaimed himself 'King of 
 Zion,'-and ran naked through the streets, 
 vociferating that ' whatever • is highest on 
 earth, would be brought low, and whatever 
 is lowest, should be exalted.' To keep his 
 word, he made his common executioner, his 
 minister of state, and his minister of state, 
 his common executioner. Improving on the 
 example of the Patriarchs, he 'took unto 
 him' fourteen wives at once, affirming, that 
 Polygamy was Christian liberty, and the 
 privilege of the Saints.' " (Thoughts on 
 the tendency of Bible Societies, p. 8.) 
 
 When Europe presented spectacles of this 
 kind, wherever the Reformation prevailed, 
 and when the actors referred to texts of Scrip- 
 ture for the justification of their doctrines and 
 conduct, was it not natural, nay more, I would 
 ask the sober judgment of Protestants, was 
 it not even wise, in the church to establish 
 regulations for the right use of the sacred 
 Scriptures? But the facts submitted above 
 amply vindicate the church from the ignorant 
 and unfounded charge of being hostile to their 
 dissemination: even if we had not the express 
 declaration of Pope Pius VI. who, in a letter 
 to Martini, on his translation of the Bible 
 into Italian, says: "that the faithful should 
 be excited to the reading of the holy Scrip- 
 tures: for these are the most abundant 
 sources which ought to be left open to every 
 one, to draw from them purity of morals and 
 of doctrine, to eradicate the errors which 
 are widely disseminated in these corrupt 
 times." (See this letter prefixed to every 
 Catholic Bible.) 
 
 If Mr. Breckinridge were better inform- 
 ed, he would know that the placing of a 
 book on the Index at Rome, does not neces- 
 sarily imply the condemnation of the whole 
 work. Aud if Locke, Milton, Galileo, and 
 so forth, be on the catalogue, it is not be- 
 cause the authors were good poets, or philo- 
 sophers, but because they were bad theolo- 
 gians. But I am at no loss to conceive the 
 opinion which the intelligent reader will 
 form of my opponent's acquaintance with 
 the history of literature, when he reads the 
 following assertion. " This is a war of ex- 
 termination waged by the authority of the 
 church against letters, liberty, and con- 
 science!" Thousands of learned Protes- 
 tants, enemies of the church, no less than 
 Mr. Breckinridge, have acknowledged, that 
 to the zeal of the church, and to the labours 
 of the monks, the world is indebted at this 
 day for the preservation of ancient litera- 
 ture. As for " liberty" and "conscience," 
 
304 
 
 they are words which Mr. Breckinridge 
 plays off, to catch the popular sympathy. 
 I contend, and in the course of these letters 
 have shown, that "liberty," and "con- 
 science," never had a deadlier enemy to 
 struggle against, than Presbyterianism in 
 power. Then he appeals to a " free peo- 
 ple;" — as if engaged to carry a favourite can- 
 didate at an election, instead of furnishing 
 arguments to show that 4 ' the Protestant Re- 
 ligion is the Religion of Christ." 
 
 Next follows his attack on the "JESU- 
 ITS," in which, instead of admitting with 
 the candour of a generous mind, that such a 
 Society is not to be condemned for the vices 
 of a few of its members — he attacks them in 
 globo. He repeats the slanders with which 
 they were attacked by the infidels of Eu- 
 rope; for it is their glory, that infidels have 
 always laboured for their destruction. This 
 is proved by the private correspondence of 
 Voltaire and D'Alembert, in which, plot- 
 ting the destruction of Christianity, these 
 patriarchs of Deism, acknowledged that there 
 was no hope of success, unless the Jesuits 
 were first put down. Every base artifice was 
 resorted to, to blind the judgment, and rouse 
 the enmity of kings and governments, 
 against the Society. The Pope who sup- 
 pressed it, made no charge of immorality 
 against them; but acted with a view to 
 avert the hurricane of civil persecution, 
 which their enemies had excited against 
 them, from every quarter. With reference 
 to their persecution, by the Portuguese go- 
 vernment, a liberal Protestant says, speak- 
 ing of their college in Pernambuco, "Reader 
 throw a veil over thy recollection for a little 
 while, and forget the cruel, unjust, and un- 
 merited censures thou hast heard against an 
 unoffending order. This palace was once 
 the Jesuits' College, and originally built by 
 those charitable fathers. Ask the aged and 
 respectable inhabitants of Pernambuco, and 
 they will tell thee, that the destruction of 
 the Society of Jesus, was a terrible disaster 
 to the public, and its consequence severely 
 felt to the present day." 
 
 " When Pombal took the reins of govern- 
 ment into his hands, virtue and learning 
 beamed within the college walls. Public ca- 
 techism to the children, and religious instruc- 
 tion to all, flowed daily from the mouths of 
 its venerable priests. They were loved, re- 
 vered, and respected throughout the whole 
 town. The illuminating philosophers of the 
 day had sworn to exterminate Christian know- 
 ledge, and the college of Pernambuco was 
 doomed to founder in the general storm. To 
 
 the long-lasting sorrow and disgrace of Por"* 
 tugal, the philosophers blinded her king, and 
 flattered her prime minister. Pombal was 
 exactly the tool these sappers of every public 
 and private virtue wanted. He had the naked 
 sword of power in his own hand, and his 
 heart was as hard as flint. He struck a mor- 
 tal blow, and the society of Jesus, throughout 
 the Portuguese dominions, was no more." — 
 (Wanderings in S. America, &c By Charles 
 Waterton, Esq. p. 82.) 
 
 When the Jesuits can point to testimonies 
 like the above, in a hundred Protestant au- 
 thors, the authority of any one of whom is 
 equal, at least, to that of Mr. Breckinridge, 
 they may bear with great equanimity those 
 slanders, propagated against them in Europe 
 by the sworn enemies of the name of Christ, 
 and of which, it was the singular honour of 
 the society to be the distinguished victims. 
 
 Mr. B. tells us that " one*, guileless Pro- 
 testants confided their children to the train- 
 ing of these men. But it is becoming appa- 
 rent they will do so no more." This unlucky 
 sentence shows an ulterior motive for the at- 
 tack on the Jesuits. And for the consolation 
 of my Rev. opponent, I can assure him that 
 so far from this being the fact, the number of 
 Protestant students in the Jesuits' college in 
 Georgetown is, of late, much augmented, and 
 daily increasing. Some, and not a few, of 
 the most learned and distinguished citizens 
 of our country, prefer that Institution for the 
 education of their sons. And so long as the 
 public mind is imbued with knowledge and 
 discernment, the education imparted in a col- 
 lege of Jesuits will be preferred to that which 
 Presbyterian Institutions are in the habit of 
 administering. Much calumniated as the 
 Jesuits have been, even their enemies have 
 acknowledged them to be the most learned 
 body of men that ever laboured in the work 
 of education. 
 
 We are next introduced to the INQUISI- 
 TION, on which Mr. B., like his predeces- 
 sors, is quite pathetic. Of this I said, "it 
 may have been a good Institution — abused." 
 And I am sure that there is nothing criminal 
 in this reply. Now its abuses I condemn as 
 much as Mr. B. himself. But it is manifest 
 that he has derived his knowledge of the In- 
 quisition, not from any critical, candid in- 
 vestigation of the Institution, or of the cir- 
 cumstances which must be taken into consi- 
 deration, to form even a just idea of it. Pro- 
 testants, generally, imbibe their notions of it 
 from distorted portraits of hostile writers. 
 
 If Mr. B. wishes to be correctly informed ? 
 let him consult the history of the Inquisition 
 
305 
 
 by Count Le Maistre, which may be purchas- 
 ed at Mr. Cummiskey's book store, in Sixth 
 street, above Spruce. Until he give some 
 proof that he has read some author not avow- 
 edly hostile, what I have said is sufficient in 
 reply to charges founded either on ignorance 
 or misrepresentation. For the information of 
 the reader, however, I would remark that the 
 doctrines of the Catholic religion and the tri- 
 bunal of the Inquisition are essentially dis- 
 tinct, the one from the other — which is proved 
 by the fact that only in two or three countries 
 in the whole Catholic world was the Inquisi- 
 tion ever established. 
 
 But does Mr. B. forget that, as has already 
 been shown, Protestants put to death their 
 fellow Protestants, for exercising the mere 
 liberty of conscience ? Does he forget the 
 Protestant, as well as Catholic blood, shed 
 by the Presbyterians in Geneva, Holland, 
 England, Ireland, Scotland, and New Eng- 
 land itself? Does he forget the barbarous acts 
 of the British parliament and Scotch assem- 
 bly against the Catholics, during a period of 
 three hundred years ? What were all these 
 but the "Inquisition," under other and more 
 refined names? Does he forget the "scaven- 
 ger's daughter" and other instruments of tor- 
 ture, used in the Tower of London, by Eliza- 
 beth and her successors? Does he forget that 
 the eighth act of the Presbyterian Assembly 
 of 1699, directed " that according to the for- 
 mer acts of assemblies and acts of parliament, 
 the names of Popish priests and Jesuits, and 
 trafficking Papists, and of tiiose who have 
 sent their children to Popish colleges and 
 countries* be given in to each provincial 
 synod, and by them transmitted to the re- 
 spective magistrates, to the effect that they 
 may be proceeded against according to law." 
 What is all this but the Inquisition — under 
 other names? 
 
 But what after all is the object of these 
 questions about the liberty of the press, the 
 Jesuits, the. Inquisition, &c &c ? The object 
 is manifest. Unable to prove that " the Pro- 
 testant religion is the religion of Christ," ot- 
 to answer my arguments in proof of the con- 
 trary, he endeavours to divert public atten- 
 tion from the real question, and to entrench 
 himself in a position better suited to his re- 
 sources — where he hopes to sustain himself, 
 if not by argument, at least by the prejudices 
 of popular feeling. To this popular feeling- 
 he thinks to betray me, by putting me on the 
 defence of the Jesuits, the Inquisition, and 
 so forth. He seems to have taken the hint 
 from the policy of those who said, " Master, 
 is it lawful to pay tribute to Csesar or not?" 
 
 Next in order are the "JEWISH TRA- 
 DITIONS," of which I said, that " so far as 
 they regarded the proof of the Jewish faith, 
 before the coming of Christ, I do not reject 
 them." From this answer Mr. B. draws the 
 inference that, "of course all their tradi- 
 tions to that time were infallible." I answer 
 no; but only those that appertained to^the 
 "proof of the Jewish faith." These our Sa- 
 viour did not touch, in his rebuke to the Pha- 
 rasees, but only those false traditions which 
 did not appertain to the u proof of their faith." 
 Why was it necessary to change the answer? 
 If fairly dealt with, it excludes all the false 
 consequences which he deduces from his 
 own perversion of it. 
 
 Mr. B. asks, " is there any evidence of the 
 Pope's supremacy, before the Council of 
 Nice?" He says no — / answer yes« And I 
 refer him to the proofs which I have already 
 adduced from the writing of St. Cyprian, Ire- 
 naeus and other Ante-Nicene Fathers, and 
 which he has not denied, nor yet attempted 
 to refute. But another " evidence" is the 
 fact, that in the first century, while some of 
 the Apostles were still living, a dispute, which 
 arose in the church at Corinth, was referred 
 to Pope Clement, Bishop of Rome, and settled 
 by his authority. The epistle which he ad- 
 dressed to the Corinthians on the occasion is 
 still extant. In it he calls the " divisions 
 which had just appeared among them, im- 
 pious and detestable." He says, " to Fortu- 
 natus," (who had carried their appeal to him) 
 " we have added four deputies : send them 
 back as speedily as possible in peace, that ice 
 may be informed of the return of union and 
 peace among you, for which we pray without 
 ceasing: and that we may be enabled to re- 
 joice at the re-establishment of good order 
 among our brethren at Corinth." This very 
 appeal, from Corinth to Rome, and this send- 
 ing of " deputies" to settle the dispute, are 
 at once, the recognition and the exercise of 
 the Pope's supremacy. But to this, and the 
 several instances already mentioned, we might 
 add many others still. Eusebius tells us, that 
 [renaeus remonstrated with the Pope, Victor, 
 against the excommunication of the Bishop of 
 — Asia. "He becomingly also," says Euse- 
 bius, " admonishes Victor, not to cut off whole 
 churches of God, who observed the tradition 
 of an ancient custom." (Chap.24. p. 209-210.) 
 Does not th\s entreaty acknowledge his su- 
 premacy ? And all this was before the Council 
 of Nice. 
 
 Mr. B. asks, " did the second Council of 
 Pisa decree a Reformation in faith or not?" 
 
306 
 
 I answer, that no Catholic Council — no Coun- 
 cil acknowledged by the church, ever decreed 
 a Reformation in faith. 
 
 He asks," did the Council of Lateran pass 
 an anathema against those rulers, who should 
 tax ecclesiastics ?" I reply that it expressly 
 referred to extortions exacted from ecclesias- 
 tics by petty tyrants, contrary to the immuni- 
 ties secured to them by previously existing 
 laws. 
 
 With regard, finally, to " Extreme Unc- 
 tion," Mr. B. infers that in as much as I have 
 not specified the time of its institution, as a 
 sacrament, therefore it was not established at 
 all. I answer, that the fact of its existence 
 is clearly established by the text of St. James, 
 quoted in my last letter. And besides, his 
 reasoning is not only illogical, but anti-scrip- 
 tural ; since St. John tells us that " there are 
 also many other things which Jesus did," 
 which are not written. Mr. B. charges me 
 with "contradicting the Council of Trent." 
 The Council says, "this sacrament was first 
 intimated in Mark vi. 13. And I said that it 
 was not administered then. Where is the 
 contradiction? Neither did an Apostle in- 
 stitute it. But an Apostle, St. James, in the 
 fifth chapter of his epistle, attests its existence, 
 and enjoins the use of it. The Council does 
 not contradict itself, as Mr. B. says, but he 
 invents a supposition for the Council, and 
 draws the pretended contradiction from his 
 own invention, on the one side, and from what 
 the Council really did say on the other; on 
 these he forms his " dilemma from which," he 
 says, " it is impossible to escape ! !" But 
 " i/," says he, " this sacrament was instituted, 
 Mark vi. 13. (as it was, if ever) then the 
 Apostles administered a sacrament, not being 
 priests ; but the Council of Trent says that 
 Bishops and Priests are the proper ministers 
 of this sacrament." Whence he concludes 
 that the Council contradicts itself. Now the 
 council did not say that it was instituted or 
 administered in Mark vi. 13. hut only "inti- 
 mated." Which proves that the Council did 
 not err, did not contradict itself, but merely 
 contiadicts Mr. Breckinridge. 
 
 Before I pass to the various attempts of Mr. 
 B. to answer the five " stale questions," which 
 appertain immediately to the topic of discus- 
 sion, I must be allowed to make a few gene- 
 ral remarks. The first is, that, from the 
 commencement of the controversy, instead of 
 preserving unity of subject, in that simple, but 
 lucid order which men who write with the love 
 of truth are studious to preserve, he, in open 
 violation of the rules subscribed by himself, 
 
 has continued to crowd letter after letter with 
 matter altogether extraneous from the sub- 
 ject. Every succeeding letter from his pen 
 is but a more confused repetition of the same 
 subjects, on which, from the 2d to the last, he 
 has continued to ring the changes. If he had, 
 as he was bound to do, given but one, or, at 
 most, two subjects in each of his letters, al- 
 lowing me to do -the same, then our letters 
 might have been equally instructive, to both 
 catholics and protestants. But this did not 
 suit Mr. B. When I argued on the Rule of 
 Faith, he argued on persecution, purgatory, 
 &c. <fec. When I argued against the preten- 
 sions of the Protestant Religion, he argued 
 against the Jesuits and the Inquisition, al- 
 though "the Rule of Faith," and "the Pro- 
 testant Religion" were the only subjects on 
 which, until they should be exhausted, he was 
 authorised by a mutual engagement, to write. 
 What says the world of those who deliberately 
 break their engagements? 
 
 Again, in upright controversy, no man 
 charges on the cause of his opponent doctrines 
 or principles, which his opponent disclaims, 
 as not belonging to the cause. Yet has Mr. 
 B. compelled me again and again to disclaim 
 the same falsely imputed principles and tenets. 
 He has acted throughout, on the assumption, 
 that he knows the Catholic religion better 
 than I do, and that he is to be believed in 
 preference : although, in so many instances I 
 have convicted him of ignorance respecting 
 it, and of the natural consequence of igno- 
 rance — misrepresentation. Of his false quo- 
 tations in general, I shall not say any thing. 
 A flagrant instance, is still fresh in the memo- 
 ry of the public — in the case of Baronius. 
 
 Finally, he writes a letter, in which he re- 
 asserts objections and arguments that have 
 been answered by facts, authorities and rea- 
 soning in the progress of the discussion— 
 assP7-ts that, they have not been refuted, and 
 with this letter, proposes to close the contro- 
 versy ! ! Now I have the right to reply, and 
 the reader will perceive that I have replied 
 without broaching either new matter, or new 
 arguments. 
 
 Besides the fact that Mr. B. has crowded all 
 the sophistries of all his letters, into this last 
 production, to which, it seems, he took it for 
 granted that I would not claim the right of 
 replying, he issues in it a recommendation to 
 the public, of many of the vilest productions, 
 that have ever been written against catholics 
 and their religion. I may mention, as a sam- 
 ple, the pretended " Secreta Monita" of the 
 Jesuits, a work which even the bigoted Leslie 
 
307 
 
 Foster, acknowledged in the British House 
 of Commons, to be a « forgery," got up by their 
 enemies. It was worthy of Princeton to have 
 published this " forgery," and of the Presbyte- 
 rian clergy to recommend this infamous work 
 to the " American people," as containing a 
 faithful expose of the secret maxims of that 
 calumniated body. If he wished his Protest- 
 ant readers to be acquainted with the doctrines 
 of the Catholics, to learn how lacked they are, 
 he should have told them to read approved 
 Catholic books, explaining their doctrines, and 
 ffivincr reasons for their belief. But he re- 
 commends, instead of these, the " Secreta . 
 Monita," a forgery, and the " Key to Popery, ] 
 whose very title indicates its enmity. Sin- 
 cere minds will see through the object of all 
 
 ^But what has become of THE QUESTION, 
 in the mean while ] » Is the Protestant Reli- 
 gion THE REEIGION OF CHRIST]" 
 
 1 Mr B. has never ventured to tell us what 
 the Protestant Religion is'?— Except that it is 
 « the Religion of the Reformation." This is de- 
 fining a thing by itself— and according to this, 
 a ma°n has only to protest against the Catholic 
 Church— then he is a member of the Protestant 
 Religion; and, what is the same thing, (it we 
 may "believe Mr. B.) a member of the Religion of 
 Christ ! All this, simply by protesting against 
 
 °2dQuestion : " Did any society of Christians, 
 previous to Luther, ever profess the doctrines ot 
 Protestantism in general, or of any sect of it, in 
 particular]" _ , 
 
 Mr B. in his last letter proceeds to the final 
 settlement of this question. " You will admit 
 says he, " that the doctrines taught by the Apos- 
 tles, and recorded in the Bible are true Chris- 
 tianity— so do I." All correct. " We both al- 
 low also," he continues, "that these doctrines 
 have been according to Christ's promise to his 
 church, held and taught by the true church ever 
 since." All correct again; so far I could not 
 have framed a better argument on the Catholic 
 side For since the doctrines of Christ have 
 been « held and taught" at all times by the true 
 church, as he acknowledges ;— and, since he can- 
 not find in the whole world, previous to Luther, a 
 ociety of Christians who "held and taught as 
 Protestants do, therefore, the claims of Protest- 
 antism to be the true religion of Christ, are cut 
 off, by his own argument. But let us see the 
 conclusion which he draws from the above pre- 
 mises. "Then" says he, "if your doctrines 
 contradict the Bible at every step, and if ours 
 harmonize with it, it follows that we are the true 
 church, and that our doctrines have been taught and 
 held in every age." Then, he goes on to show 
 that the " ifs " on which the sophistry of his con- 
 clusion turns, are no obstacle— " 1 have proved— 
 I have proved— I have proved"— as though he 
 had in fact " proved" any thing, except his ma- 
 ■ ity to prove what he had undertaken to prove; 
 
 viz. " that the Protestant Religion is the Religion 
 of Christ." He first said that the Waldenses,— 
 then, the Greeks,— then, the Ante-Nicene Fa- 
 thers "held and taught" the doctrines of Protest- 
 antism. I leave it to the reader whether, in 
 every instance, I have not proved the contrary. 
 At last he retreats to the Bible, (just as Unita- 
 rians do,) and tells us that the Protestant doc- 
 trines are the doctrines of that divine book, 
 (which I deny) therefore they must have been 
 "held and taught" by the true church, from the 
 commencement, although he cannot tell by whom, 
 or where! 
 
 3d Question : " Whether Christ revealed all 
 the doctrines of Protestantism, beginning with 
 Episcopalianism and ending with Unitananism. 
 This remains as it was before his last letter. He 
 does not venture to repeat the assertion, that 
 Christ could have revealed contradictory doc- 
 trines. 
 
 4th Question: "Whether the Reformers re- 
 ceived any new ministerial authority, to supply 
 the place of that which the Church recalled from 
 them, in their excommunication]" To this he 
 replies, that " if a minister of Christ is deposed 
 lor refusing to sin, the deposition is null and 
 void." This is not the question. The question 
 is by what new ministerial authority did the 
 Reformers create new religions] For no soc le ty 
 of Christians, as we have seen, ever "held and 
 tauo-ht" their doctrines before. 
 
 This has been acknowledged by the Reformers 
 themselves. Luther says expressly, that "for a 
 loner time he stood alone." Calvin, in his letter 
 to Melanchthon in 1552, says, " we have been 
 obliged to separate from the whole world. 
 This is undeniably manifest. Whence then, 
 « standing alone," excommunicated by the church, 
 and " separated from the whole world, — 
 whence their new authority 1 It was not from 
 men If it was from God, God would have seal- 
 ed this new work with the power of miracles. 
 Did the Reformers ever prove by this test, that 
 God had sent them] Erasmus, who was ac- 
 quainted with them, says, " they could not so 
 so much as cure a lame horse." By their own 
 admission they separated from the church, and by 
 their own doctrine they are condemned for this 
 crime alone. Calvin tells us, that "to separate 
 from the church, is to renounce Jesus Lhnst. .... 
 Then, Calvin himself, must have "renounced 
 Jesus Christ," having, as he admits, "separated 
 from the whole world." . 
 
 The condemnation of Athanasius by the Arians, 
 furnishes no parallel to the case of the Reformers. 
 He was deposed by the violence of those Here- 
 tics, from whom he had received no authority. 
 But the Reformers were excommunicated by the 
 very church which had ordained them, and joined 
 themselves to no other society. Therefore, they 
 had no authority themselves, and consequently 
 could not transmit it to their successors. 
 
 In treating this question, Mr. B. labours, first, 
 to show that ordination and ministerial authority 
 in the Catholic church is, to use his favourite ex- 
 pression, a "figment," and then he contends that the 
 
308 
 
 Reformers in their suspension and excommunica- 
 tion, could not be deprived of this same ' figment,' 
 and thus proves that Presbyterian ministers are 
 something more than mere laymen ! ! On this 
 point I give him over to the rigid logic of Drs. Bow- 
 den, Cooke, Brittan,and others, who, whilst they 
 vindicate Catholic ordination on the one side, 
 prove to a demonstration on the other, that Pres- 
 byterian ordination is a " figment" indeed. 
 "Where there is no Episcopal ordination," says 
 Dodwell, " there is no ministry ; no sacrament ; 
 NO church. Men are out of the covenant of Grace, 
 and hope of salvation.'''' — 
 
 5th Question. The fifth question appertains 
 as a corollary to the solution of the fourth. 
 Since it is manifest, as we have seen, that the 
 first Reformers had received no "new ministerial 
 authority" it follows that the original deficiency 
 has not been supplied to their successors at any 
 subsequent period. Consequently, the right by 
 which the Protestant clergy, exercise the minis- 
 try is merely an assumption founded on a human 
 origin, but not derived from God, by any visible 
 order of derivation. The ordinary mission and 
 authority were cut off by their defection from the 
 Catholic church ; and there were no extraordi- 
 nary mission and authority ; for these are known 
 only by the evidence of miracles, to which the 
 Reformers, very wisely, never pretended. 
 
 Mr. B. unable to answer, in a satisfactory man- 
 ner, these five questions, is powerful in,his crimi- 
 nations against Catholicity. He sees nothing 
 but sects in the Catholic church; yet when I 
 called upon him to show so much as two Catho- 
 lics in the whole world, professing a different be- 
 lief on any article of faith ; he could not find 
 them. Throughout the universe, Catholics are 
 as united in their faith, as if they dwelt under the 
 same roof. The distinction between faith, opi- 
 nions, and mere local customs, has been pointed 
 out. 
 
 Towards the close of his letter, he makes an 
 allusion to the "table of sins," and whilst he 
 pretends that no parent should permit his child 
 to read it, he seems to forget that there are pas- 
 sages in the Bible which, on his own principle, it 
 is quite as improper for children to read, or hear, 
 or understand. 
 
 The last flourish of his letter is on the "ef- 
 fects OF THE REFORMATION." Hs SPiVS, " W6 are 
 
 indebted to the Reformation, under God, for the 
 rights of conscience, for civil liberty, for the re- 
 vival of letters in chief part, and for the circula- 
 tion of the Bible, for the virtue and piety of the 
 people, and the eternal salvation of innumerable 
 souls." All this is popular declamation, most of 
 it untrue, and contradicted by learned Protestants 
 themselves. The " salvation of souls," ascribed 
 to the Reformation is the only thing worth refuta- 
 tion. Mr. Haldane, a Protestant, in his Second 
 Review of the British and Foreign Bible Society, 
 represents the Protestants, not only of Germany, 
 but Sweden, Norway, Finland, Prussia, Hungary, 
 Holland and France, as consisting almost entirely 
 ef Arians, Socinians, Neologists, Rationalists and 
 
 I Deists. Does this, I would ask Mr. B., look like 
 " the salvation of innumerable souls W The Edi- 
 tor of the Presbyterian corroborates the above posi- 
 tion by telling us that the mother churches of Cal- 
 vinism in Geneva are sinking into " Atheism." 
 The Protestant Brandt, in his History of the Re- 
 formation, says in reference to morals-..-that 
 " vice, persecution, hatred, envy, and self-love, 
 have prevailed among them, (the Reformed;) that 
 every body accommodates the word of God to his 
 
 un ma/c- 
 , vol. i. 
 
 i of in- 
 
 own .prejudices / and has a gospel of his own mak- 
 ing." (Roache's Abridgment 
 p. 3.) Does this look like the " salvation of in- 
 numerable souls'?" But I have already given the 
 testimony of the Reformers themselves to prove 
 that morals deteriorated by the Reform. 
 
 Mr. B. has repeatedly made reference to those 
 portions of the Holy Scripture which Protestants 
 call Apocryphal. Now, in my letter No. 13, I 
 showed by unanswered proof and testimony, that 
 the objections raised by Protestants to those books, 
 are equally strong against all the deutero-canoni- 
 cal books. Let him take, and refute those argu- 
 ments. 
 
 With regard to the charge which he renews of 
 SUPPRESSING THE SECOND COMMAND- 
 MENT, (as Protestants divide the decalogue) I 
 have simply to reply that it is false and unfound- 
 ed. There is only one copy of the catechism (and 
 this is not in general use) in which it is not ex- 
 pressly and fully stated. He denies that it is in 
 
 the " CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT," and 
 
 calls for the page. Let him read page 332, and 
 he will learn the truth of a fact which he has de- 
 nied. But let the candid acknowledgement of 
 learned and eminent Protestants reprove the igno- 
 rance or malice that prefers such a charge. 
 
 Doctor Heber, in his Bampton Lectures, says, 
 " We ourselves are not altogether guiltless of 
 falsely imputing to the Catholics, in their public 
 formularies, the systematic omission of that com- 
 mandment which we make the second in the de- 
 calogue". .This accusation has been brought for- 
 ward by some who ought to have known better.' 1 '' 
 
 Dr. Parr says, " I should be ashamed of urging 
 against them any false accusation of disingenuous 
 omission, or unauthorized arrangement of the de- 
 calogue." (Dr. Parr's Character of C. J. Fox, 
 vol. ii. p. 129.) 
 
 I have now done — and I submit it to the reader 
 whether my opponent has not utterly failed to prove 
 either " the Protestant rule of faith," or " the Pro- 
 testant." He has indeed urged against the Catho- 
 lic Church the misrepresentations of three hundred 
 years, wielded with all the force which ignorance 
 of, and prejudice against our real doctrines could 
 impart. But what has he done besides 1 Even in 
 this, has he ever planted his foot in a fixed posi- 
 tion, from which he has not been driven by the 
 force, not of assertion, but of faets, authorities, 
 and argument? Even in point of literary courtesy 
 and polite language, I do not shrink from the can- 
 did judgment of the Protestant reader himself. It 
 
309 
 
 is to be admitted, that when he quoted authorities, 
 which are untrue, I said they were "untrue." But 
 for this, the blame belongs to him and not to me. 
 For the rest, Rev. Sir, with all good wishes for your 
 better knowledge of the holy, but calumniated re- 
 
 ligion, which you have assailed, as well as for 
 your happiness, 
 
 I remain your obedient servant, 
 
 JOHN HUGHES. 
 
3 V 
 
 CONTROVERSY 
 
 36. 
 
 Is the ProiesSasit Rellgiaaa the Religion ©F CSii'ist? 
 
 W. L. M'CALLA to MR. JOHN HUGHES. 
 
 Sir,— My appointment to the duty of address- 1 
 ing you on the present occasion, and the reasons 
 of that appointment, may be seen in the corres- 
 pondence which forms an appendix to this letter. | 
 By that you will see that I do not come forvyard 
 to engage formally in the merits of the question : 
 this fs not required either by my own wishes or 
 the necessity of the case. It is, however, within 
 my province, to notice your abundant personali- 
 ties, several of which arc in your appended letter 
 of September 23. (No. 5.) In these flings at your 
 opponent, you intimate his incompetency, his mis- 
 management, and his retreat. To the last or these 
 items it is convenient to pay the first attention. 
 
 I. His retreat. Your letter of September 
 23d says, ' But you must not deprive me of my 
 rio-ht to return the arrow which you shoot — m 
 recreating: This is already the talk among your 
 people in the city. So it appears that you are 
 now winding your horn of triumph ; and are pre- 
 paring to inform the people of America that you 
 have won the day : the people of England, Scot- 
 land, and Ireland are to be informed that Protes- 
 antism has fallen in their land of promise : Papal 
 Europe must be told that the champion ol liberty j 
 has been beaten on his own soil : and especially , 
 the banks of the Tiber must thunder with the 
 report that the renowned Mr. Hughes has done | 
 his Master's work, and now claims the promotion j 
 due to such unparalleled services. Popish victo- 
 ries are often like Popish miracles, well attested 
 by Popish priests, but not very certain after all. 
 Let the facts be fairly told. A Romanist of Bal- , 
 timore wrote strictures on 'Father Clement. \ 
 He had them transmitted to your opponent for a 
 written answer, which 'was, in some sort, tn- : 
 umphantly demanded as impossible.' \ our op- 
 ponent replies, ' It appears indeed our duty to 
 take up the challenge.' But he expects protract- 
 ed opposition ; and he requests that it may come 
 ' from some accredited respondent, not from one 
 whose defence may be disclaimed, after the trou- 
 ble of an extended discussion has been gone into. 
 He refers to your ' priests and bishops,' and says, 
 ' we are willing to meet any of them, on the broad 
 field of this important and vital discussion ; and 
 hereby make this disposition known.' In your 
 letter of October 3d, 1832, you represent this as 
 
 the real challenge, and say 'Now, Sir, I am 
 equally ready to accept this challenge.' You 
 then promise to be 'accommodating as to the 
 time, place, manner, and circumstance of bringing: 
 this topic fairly before the public' This same 
 promise of accommodation as to time and place you 
 lately renewed in your letter of August 1, 1833. 
 You there say to your opponent " You will have 
 it in your power to fix the ' limitation' when and 
 where you may deem it convenient." As to the 
 'where,'' the ' place, manner, and circumstance,' 
 your opponent has hitherto been the accommo- 
 dating and not the accommodated party. In con- 
 formity with your wish, and in opposition to his 
 own, he has continued the contest in the press. 
 But the time has come, of which he informed you 
 from the beginning, when circumstances imperi- 
 ously require that he should claim your solemn 
 written agreement. He now invites an alteration 
 of the 'where,'' the 'place, manner, and circumstance,'' 
 from the press to the rostrum. Who is it that re- 
 j treats from this manly proposal 1 If then you are 
 j afraid to fulfil your repeated promise to accommo- 
 date him in this respect, he claims your promise 
 I as to the ' wjAe«,' ' the time.' _ 
 
 In his letter of November 7, 1832, he stipula- 
 ted ' that if either party was hindered by sickness 
 or inevitable calls to be absent, the discussion 
 shall, for the time, upon due notice being given, 
 be suspended.' In his letter of January 5, 1833, 
 he says to you, ' While mine is the life of a 
 traveller, yours is one of sanctuary quietude and 
 literary leisure.' 'In the event of inevitable in- 
 terruptions I shall claim the indulgence mention- 
 ed in a former letter, of a temporary suspension of 
 the discussion.' Here follows your memorable 
 answer of Jan. 21st, viz. " You take great pains 
 to show in all your letters how much you have to 
 do, and how much leisure ' sanctuary quietude 
 remains on my hands; intimating thereby the 
 advantages which my situation gives me over 
 vou in the conducting of this Controversy. Be 
 assured, Rev. Sir, that if I thought the public 
 could be interested in the detail of my avocations, 
 I also could make out a tolerable list of duties ; 
 enough perhaps to turn the scales of comparison. 
 But to make your mind easy on the subject oj your 
 official occupations, I beg to state that I am pre- 
 
:ii»3 
 
 pared, if God give me health, to sustain the Ca- 
 tholic argument against any or all the cler- 
 gymen OF THE SYNOD OR GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 
 
 provided he or they write with your signature and 
 adhere to the rules. I make this remark not by 
 Way of boasting, but because you allude to, and 
 dwell as I think, too emphatically on the multi- 
 udeofyour official duties" 
 
 In his late letters published in this paper, your 
 opponent again suggests to you the unwelcome 
 subject of his official occupations ; and informs 
 you that this too emphatical multitude of his 
 official duties calls him away for a season. You 
 had given him several promises to make his mind 
 easy on this subject ; and the period has arrived 
 when he must claim the fulfilment of one of them. 
 He wishes you to ascend the rostrum like a man. 
 You say, No. Then he asks a temporary sus- 
 pension of the Controversy during his necessary 
 absence : and he wishes this suspension to take 
 effect according to his views of fair play, after the 
 parties have written an equal number of letters. 
 You say, No, here also, and demand for yourself 
 the last as well as the first letter. He then re- 
 sorts to your third proposal, published for the ex- 
 press purpose of making his mind easy on this 
 very subject. He does not ask that ' all the cler- 
 gymen of the Synod or General Assembly' may 
 act until his return, although your empty flourish 
 of trumpets defied their whole array: he only 
 asks to leave a single representative of their body, 
 during his absence. But to this also you refuse 
 your assent. Ts this intended as a practical com- 
 ment upon the doctrine of your church, that faith 
 is not to be kept with heretics ? You promise to 
 be accommodating to your opponent, and to set 
 his mind at ease ; and then refuse every promised 
 accommodation, and stigmatize him as a '■retreat- 
 ing' combatant. If this be your way of inter- 
 preting actions, I doubt your infallibility in the 
 interpretation of words. Your opponent offers 
 you battle fairly in any of three practicable ways. 
 You decline the whole of them, and declare that 
 he is ' retreating.'' This very much resembles 
 the way in which Bonaparte retreated from your 
 Master the Pope. 
 
 Tn this course of yours you would have us to 
 believe that you are not at all afraid of your oppo- 
 nent, but only of ' an idle, promiscuous, curious 
 multitude.' But the same sort of people read 
 the papers, and the readers are far more numer- 
 ous than the hearers could be. And which is 
 the worst, a theological gladiator on the stage, or 
 in the press ? Your brethren in Europe have not 
 learned your distinctions; and your perceptions 
 would have been somewhat brightened, if your 
 opponent had been so infatuated as to offer you 
 a written controversy to be read only ' in the 
 presence of twelve enlightened gentlemen, nei- 
 ther Catholics nor Presbyterians ! !' If we may 
 believe your fellow-communicants the Belgians, 
 they had two-thirds of all the heroism in the 
 world. One of their priests was enough to de- 
 feat the whole Synod of Holland. How then are 
 we to account for the fact that they would not 
 wait to look a single Dutchman in the face? 
 
 Was it for th& want of ' twelve enlightened gen^ 
 tlemen, neither Catholics nor Presbyterians?' or 
 was it from an unconquerable aversion to the vul- 
 gar profession of a military ' gladiator.' How- 
 ever, they could easily find a priest who would 
 swear infallibly that it was the Dutch who were 
 ' retreating.' 
 
 II. THE INCOMPETENCY OF YOUR OPPONENT. 
 
 As to your own competency you are happily di- 
 vested of all doubts and fears. The whole con- 
 cern of your benevolent heart appears to be about 
 the injury which must result to our cause, from 
 the feebleness of our advocate. This is almost 
 the only thing- in which you and he think alike ; 
 for he has a high opinion of your talents, and a 
 poor opinion of his own. Your skill is a subject 
 on which the whole community agrees with you. 
 You are the Goliah of your party. Protestants 
 rejoice that it is so. You have long and deeply 
 studied the Popish controversy. Yet Protestants 
 see, and you feel, that you have met with your 
 David. This is at the bottom of all your multi- 
 plied, persevering, and bitter personalities. If 
 he be the feeble creature which you vainly pre- 
 tend to think him, why do you not meet him on 
 the stage, and finish him at once, and with him 
 prostrate that host whose accredited champion he 
 is 1 If his arm be so puny, why do you let his 
 horse's hoofs trample you down in the press, and 
 at the Athenaeum, your own chosen scenes of con- 
 flict? 
 
 When speaking of your opponent in your last 
 letter, as borrowing an 'artifice of Mr. Faber,' 
 you speak sarcastically of them both, as ' edu- 
 cated ministers,' by whose 'solecisms' 'even the 
 purity of our language must be sacrificed.' 
 These remarks are occasioned by their use of the 
 word '■literal,'' in connexion with l Jlesh and blood.'' 
 The Bishop of Aire has made them before you, 
 and this may be the reason of your accusing your 
 opponent of borrowing from Faber. I think you 
 told me that you were an Irishman ; and you 
 know that the Bishop of Aire was a Frenchman. 
 I mean no reflection against either country, for I 
 am connected with both ; but permit me to ex- 
 press my satisfaction at discovering that Popery 
 carries with it such an intellectual charm, that it 
 perfectly qualifies a Frenchman and an Irishman, 
 for instructing eminent Englishmen and Ameri- 
 cans in the English language. Their indocility 
 and the consequent scoldings which they get 
 from their kind preceptors, remind me of a simi- 
 lar affair recorded by your countrywoman, Miss 
 Edgeworth, concerning the difficulties which a 
 Welsh teacher had to encounter in teaching a 
 little Irish boy the English language. He used 
 to say, ' you little Irish p/ocket, unit I never teach 
 you the Enklish lankwitch P 
 
 Was Dr. Johnson for sacrificing the purity of 
 our language, when he said that the word literal 
 meant 'according to the primitive meaning, not 
 figurative ?' You say that ' literal flesh? and 
 '■literal blood'' are 'solecisms.' You say that 
 " the word '■literal' cannot be applied to a material 
 object.'''' You say " we never hear of a ' UteraV 
 house, a ' UteraV loaf of bread, or a ' UteraV stage- 
 
:n:s 
 
 Coach drawn by l HteraV horses." And you affirm 
 that to use the word in such a manner is to ' bar- 
 barize the language. ' It is remarkable that 
 Hammond should use this word in connexion 
 with architectural establishments, and that Dr. 
 Johnson should quote that instance to prove the 
 meaning' given above. With such authority per- 
 mit me to venture a few references which your 
 remarks have suggested. 
 
 You will probably agree with Dr. Johnson that 
 the primary meaning of the word ' house' is ' a 
 place of human abode.' 1 When the Doway Bible 
 speaks of 'the house of the heron,' [stork; Ps. 
 104.] does it mean ' a place of human abode ?' 
 Then we say that the word is used in a figurative 
 sense. When your Breviary asserts the transi- 
 tion of the house of Loretto from Palestine to 
 the Papa] States, and embodies this falsehood in 
 a direct address to the Deity, does it mean that a 
 bird's nest was so translated ? No, the word house 
 is * net figurative* there, but is intended '■according 
 to the primitive meaning.'' Then according to Dr. 
 Johnson, it is a ' literal'' house. 
 
 In the Gth chapter of the Apocalypse, we read 
 of three horses, a red, a black, and a pale horse. 
 The Doway translators declare that these signify 
 war, famine, and pestilence. Then they are figu- 
 rative horses. But your Breviary tells us that 
 Pope St. John, (this is not the female Pope Joan) 
 borrowed a horse of a noble lady, to ride to Co- 
 rinth. The animal seems to have had as much 
 sagacity as Balaam's ass : for he was so elated 
 with the honour of being ridden by bis Holiness, 
 that he would never permit his mistress to ride 
 him again ; and so he had to be given to the 
 Pope. Now you would not say that this horse 
 signifies either ivar, famine, or pestilence, but 
 ' a neighing steed.' The word is evidently used 
 ' according" to its primitive meaning, not figura- 
 tive.' Then, according to Dr. Johnson it is a 
 ' literal'' horse ,- and might assist in drawing a 
 'literal stage-coach,' if it had not been disquali- 
 fied by turning Jesuit on the road to Corinth. 
 
 When the spies returned from Canaan, ten of 
 them terrified the congregation with an account, 
 of the giants, so that they became unruly. But 
 Joshua and Caleb said, ' Rebel not ye against the 
 Lord, neither fear ye the people of the land, for 
 they are bread for us;' that is, they shall ulti- 
 mately be the means of our support instead of our 
 destruction. This, then, is a figurative Use of the 
 word bread. But your Breviary uses the word in 
 another sense, when it tells us that Frances, a Ro- 
 man widow, had a few pieces of bread, hardly 
 enough to refresh three sisters, but in answer to 
 her prayers, they were so multiplied as to afford 
 an ample repast to fifteen nuns, and fill a basket 
 with the fragments. Now it is evident that the 
 bread in this case is very different from that, men- 
 tioned by Joshua, unless you would suppose that 
 Frances furnished the fifteen nuns with giants 
 apiece, which would hardly be recorded in the 
 Breviary ; though I confess there is too great a 
 leaning that way in the marvellous account of St. 
 Scholastica. The food of St. Frances, then, must 
 he bread ' according to the primitive meaning, -\ that 
 
 is, literal bread. That food which fell about the 
 camp of Israel, was literal manna,- Christ was the 
 figurative or spiritual manna. The smitten rock 
 in the wilderness was a literal rock, but ' that rock 
 was Christ, 1 figuratively or spiritually. His body 
 had literal flash and blood,- but the bread and wine 
 are his flesh and blood figuratively or spiritually. 
 ' The letter and circumcision'' is an expression which 
 is perfectly rendered in our idiom by '■literal cir- 
 cumcision,,'' and the circumcision of the heart means 
 spiritual circumcision,- (Rom. ii. 27, 29. compare 
 2 Cor. iii. 6. John vi. 63.) which is effected not 
 by transubstantiation, but by regeneration. 
 
 Although your criticisms on this subject are 
 weak and wide of the mark, they are far from 
 giving evidence of ignorance or pedantry. They 
 are only what military men would call a demon- 
 stration, an attempt to make a formidable display 
 with slender means, and thus to make the best of 
 a bad cause. And has not this something to do 
 with your unbecoming attempts to depreciate your 
 opponent's talents and standing 1 ? If you felt a con- 
 scious ascendency in the argument, would you not 
 take a natural pleasure in allowing him all due 
 credit for character and talents'? This is a plea- 
 sure which he and his friends have long enjoyed 
 in relation to you; for men of judgment who read 
 both sides must see that he has the windward of 
 you. If he could have continued with us, there 
 would have been no need of a substitute. I am 
 not anxious to fill up the time during his absence. 
 If now you will only be more moderate against 
 the Bible, and more generous towards an absent 
 antagonist, you may fill up your whole space with 
 declamation, and if you please, scurrility, against 
 his substitute, without probably being answered. 
 This is a way in which you may possibly obtain 
 your much desired last letter, after all. But I 
 make no absolute promise. 
 
 With the subject which we have just dismissed, 
 you connect a remark which is often repeated in 
 substance. It is that your opponent in speaking 
 of literal flesh and blood, uses artifice 'in order to 
 make the doctrine appear shocking to the misds 
 of Protestants.' Now, Sir, it is a fact which can 
 be proved from your standards, and Ave use no ar- 
 tifice in saying so, that your church does teach the 
 eating of literal flesh and blood in the mass. If 
 this be true, transubstantiation is a shocking doc- 
 trine; but if it be not true, transubstantiation is 
 nonsense. But the merits of the question I leave 
 for one whose weight you have felt; and proceed 
 to remark that no one can show a greater readiness 
 than yourself in using any artifice, lawful or un- 
 lawful, to make an impression. You soon took 
 an opportunity to let the followers of Miss Frances 
 Wright know that you were for the Sabbatical 
 transportation of the mail. I trust, however, that 
 the tone of public morals is far remote, which 
 would allow you and your clerical brethren to at- 
 tend Sabbatical bull-baitings and cock-fightings as 
 they do in Popish countries. The only hope, (and 
 that is a mere shadow) which you have that any 
 of our community can be saved out of your church, 
 is based upon their invincible ignorance,- and yet, 
 ad captandum valgus, how many compliments you 
 
311 
 
 can pay to the enlightened judgment of these in- 
 vincible ignoramuses! Yet you are the man to 
 charge artifice upon a neighbour. 
 
 III. The mismanagement ov your opponent. — 
 On this subject you bring many complaints; such 
 as uncourteous treatment, wandering from the 
 point, spurious authorities, vague quotations, per- 
 versions, corruptions, and falsehoods. 
 
 1. Uncourteous treatment. — It is mournful and 
 ludicrous to hear your complaints of his omitting 
 the 'Reverend' before the 'Sir;' and his calling 
 your society by such names as Romanists arid 
 Papists, instead of those names by which you ar- 
 rogate to yourselves an exclusive title to Chris- 
 tianity. Did he undertake this Controversy to 
 prove that you were the only Christians! or does 
 he not rather show that you are Antichrist! Does 
 either Christian consistency or Christian courtesy 
 bind us to call those Holy and Reverend whom 
 the Bible declares to be the man of sin and son of 
 perdition! How would it commend your own po- 
 liteness to address your opponent in the following 
 manner! ' Rev. Sir; you are not reverend, either 
 in character or office; for you are no Christian nor 
 Christian minister; but a fool, a knave, and a 
 liar.' Yet this is a plain compendious translation 
 of a great portion of your letters. To such po- 
 liteness may I ever be a stranger! 
 
 2. Wandering from the point. — The man who 
 does this in a controversy like yours, does it in his 
 own time, in his own place, and consequently at 
 his own expense. Accordingly when you lately 
 spent a great part of a letter in a review of Bishop 
 Onderdonk, you were all the while drifting to- 
 wards a reef: and so you are when you spend so 
 much of your time in peevish railing against an 
 opponent who is alternately tearing your rigging 
 and boring your hull. It is evident that while 
 you are perpetually complaining of his wandering 
 i'rom the point, your greatest desire is that he 
 would wander from the point; and your ill hu- 
 mour arises from his being so true a marksman. 
 When he talks of your wandering, he does it with 
 better temper, because he sees that you do wan- 
 der, and that you suffer for it. 
 
 There is a better and there is a worse way of 
 proposing the same general subject for discus- 
 sion. 1 should like the following question, viz. 
 'The Society calling itself the Holy Mother 
 church, the Roman Catholic Apostolical church — 
 Is their religion exclusively, the religion which 
 Jehovah, God of Israel, now approves!' The 
 substance of this question was proposed to you 
 by your opponent. You declined it. I saw your 
 reason. The Protestant religion was then made 
 the subject of discussion. I saw your mistake. 
 You could not have mustered courage to under- 
 take the controversy, if you had been aware that 
 the question allowed your opponent to drag out 
 to the light the loathsome abominations of your 
 Popes and Cardinals, your Inquisitors and Jesu- 
 its, your Monks and Nuns. You are not willing 
 for Popery to be the subject of debate, and when 
 Protestantism is made the subject, you are not 
 willing that it should protest against Popery ; 
 though that is the very origin of the name. 
 
 Your intention was, and your demand still is, 
 that you may shoot at us continually, and we 
 may exercise ourselves in dodging. To fire back 
 is out of order! This is pretty much the sort of 
 fighting in Popish countries : but ours is not the 
 latitude for it. 
 
 Suppose that an Infidel were to propose mak- 
 ing Revelation the subject of debate. You would 
 of course refuse ; for Popish revelations cansot 
 bear much handling. You agree at last to make 
 Infidelity the subject of discussion. But what is 
 Infidelity except a disbelief of revelation, and pro- 
 testing against it! When you see this, and feel 
 it too, does it not appear very dignified to be con- 
 stantly complaining that he is off' the subject. 
 
 3. Spurious authors. You disown T/ruanus and 
 du Pin the Popish historians, and Pascal, the 
 great Jansenist, and censure your opponent for 
 quoting them in their true character; while you 
 strongly urge attention to Heylin, as a Protestant 
 historian, though you know him to have been a 
 Crypto-Papist. You are always speaking of 
 Unitarians as Protestants, though you know that 
 they were opposed to the Protestant Reformation, 
 and were rejected by the Protestant Reformers ; 
 and although you know that their infidel princi- 
 ples were once the creed of your infallible and 
 immutable church ; and are now the creed of 
 many of its officers. While your church quotes 
 the forged Decretals, and Liturgies, and Luther's 
 Table talk, you can hardly contain your displeas- 
 ure at the mention of the well authenticated 
 Secrela Monita of the Jesuits. 
 
 4. Vague quotations. You seem to think it de- 
 sirable that your opponent should make such dis- 
 tinct and intelligible references as will enable 
 you to examine his extracts in their connection. 
 This is the very error in which you excel, and 
 which he has in vain invited you to correct. If 
 you were to quit your vague quotations, you 
 would have to quit talking about the Reformers, 
 or talk very differently from what you do. When 
 your vague story of Martin Luther's indulgence 
 to the Landgrave of Hesse was published in Scot- 
 land, it was believed, until a definite reference 
 was demanded and obtained ; after which it was 
 found on examination to be no indulgence at all ; 
 but such advice as Paul has given in such cases. 
 The slander was then met with the indulgence 
 offered by the Pope to He.nry VIII. His holiness 
 was too much afraid of the Emperor Charles to 
 allow Henry a divorce, but by way of compro- 
 mise he is said to have offered him permission to 
 have two wives. Your celebrated Milner who 
 circulated in England the slander against Luther, 
 made an abortive effort to escape the odium of 
 the Pope's offer to the king of England. 
 
 5. Corruptions of the text. In your letter Septem- 
 ber 23d, 1833, you say to your opponent, — " Nor 
 will the public be at a loss to divine your mo- 
 tives for now declining that mode, [of a written 
 controversy,] as it must he evident, that in an 
 oral discussion you would have the opportunity 
 of quoting authorities in a manner to suit your 
 own purpose, when it would not be in the power 
 of your opponent to detect and expose you, as 
 
:ti» 
 
 has been successfully done in a variety of in- 
 stances.' 
 
 In answer to this extract I would say that you 
 yourself give abundant evidence that it is a mere 
 subterfuge. When you made a pompous charge 
 of corruption against your opponent, did you con- 
 fine him to the press in order that you might 'de- 
 tect and expose' him 1 No : In Letter 17lh, you 
 loudly challenged him to meet you before the 
 General Assembly. When you boasted that you 
 were going ' to put the matter to rest,' about his 
 quotations of Baronius, did you confine him to 
 the p? , ess in order to ' expose' him 1 No ; in 
 Letter 31st, you bring out his letter and his au- 
 thor to the Athenaeum, saying : " The public will 
 then see which of us is to be 'exposed.' " And 
 the public do see which of you is exposed. 
 While aiming this thrust at the character of your 
 opponent in the face of' the public,' you possibly 
 forgot your scruples against acting the gladiator 
 before the public : and when attempting to drag 
 him before the General Assembly and ' the pub- 
 lic' of Philadelphia, you forgot that both the one 
 and the other differed much from your indispens- 
 able twelve men, who should be neither Catho- 
 lics nor Presbyterians. Now you prudently re- 
 tire from the public whose inspection you in- 
 vited. But, (to repeat your own words, in the 
 beginning of Letter 19th,) ' Prudence, we are told, 
 is the better part of valour.' 
 
 From the beginning of this Controversy j'ou 
 have evidently bent your whole force towards 
 stigmatizing your opponent for pretended false 
 quotations. Lest we should be at a loss for your 
 motive, you cite the case of the Popish du Perron, 
 who accused his countryman du Plessis of five 
 hundred false quotations ; and by the help of a 
 Popish king, and a Popish committee of examina- 
 tion, and Popish management, convicted him of 
 nine of them ; and obtained a Cardinal's hat for 
 his smartness. As you have given your account 
 of this affair, permit me to give the other side of 
 the question. It shall be the substance of that 
 statement, which was ' printed first, in French, 
 by the authority of the states of Holland and TVest- 
 FriczlandJ' 
 
 Du Plessis determined in earnest to storm the 
 citadel of Romish traditions. The passages 
 which his work quoted against them from the 
 Fathers and School-men amounted to four thou- 
 sand. The failure of France in all its'attempts to 
 Tefute it, and the failure of Rome even to attempt. 
 an answer, though promised, greatly promoted 
 the reputation and sale of the book. Loads of 
 Antichristian slanders were vainly published ; 
 numerous accusations of false quotations were 
 vainly alleged ; until in conscious integrity and 
 simplicity of heart he requested an examination 
 and comparison of his work with the authorities 
 quoted. He requested that it might be thorough- 
 ly sifted in the order of the quotations, that he 
 might have the censure due for errors, and the 
 credit due for those which were correct. This, 
 however, did not comport with the royal pleas- 
 ure ; for this was to be done by royal authority; 
 and as the apostate Henry was suspected of in- 1 
 
 sincerity in his conversion to Popery, he deter- 
 mined to propitiate the Roman Moloch by the 
 sacrifice of a faithful servant. 
 
 His accuser, du Perron, was closeted with the 
 king all day, and they managed to compel du 
 Plessis to sit up the whole night before the exa- 
 mination, in a hasty comparison of a few refer- 
 ences which they designedly kept out of his hands 
 until an hour before midnight! This, however, 
 was hardly worse than the attempt of the Right 
 Reverend du Perron the next day, to have those 
 references first taken up which he found du Plessis 
 had not been able to touch for want of time. Some 
 of their demands he was determined to resist; but 
 he was at last informed by the Chancellor ' that 
 the king was resolved to know the truth of this 
 matter; that whether du Plessis Avere present or 
 absent, it must be examined.' This, however, is 
 not worse than the fact that this same Chancellor 
 had designedly withheld from du Plessis a notice 
 of the meeting, though he had sent one to his ac- 
 cuser; so that it was evidently his intention and 
 wish that the acoused should be condemned in his 
 absence: and not improbably it was to insure this 
 project that the meeting was held at Fontainbleu 
 instead of Paris. 
 
 The express engagement of du Perron was 'to 
 show Jive hundred enormous falsities in du Pies- 
 sis' book, in downright number and luithout hyper- 
 hole.'' Instead of publishing his five hundred re- 
 ferences, or at least furnishing the accused with 
 a copy many days, weeks, or months before the 
 examination, they were concealed between the 
 Right Reverend accuser and his royal accomplice, 
 to be handed out at their pleasure, in such a man* 
 ner that their victim could not know where they 
 were going to strike, nor have more time for de- 
 fence than they were pleased to allow him. ' He 
 plainly saw that after they had made an effort 
 upon five or six passages, they would find out a 
 way to break off the conference, so to fix in men's 
 minds a like opinion of the rest.' The event jus- 
 tified his suspicions. By the time his arbitrary 
 judges had condemned nine pretended inaccura- 
 cies, not falsehoods, his long fatigue and agita- 
 tion, distress and loss of sleep, operated upon 
 him, as similar causes did upon John Huss ia 
 prison. ' They took occasion from the sickness 
 of du Plessis to break up the conference: and with' 
 out so much as staying till his departure, the com- 
 missioners were discharged that night, to the end 
 that though du Plessis had recovered, they might 
 have had an excuse ready not to renew it.' 'The 
 wicked flee when no man pursueth.' Aubigne en- 
 deavoured to resume the conference in vain. After 
 du Plessis had retired to a place of safety, (a mea- 
 sure quite necessary in a Popish government) he 
 successfully defended his book, and exposed the 
 conduct of the royal cabal which had attempted 
 his destruction. 
 
 His accuser, the Bishop of Evreux was the se- 
 cret counsellor of the King, who appointed the 
 judges, and who, with his still more zealous 
 chancellor, presided at the investigation. For 
 the decision of this matter he appointed five com- 
 missioners, a majority of whom were professed 
 
niii 
 
 Papists ; and one of them a physician of the 
 King. The two acting Protestant commissioners 
 were du Fresne Canaye, and Casauboii. They 
 had been selected because they were moderate 
 men. The former ' came post haste to court on 
 purpose to change his religion; which he did in 
 a little time after.' The latter, ' du Perron had 
 gained by his artifices.' He had promised to 
 change his religion; but 'before he went over 
 into England, he told du Perron, that he could 
 be more serviceable to him in gaining that 
 Prince, if he continued in the profession of the 
 Reformed religion, than after he had quitted it.' 
 Leaving the King's physician out of the question, 
 it is asserted that 'there was more honesty to be 
 hoped for' from the two other professed Romish 
 Commissioners, (of whom Thuanus was one) 
 than from the two professed Protestants. 
 
 In such hands it would have been no wonder 
 if he had been ' unanimously convicted,' as you 
 say he was. But of what was he convicted ] 
 In the 13th Letter you use the word 'falsehoods.'' 
 It is true that the Bishop promised to convict him 
 of five hundred enormous falsehoods : but it is 
 also true that after his secret intercourse with the 
 King, his Majesty from pretended delicacy, ex- 
 punged the words from the charge, and forbade 
 such words as falsehood to be used in the deci- 
 sion. Instead of the charge of falsehood, they 
 used such cold blooded sarcasms as you have 
 tried in your lastletter ; whereyou charitably say 
 that your opponent, 'no doubt, copied from others, 
 who wrote for Protestants only, and whose false 
 or garbled quotations passed unexposed and un- 
 suspected.' This had the double effect of re- 
 lieving da Perron from undertaking what he 
 could not prove, and of farther perplexing du 
 Flessis with having to answer vague, contemptu- 
 ous, artful, and insidious insinuations, instead of 
 definite charges. 
 
 Thus with management which nothing but Po- 
 pery can compass, they made provision for circu- 
 lating through the world a report of five hundred 
 enormous falsehoods against his book, when in 
 form and in fact, this was not ultimately alleged, 
 tried, proved, or awarded. The only thing really 
 proved against him was the seventh item, in 
 which it was found that he had misquoted a pas- 
 sage of Cyril, by taking it second-handed from 
 Crinitus, a Popish Priest! and those who follow 
 his example may expect to fall into his error. 
 Even this, however, is a folly of which you can- 
 not accuse your opponent ; for instead of taking 
 on trust your very imposing quotation from Ter- 
 tullian, he proved that your mutilated extract 
 spoke a sentiment the very opposite of the origi- 
 nal text. In falsely charging another with cor- 
 ruptions which you grossly practice yourself, 
 you are not worse than your boasted champion 
 the Bishop of Evreux. Da Plessis publicly fas- 
 tened upon him ' the falsification of the acts of 
 the Conference which he had made himself; and 
 that he did both alter and change them divers 
 times before he published them: insomuch that 
 after he had shown them to some persons at 
 Lyons, who could not forbear speaking, he tore 
 
 them to make others which he set forth.' Fof 
 this conduct he obtained a Cardinal's hat; and 
 for similar conduct I understand you are to re- 
 ceive a Bishop's mitre. This is the high way 
 to promotion in the synagogue of Satan, but not 
 in the holy church of Christ. 
 
 In Letter 31st, you deny that Thuanus who 
 had been quoted with some effect against you, 
 was a ' Roman Catholic historian:' yet in Let- 
 ter 13th, you recognize the 'Catholics' appointed 
 by Henry IV. to condemn da Plessis; and Thu- 
 anus, the Roman Catholic historian was one of 
 them. You tell us that ' the history of Thuanus 
 has been condemned at Rome by two public de- 
 crees : the one of November 9th, 1609 ; the other 
 of May 10th, 1757.' Yes, this is precisely what 
 we learn, and what you learn from that Prohibi- 
 tory Index, which, in your last letter you tell us 
 ' is not acknowledged' in ' France, England, Ire- 
 land, and our own country.' It seems to be a 
 spirit which a Jesuit may exorcise and conjure 
 up again at his pleasure. You complain that he 
 was 'the implacable enemy of the Jesuits.' To 
 you this must of course be offensive : but re- 
 member that the Jesuits, by their instruments, 
 repeatedly attempted, and at last effected the as- 
 sassination of his sovereign, the deluded Hen- 
 ry, who had sold his conscience, and sacrificed 
 his friend, disobliged his premier, and opposed 
 his legislature, to obtain the favour of these men 
 of blood. This is proved by your own witness, 
 the Duke of Sully, who faithfully warned him of 
 the consequences of his credulity. 
 
 As you have promised an appendix professing 
 to contain a list of your opponent's ' falsifications 
 of authorities,' permit me to dwell a little longer 
 upon a subject which seems to engross so much 
 of your time. In letter seventh you said, "that 
 the standard of Presbyterianism in the United 
 States of America, and in the nineteenth century, 
 makes it a sin against the second commandment of 
 God, ' to tolerate a false religion"* In the next 
 sentence you intimate that this is the standard 
 adopted by the General Assembly of our church. 
 Thus you were understood, and all your answers 
 prove that you were understood rightly. In se- 
 veral of these answers you resolutely insisted that 
 you had quoted correctly from our standard. You 
 gave repeated evidence that you had before you 
 our authentic constitution, by the frequency with 
 which you laughed at its revision in 1821; even 
 falsely insinuating that its doctrines were altered 
 in that revision. Yet it is a fact, and you knew 
 it, that this revised constitution which was in 
 your hands does not contain that clause; and that 
 our General Assembly never adopted it in any 
 period of its existence. You were informed of 
 this; and that the Assembly had adopted princi- 
 ples in direct opposition to that clause. Yet you 
 adhered to it, letter after letter; and accompanied 
 every repetition with renewed allegations of falsi- 
 fied authorities against your opponent. But Je- 
 suits know how to do these things. 
 
 Your charges of corruption are not confined to 
 our writers, but extend to our Scriptures. The 
 instance upon which your church dwells with 
 
tar 
 
 most soll-complacency, is 1 Cor. xi. 27, where the 
 note in the Doway Bible says, ' Here erroneous 
 translators corrupted the text.' The alleged cor- 
 ruption is, that they translated a Greek conjunc- 
 tion by the word * and,'' instead of ' orS They 
 are not probably aware that the Doway Bible has 
 given the same word the same rendering a half a 
 dozen times. 
 
 But this is not so remarkable as another instance 
 arising from Heb. xi. 21, where your Bible states 
 that Jacob ' worshipped the top of his rod.! The 
 note says, ' But some translators who are no 
 friends to this relative honour, have corrupted the 
 text, by translating it, He worshipped, leaning upon 
 the top of his stuff.'' In defence ef their idolatrous 
 view of the subject, the note asserts that ' The 
 Apostle here follows the ancient Greek Bible of 
 the seventy interpreters, which translates in this 
 manner Gen. xlvii. verse 31.' So also in the place 
 here referred to, these Doway Annotators assert 
 that Paul, ' following the Greek translation of the 
 Septuagint, reads, adored the top of his rod.'' Now, 
 Sir, I should be glad if you would inform the pub- 
 lic, whether the copy of the Septuagint here re- 
 ferred to, was or was not published by Towar and 
 Hogan in 1829, along with that constitution of 
 ours which never existed. But if such a copy can 
 be found, it is certainly opposed by that of a Ger- 
 man Papist, Leander Van Ess, and by theAldine 
 Edition, which was patronized by ' a Sacerdotal 
 Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church,' and ' Le- 
 gate de latere to his Catholic Majesty.' Here then 
 we have the Doway Bible accusing our Bible of 
 corruption; and in order to prove it, it corrupts the 
 Septuagint, the Romish copies of which are in 
 our favour, as well as all others that are at hand; 
 and all this is done to prove that men ought to 
 worship staves and rods, and Popish gods. 
 
 It is to be hoped that the Doway translators 
 were made Bishops and Cardinals; for they were 
 certainly unfit to live with any other description 
 of men. Instead of our being wholly indebted 
 to your church, as you often assert, for the trans- 
 mission of the Scriptures, it is a real fact, that 
 through divine mercy, we have them in their 
 purity and plenty, in despite of your invincible 
 propensity to suppress and corrupt them. Yet 
 these corrupters of the words of God and men 
 are the pompous self-constituted guardians of the 
 purity of both. 
 
 6. Perversion. You seem to think your oppo- 
 nent incapable of doing justice to almost any au- 
 thority, without the aid of your infallibility of in- 
 terpretation. Yet I cannot forbear reminding you 
 of one or two specimens which make you appear 
 an incompetent judge of such matters. You as- 
 serted that the present constitution of the General 
 Assembly Church contained the clause against 
 tolerating a false religion. Your opponent de- 
 nied it. In reply you declare that ' Dr. Miller 
 asserts positively the contrary.' If this be true, 
 Dr. Miller must assert that the present constitu- 
 tion of our General Assembly contains the clause 
 in question. Yet Dr. Miller's statement to 
 which you refer, speaks not of the present time, 
 bat more than a century ago. It speaks not of 
 
 the General Assembly, but of the Synod of Phila- 
 delphia, more than half a century before the 
 General Assembly existed. If you had consult- 
 ed the Doctor's testimony elsewhere, about the 
 first acts of our General Assembly, you would 
 have found him stating that ' The Westminster 
 Confession of Faith, with three inconsiderable 
 alterations, and the Westminster Larger and 
 Shorter Catechisms, with one small amendment 
 in the former, were solemnly adopted as a sum- 
 mary exhibition of the faith of the church.' " This 
 single amendment in the Larger Catechism, con- 
 sisted in expunging the words ' the tolerating of a 
 false religion'' from the answer to the 109th ques- 
 tion, what are the sins forbidden in the second com- 
 mandment?" These are Dr. Miller's own words; 
 and they are accompanied with a detailed account 
 of the three alterations in the Confession of Faith ; 
 one of them relating to ' Christian liberty, and. 
 liberty of conscience,'' and the other two guarding 
 against a connexion with the state, and only ask- 
 ing the protection of the civil magistrate for our- 
 selves in common with all other denominations, 
 without asking a preference over any. Thus you 
 have taken Dr. Miller's statement of a truth, and 
 perverted it to that which you know is not true, 
 and which he never said was true. 
 
 But to prove that our constitution is still 
 intolerant, your Letter 17 says, "Even now, 
 according to your standard of 1821, the 
 magistrates are 'nursing fathers to the 
 church of our common Lord.' " This is not 
 only a perversion, but a false quotation. 
 Your omissions of words in the middle of 
 the clause would not be so much, if you had 
 not so mutilated it as to conceal the fact that 
 it contains the very opposite sentiment from 
 that which you attribute to it. The real 
 passage reads as follows, viz.: 4 Yet, as nurs- 
 ing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates 
 to protect the church of our common Lord, 
 without giving the preference to any denomi- 
 nation of Christians above the rest, in such a 
 manner, that all ecclesiastical persons what- 
 ever, shall enjoy the full, free, and unques- 
 tioned liberty of discharging every part of 
 their sacred functions without violence or 
 danger.' If this be the language of intole- 
 rance, what is meant by the following pas- 
 sage in the Pope's letter to his Cardinals, 
 February 5, 1808, concerning Napoleon's 
 project of a general toleration? 'It is pro- 
 posed that all religious persuasions should 
 be free, and their worship publicly exercised : 
 but we have rejected this article as contrary 
 to the canons, and to the councils; to the Ca- 
 tholic religion; to the peace of human life; 
 and to the welfare of the state; on account 
 of the deplorable consequences which would 
 ensue from it.' This liberal language of the 
 Pope was reiterated by the Belgian brshops 
 
:*i8 
 
 in a tetter to their new sovereign, July 28, 
 1815. ' Sire, the existence and the privi- 
 leges of the Catholic Church in this part of 
 your kingdom are inconsistent with an arti- 
 cle of the new constitution, by which equal 
 favour and protection are promised to all re- 
 ligions.'' 'Since the conversion of the Bel- 
 gians to Christianity, such a dangerous inno- 
 vation lias never been introduced into these 
 Provinces, unless by force.'' ' Sire, we do 
 not hesitate to declare to your Majesty, that 
 the Canonical laws which are sanctioned by 
 the ancient constitutions of the country, are 
 incompatible with the projected constitution, 
 which would give in Belgium equal favour 
 and protection to all religions.' 'Already 
 the proclamation of jour Majesty, which an- 
 nounced ftat the new constitution should 
 insure the liberty of religion, and give all 
 equal favour and protection, filed every heart 
 with consternation' !! ! ' ... .and if your Majes- 
 ty, by virtue of a fundamental laic, protected 
 in these provinces the public profession and 
 spreading of these doctrines the progress of 
 which we are bound to oppose with all the 
 care and energy which the Catholic Church 
 expects from our office, we should be in for- 
 mal opposition to the laws of the state, to the 
 measures which your majesty might adopt to 
 maintain them amongst us, and in spile of all 
 our endeavours to secure union and peace, the 
 public tranquillity might still be disturbed.' 
 
 Here they profess to aim at union, peace, 
 and tranquillity: but it is Popish union, pas- 
 sive ptace, and the tranquillity of slavery. 
 The proposal for the toleration of all reli- 
 gions, with equal freedom, favour, and pro- 
 tection, they openly reject. They consider 
 it a dangerous innovation, which filled every 
 Popish heart with consternation; and which 
 was never introduced, unless by force! and 
 they plainly intimate that force shall be used 
 to destroy this liberty, even in opposition to 
 fundamental laws, to laws of the state, and 
 to the measures of the executive fur main- 
 taining these laws. All this every sincere 
 and intelligent Papist feels bound to do, for 
 the reasons given by the Pope and Bishops 
 above; that is, because the toleration of Pro- 
 testantism is contrary to 'the Catholic reli- 
 gion,' its councils, canons, constitutions, and 
 customs. All this you are in the habit of 
 perverting, to speak the language of liberty 
 and toleration; while you make our consti- 
 tution intolerant, though it is the decided, 
 uniform, aud consistent advocate of liberty. 
 And you are the oracle to which we are 
 to look for infallible interpretations, and un- 
 corrupted traditions. To such interpreters 
 
 Isaiah said, ' Woe unto them that call evil 
 good, and good evil; that put darkness for 
 light, and light for darkness; that put bitter 
 for sweet, and sweet for bitter.' To such 
 oracles Solomon said, 'He that justifieth the 
 wicked, and he that coqdemneth the just, 
 even they both are abomination to the Lord.' 
 Yet you expound Scripture as you do our 
 creeds. God never intended such shep'ierds 
 to guide his flock. 
 
 But if you are skilful in perverting our 
 creed, you are equally dexterous in pervert- 
 ing your own. Your Council of Trent or- 
 dered an Expurgatorial Index, and ordained 
 measures for continuing and enlarging it un- 
 til Babylon the great shall fall. In the 
 Brief of Pope Benedict XIV. dated Decem- 
 ber 23d, 1757, he says: * By Apostolic au- 
 thority we hereby approve and confirm this 
 Index, and command it to be observed in- 
 violably, by all and every person in what- 
 ever part of the world they live, under the 
 penalties ordained in the rules of the index, 
 as well as in the Apostolical letters and con- 
 stitutions.' And in his Brief of July 9th, 
 1753: he denounces the ' anger of Almighty 
 God, and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and 
 Paul,' against 'any one who may dare to in- 
 fringe or contravene' these letters. 
 
 Greatly as your last letter boasts of the num- 
 ber and antiquity of Popish translations of the 
 Scriptures, into living languages, you know 
 that by this high enactment, originating in 
 the great Council, and sanctioned by your 
 supreme head of the church, these Scrip- 
 tures, or portions of Scripture, are allowed 
 'only to learned and pious men, at the dis- 
 cretion of the Bishop.' The learned must 
 have them, that they may pervert them to 
 the support of Popery; and those whom the 
 Bishop will pronounce pious may have them, 
 because they will interpret them as the 
 Bishop shall dictate: but they are not to be 
 distributed as means of instruction and con- 
 version among the ignorant and wicked. 
 They might make them all Protestants. 
 For these the Index allows ' sermons in the 
 vulgar tongue, designed for the people;' and 
 also, ' works in the vulgar tongue, which 
 treat of morality, contemplation, confession, 
 and similar subjects, and which contain noth- 
 ing contrary to sound doctrine;' that is, to 
 full blooded Romanism. 
 
 Your opponent has amply shown what 
 sort of morality prevails at head-quarters, 
 and Pascal has shown what sort of books of 
 morality are allowed there. You seem to 
 admit that in Italy, Spain, Portugal, and 
 wherever the Pope, the Inquisition, or the 
 
rs 1 1> 
 
 Jesuits are dominant; there are penalties ap- 
 pointed against the writing, printing, selling, 
 buying, reading, or keeping of any thing 
 prohibited in their Index; any thing which 
 they may deem inconsistent with Popish 
 literature, politics, theology, or morality. 
 'The imprisonment of Galileo in the seven- 
 teenth, and the burning of the works of 
 Giannone in the eighteenth century, are 
 sufficient indications of the deplorable state 
 of the Italians, during a period in which 
 knowledge was advancing with such rapidity 
 in countries long regarded by them as bar- 
 barous.' As for 'Madrid, provided you 
 avoid saving any thing concerning govern- 
 ment, or religion, or politics, or morals, or 
 statesmen, or bodies of reputation, or the 
 opera, or any other public amusement, or 
 any one who is engaged in any business, 
 you may print what you please, under 
 the correction of two or three censors.' 
 (M'Crie's Spain, p. 386.) 
 
 This is the sort of liberty which is enjoyed 
 wherever the expurgatorial Index is acknow- 
 ledged, and it is acknowledged wherever Po- 
 pery has the power to enforce it with '■penal- 
 ties.' But your last letter tells us 'that there 
 are many countries in which the prohibitory 
 index is not acknowledged — for example, 
 France, England, Ireland, and our own coun- 
 try.' Yes, and it was for refusing such ac- 
 knowledgments that such French Romanists 
 as Pascal, du Pin, and Thuanus were de- 
 nounced at Home, by the Pope, and denoun- 
 ced in Philadelphia, by Mr. Hughes. If the 
 people of France write as they please, is it 
 because the obligation of the Index has ceas- 
 ed ? Charles X. would soon have informed 
 us, if he had gained that absolute ascendency 
 over the press and people, at which he and 
 his Jesuitical counsellors and priests were 
 aiming. If England and Ireland enjoy a 
 little liberty, is it because the prohibitory 
 index has ceased to be 'binding upon the 
 whole church,' as your opponent says that it 
 is? Your last letter dares not deny its obli- 
 gation, although it impeaches your opponent's 
 character for stating that fact. Let your 
 boasted recantation of the cowardly Jewell 
 say, whether another bloody Mary would not 
 soon remind the people of England and Ire- 
 land, that the Index must be acknowledged, 
 wherever its penalties can be enforced. Let 
 the above briefs of Pope Benedict XIV. com- 
 manding ' it to be observed inviolably by all 
 and every person, in whatever part of the 
 world they live,'' decide this question. 
 
 You repeat in your last letter what you 
 have often asserted with great satisfaction, 
 
 that your opponent cannot ( show so much as 
 two Catholics in the whole world, professing 
 a different belief on any article of faith,' or 
 ' doctrine,' as you express it in Letter XV. 
 You then take care to remind us that 'the 
 distinction between faith, opinions, and mere 
 local customs, has been pointed out.' Yes, 
 you have frequently told us that there was a 
 great difference between opinions on the one 
 hand, and faith, or doctrines, on the Q*h§F| 
 and that you were all agreed in the latter, 
 though not in the former. But this distinc- 
 tion appears to have been kept up only to 
 shield yourself, and laid aside when you wish- 
 ed to assail your opponent. You know how 
 long and repeatedly you have insisted that 
 our standard, being that of Westminster, 
 condemns toleration. Your opponent inform- 
 ed you that in this respect theirs was not now 
 our standard. You replied, 'if this be not 
 now your standard, it is because you have 
 departed, in so much, at least, from the faith 
 once delivered to the saints.'' This matter of 
 toleration then belongs to the faith of Pres- 
 byterian saints. You then go on to say that 
 several texts of Scripture were formerly ad- 
 duced to prove the sinfulness of toleration; 
 after which you observe, ' The doctrines 
 which they were intended to support are as 
 true, (though perhaps not so palateable) since 
 the revolution as they had been before.'' "The 
 doctrines of Christ do not change with the 
 shiftings of every political gale. And though 
 the British Lion gave place to the Eagle of 
 Independence, ' some fifty years ago,' yet I 
 find it difficult to discover, by what myste- 
 rious process this event could have nullified 
 the scriptural doctrines of your standards, 
 or converted them into • offensive passages.' 
 Albeit, it seems that the work of reformation 
 in the doctrines of Christ, is not the pecu- 
 liar privilege of any age." Thus it seems 
 that when a belief in the sinfulness of tolera- 
 tion is attributed to Presbyterians, thisbelief 
 is said by Mr. Hughes to belong to their 
 faith, and to the doctrines of their stand- 
 ards: and when their belief changes on this 
 subject, Mr. Hughes accuses them of depart- 
 ing from their former faith, and altering the 
 doctrines of their standards ; insinuating 
 that this was done from political motives. 
 You forgot to say any thing about opinions 
 here; but you taught plainly that a belief in 
 the lighteousness or sinfulness of toleration, 
 bdonged to our faith, and our doctrines. 
 
 Now let us see if Mr. Hughes can find any 
 faith or doctrines in that specimen of tole- 
 ration, the Expurgatorial Index, about which 
 he tells us that England and Ireland, France 
 
g&d 
 
 iind America, tlifter from the rest of the Po- 
 pish world. The faith of that instrument 
 is, 'Inasmuch as it is manifest from expe- 
 rience, that if (he Holy Bible, translated into 
 the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allow- 
 ed to every one, the temerity of men will 
 cause more evil than good to arise from it, it 
 is, on this point, referred to the judgment of 
 the Bishops or Inquisitors.' — v H any one 
 shall have the presumption to read or possess 
 it without such written permission, [as these 
 Bishops or Inquisitors may give] he shall not 
 receive absolution until he shall have first 
 delivered up such Bible to the ordinary. 
 Booksellers, however, who shall sell, or 
 otherwise dispose of Bibles in the vulgar 
 tongue, to any person not having such per- 
 mission, shall forfeit the value of the books, 
 to be applied by the Bishop to some pious 
 usej and be subjected by the Bishop to such 
 Other penalties as the Bishop shall judge 
 proper! according to the quality of the of- 
 fence. But regulars shall neither read nor 
 purchase such Bibles without a special li- 
 cense from their superiors.' 
 
 We have now seen what is the faith of 
 the Index, and of those nations who taste its 
 penalties, at the discretion of their Bishops; 
 Jet us inquire what is the faith of a Romanist 
 of this city, called Mathew Carey, who has 
 Sold myriads of Protestant Bibles indiscri- 
 minately, while he has almost, if not totally, 
 neglected the Popish Bible. Does he agree 
 with the Index, in the doctrine that -more 
 evil than good arises from the indiscriminate 
 distribution of the Bible? Does he receive 
 the doctrine that booksellers who dispose of 
 Bibles to those who have not a written per- 
 mission from the Inquisitors, should forfeit 
 the value of the books, and be subject to 
 those tender things called penalties, at the 
 discretion of a Bishop? 
 
 The Index moreover says, 'Books of con- 
 troversy betwixt the Catholics and heretics 
 of the present time, written in the vulgar 
 tongue, are not to be indiscriminately allow- 
 ed, but are to be subject to the same regula- 
 tions as Bibles in the vulgar tongue:' that is, 
 they must neither be bought nor sold, read 
 nor kept, without high written permission, 
 unless the offenders are prepared for forfei- 
 tures and penalties. To this faith you pre- 
 tend to have such a mortal antipathy, that 
 you can never forget Mr. Burtt, because he 
 once happened to hear and repeat something 
 about a practical adherence to the doctrine 
 of the Index. The mere insinuation that any 
 of you were likely to believe the doctrine of 
 your own standard was considered an unpar- 
 
 donable affront. Your complaint against him 
 is reiterated in your last letter, in which you 
 boast that 'throughout the universe, Catho- 
 lics are as united in their faith, as if they 
 dwelt under the same roof;' and as a proof 
 of this perfect union you let us know that the 
 doctrines of the Index on toleration, which 
 Pope Benedict XIV. declares to be of uni- 
 versal obligation, and which are received by 
 all nations under Papal, Inquisitorial, or Je- 
 suitical penalties, are not acknowledged by 
 those nations which are not so subjected. 
 That is, this very doctrine of toleration 
 which forms a part of your standards, is re- 
 ceived by one half of your church where it 
 can be enforced, and rejected by the other 
 half, where it cannot be so enforced. And 
 this proves that you are all perfectly agreed 
 in every doctrine, and differ only in mere 
 opinions! ! 
 
 Your last letter affords more cases of per- 
 version, connected with this Index, which I 
 must not omit. One is the long quotation 
 from Chrysostom. He says concerning the 
 vessels used in the Eucharist, ' They can nei- 
 ther taste nor feel him whom they contain, 
 but we most certainly? This is our language 
 and doctrine, but not yours. The Eighth 
 Presbyterian Church in which I have the ho- 
 nour to worship, though descended from the 
 Scotch, use the Reformed Dutch Psalmody a 
 part of the day. It affords many instances of 
 language as figurative as that of Chrysostom. 
 Take the following example, in the 1st verse 
 of the 69th Hymn: 
 
 " Here at thy table, Lord we meet, 
 
 To feed on food divine ; 
 Thy body is the bread we eat, 
 
 Thy precious blood the wine.' 
 
 We believe that the bread and the wine are 
 the body and blood of Clwht figuratively, as 
 the manna was Christ figuratively ; and that 
 in this sense, the vessels were said to contain 
 him; and we believe that we can taste and 
 feel him by faith, the only way in which he 
 may now be tasted and felt, most certainly: 
 but if Chrysostom meant that the bread and 
 wine most certainly underwent such a change 
 as to appear to the senses of sight, taste, or 
 touch, any thing more than bread and wine, 
 he differed from your church as well as ours. 
 As to his saying, 'Adore and communicate,' 
 that is very far from offending us, if you will 
 with him adore the divine Saviour in heaven, 
 instead of a wafer on earth. 
 
 The Index makes provision for condemn- 
 ing summaries, or lists of contents which 
 may displease them while they keep posses- 
 sion of the work itself. Several propositions- 
 
321 
 
 of such a list were ordered to be expunged 
 from the works of Chrysosfom, because it 
 favoured Protestantism; They are as fol- 
 lows: 'That sins are to be confessed to God, 
 not to mans that we are justified by faith 
 only; that Christ forbids us to kill Heretics; 
 that it is great stupidity to bow before 
 images: that Priests are subject to princes: 
 that salvation docs not flow from our own 
 merits; that the Scriptures are easy to be 
 understood; and that the reading of them is 
 to be enjoined upon all men.' (Cramp.) 
 In his day they had begun to bow before 
 images; but not to worship the bread; and 
 therefore he condemns the one, and is silent 
 on the other. Hut the Homilies of Chrysos- 
 tom, from which you profess to quote, ap- 
 pear so peculiarly obnoxious to the Index; 
 that it has condemned a whole edition of 
 them i:i the lump, under the following title, 
 viz. '.Homilies, or Sermons of St. John 
 Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, 
 upon the Epistle of Paul to the Romans.' 
 But that was a French translation; and they 
 may have dared to publish it, as they did 
 Pascal, du Pin, and Thttanus; and as Mat- 
 thew Carey did the Protestant Bible, with- 
 out a written license from the Inquisitors! 
 
 But how came they to prohibit the Latin 
 works of another of your authorities? This 
 they have done by the following title, viz. 
 ' St. Cypriani Opera Recognita per Joannem 
 Oxoniensem Episcopum.' Two lines after 
 St, Cyprian, the Index condemns a Latin 
 edition of St. Cyril, another of your authori- 
 ties, ' donee corrigaturf that is, until it 
 shall be Romanized; as your church is in 
 the habit of doing with the Bible, Fathers, 
 and any thing else, as far as you think it 
 safe. Yet for reminding you of this, your 
 opponent is considered in your last letter 
 as equally insulting and absurd. I suppose 
 you know who published an edition of the 
 Psalms, which perverted them from the wor- 
 ship of the Messiah, to that of the Virgin 
 Mary. As these were sufficiently Roman- 
 ized, the Index did not need to correct or 
 prohibit them ; but it prohibits the Psalms 
 as published by Martin Luther and others, 
 because they are incorrigible in their regard 
 for the Messiah, and their opposition to idol- 
 atry. For this, Luther must be consigned 
 to destruction, while your Pope, St. Marcel- 
 linus is called the supreme Head of the 
 church, although your own Bellarmine con- 
 fesses that he sacrificed to idols. Bellar- 
 mine's excuse for him is, that he did it 
 through fear of death. This seems to be the 
 excuse of your last letter, for the adoption of 
 
 the Arian creed by Pope Libcrius; who ac- 
 cording to Bellarmine, was deservedly cast 
 out from the Pontificate, on the presumption 
 of heresy. I suppose this is the excuse for 
 a later Pope, in blessing and crowning 
 Bonaparte, and attending to his various 
 marriages. But was not Luther's life in 
 danger? and why did he not relapse into the 
 Worship of (he Virgin, and the crucifix, and 
 images, and relics, and other Popish idols? 
 The reason is that Luther loved Christ bet- 
 ter than life, and was therefore not fit to be 
 a Pope nor a Popish saint. Their martyrs 
 die when no renunciations nor conformities 
 can save them. 
 
 The late mention of a Popish perversion 
 of the Psalms to the honour of your Virgin 
 idol, reminds me that the Breviary, one of 
 your ecclesiastical formularies, contains a 
 similar perversion of the glorious prophecy 
 of the Messiah as the 'Star' that should 
 arise out of Jacob. Your Breviary declares 
 that this Star is the Virgin Mary. 
 
 Your opponent asked you, 'did the Coun- 
 cil of Lateran pass an anathema against 
 those rulers who should tax ecclesiastics?' 
 Your reply about 'immunities secured to 
 them by previously existing laws,' gives a 
 hint which is improved by the Index, in 
 which are prohibited 'all books wTiich im- 
 pugn the immunity of ecclesiastical goods.' 
 And yet yon could teil us in Letter 15th, 
 concerning Bellarmine, that "on points of 
 political economy* or civil government^ as 
 they are not even '•'fere dc fide" 1 his pen wag 
 at liberty to ramble as well 'as that of any 
 other it! i victual. " Your reason for this, is,- 
 that his views of 'political economy or civil" 
 government' are merely his ' opinions? not 
 his 'doctrines.'' When speaking of doc- 
 trines, you confess that he is a standard 
 writer; but in matters of opinion he and alt 
 others are at liberty to ramble. ThU yon- 
 must know to be in direct opposition to your 
 own standards. Permit me to remind you 
 of the titles of a few books prohibited by 
 your Index: viz. ' Historical, Juridical, and 
 /V)//7ic«/disscussinn upon the real immunity of 
 churches and other pious places,' &c. * Trea- 
 tise of the rights of the "State and of the 
 Prince, oVfer properly possessed by the ClergyS 
 ' Treatise of Civil and Ecclesiastical Laws 
 against Heretic*, by the Popes, the Emper- 
 ors, the Kings, and the Crjncils, General 
 and Provincial, approved by the Church of 
 Rome; with a discourse against Persecution; 
 translated from the English,' into French, 
 Now, Sir, you see something of the extent 
 of our liberty to ramble over the ground of 
 
$32 
 
 political economy and civil government. 
 We are at perfect liberty to write in favour 
 of persecution by the Pope, the Inquisition, 
 and the Jesuits; and to defend the supre- 
 macy of the Romish church over all States 
 and Princes. Among such opinions as these 
 we may securely ramble: but when -we begin 
 to advocate toleration, and the rights of civil 
 governments, the Index -whispers that our 
 opinions are becoming doctrines, and that 
 there are penalties attached to them. 
 
 7. Falsehood. It is astonishing to see the 
 familiarity and boldness with which such 
 charges as this are brought against intelli- 
 gent, candid, and correct Protestant writers, 
 Dy controversialists of your communion. You 
 remind us of 500 enormous falsehoods charg- 
 ed upon one book, against which not more 
 than one error could be proved; and even 
 that arising from giving credit to a Roman 
 priest. You have not yet told us whether 
 your promised Appendix shall contain 500 
 or 5000 against your opponent : but accord- 
 ing to the plan which you have pursued, in 
 imitation of the Bishop of Evrcux, and the 
 Bishop of Aire, you may, with your charac- 
 teristic industry in such matters, enumerate 
 five times 5000; and the more the better, 
 as your main strength seems connected with 
 this sort of stock. Permit a friend, however, 
 to give you a hint that you have not yet fur- 
 nished your vocabulary of calumny with quite 
 as rich a variety of expression as the French 
 Bishop,just now mentioned, used against the 
 cool, candid, and gentlemanly Faber. Like 
 him, you should, at every coiner, accuse 
 
 your opponent of cunning — treachery — 
 
 odious artifice — disgraceful artifice — dis- 
 graceful prevarication — fraud — gross false- 
 hood — most splendid falsehood — bold men- 
 dacity — most palpable mendacity. 
 
 Now it appears to me that if you and 
 your fellow labourers in this truly laborious 
 work of enumerating the pretended lies of 
 your more honest neighbours, could only 
 prove one in a score of your charges, I should 
 strongly suspect the Protestants to be the peo- 
 ple, who, according to Paul, ' shall depart 
 from the faith, giving heed to seducing spi- 
 rits, and doctrines of devils, speaking lies in 
 hypocrisy.' 'Whose coming is after the 
 working of Satan, with all power, and signs, 
 and lying wonders.' 
 
 To tell who are the people here intended 
 is worth a serious examination. You know 
 we pretend to no signs and wonders; we are 
 the subjects of no miracles, except miracles 
 of grace. Your celebrated Milner says that 
 4 Miracles are the criterion of truth.' Speak- 
 
 ing of your church he says, ' I am prepared 
 to show that God himself has borne testimo- 
 ny to her holiness, and to those very doc- 
 trines and practices, which Protestants ob- 
 ject to as unholy and superstitious, by the 
 many incontestable miracles he has wrought 
 in her, and in their favour, from the age of 
 the Apostles down to the present age.' He 
 boasts of the " number, splendor, and pub- 
 licity" of the miracles of St. Francis Xavier, 
 who was cotemporary with Luther; whom he 
 scorns for performing.no miracle. 
 
 From the Apostles to the Reformation he 
 considers Popish miracles established by the 
 best witnesses; and he quotes Middleton to 
 show that the " same succession is still fur- 
 ther deduced by persons of the same eminent 
 character for probity, learning, and dignity, 
 in the Romish Church, to this very day ; so 
 that the only doubt which can remain with 
 us is, whether church historians are to be 
 trusted or not: for if any credit be due to 
 them in the present case, it must reach to all 
 or none: because the reason for believing 
 them in any one age will be found to be of 
 equal force in all, as far as it depends on the 
 character of the persons attesting, or on the 
 thing attested.' 
 
 This great Romanist says, ' With respect 
 to miraculous cures of a late date, I have the 
 most respectable attestation of several of 
 them, and I am well acquainted with four or 
 five persons who have experienced them.' 
 ' In those processes which are constantly go- 
 ing on at the Apostolical See, for the canoni- 
 zation of new saints, fresh miracles of a re- 
 cent date continue to be proved with the 
 highest degree of evidence, as I can testify 
 from having perused, on the spot, the official 
 printed account of some of them.' He some- 
 times speaks of certain Protestants joining 
 with Papists to attest these miracles. If so, 
 I should expect them to swear harder than 
 the Papists, as Casaubon was more zealous 
 for Popery than Thuanus. But the main wit- 
 nesses to whom we are to look are ' the Ro- 
 mish Church,' as Middleton says above, and 
 'the Apostolical See,' as Milner says. 
 
 Now while they are prosecuting their pro- 
 cess of canonization, I should be thankful for 
 the liberty of conducting a process of cross- 
 exa?nination. Your presence and that of Dr. 
 Milner would be very acceptable. My first 
 question then, would be, Do you receive and 
 believe 'the legendaaurea of Jacobus de Vo- 
 ragine, the Speculum of Vincentius Bellua- 
 censis, the Saints' Lives of the Patrician, 
 Metaphrastes, and scores of similar legends, 
 stuffed as they are, with relations of miracles 
 
S32 
 
 of every description ?' Bishop Milner says, 
 No. Are Papists bound to believe the le- 
 gends published in one of your own authentic 
 ecclesiastical standards, called theBflEviARY? 
 Mr. Hughes answers, No: though you will 
 not surprise me by denying this answer, as 
 you have denied your sending a verbal mes- 
 sage to your Opponent. If we can ascertain 
 the merits of the Breviary, we may soon con- 
 jecture how much confidence is due to the 
 assertions or denials of the Romish Priest- 
 hood. 
 
 The Council of Trent, in the continuation 
 of their session on the 4th day of December, 
 1563, ordered this Breviary, along with their 
 Catechism, Missal, and Expurgatorial Index, 
 and placed it upon the same foundation with 
 them. The copy which is now before me, 
 published in 1724, was * Recognized by the 
 authority of the Supreme Pontiffs, Paul V. 
 and Urban VIII. ? and has internal evi- 
 dence that it was used by French Roman ec- 
 clesiastics, until the Pope came to Paris to 
 crown his beloved son Napoleon. The le- 
 gends of this Breviary are accounts of mira- 
 cles, authenticated by Middleton's 'Romish 
 Church,' and Milner's 'Apostolical See,' in 
 those processes of canonization by which 
 those persons whom the legends celebrate, 
 were added to the list of Saints. 
 
 If these be true, then we must believe that 
 some of your saints sailed over boisterous 
 waters in no other vessel than a cloth cloak; 
 another hung three days by the neck without 
 inconvenience; another, after decollation, 
 took a promenade with his head in his hands; 
 another raised a witness from the dead to 
 establish the title of certain church lands, 
 and then revived himself, after being cut into 
 mince meat, and scattered over the fields. 
 Now if 3'uu are not prepared to swallow these 
 whole, along with a volume of similar ones, 
 what becomes of Popish saints, Popish mira- 
 cles, Popish veracity, and Popish religion ? 
 If these legends be not strictly true, then the 
 persons of whom they are related are not 
 saints, because it was upon the evidence of 
 these miracles regularly and unanswerably 
 proved in the process before the Apostolical 
 See, that they were canonized. 11 they be 
 not true, as you know they are not, then the 
 ' Romish Church,' and the ' Apostolical See,' 
 have published ' signs and lying ivonders;'' 
 and as they have put them into a religious 
 standard, and a book of daily devotion, they 
 are found ' speaking lies in hypocrisy.' The 
 same thing can be proved abundantly, with 
 respect to your Missal, and the Catechism 
 of the Council of Trent; all of which are 
 
 of the highest possible authority in your 
 church. 
 
 If you cannot believe such fables upon the 
 authority of the Pope and his Cardinals, how 
 can you expect us to believe late marvels, 
 upon the word of Bisliop Milner, and his 
 parishioners? If your written standards are 
 stuffed with 'five hundred enormous false- 
 hoods,' and these too of the traditionary 
 character, how can you expect us to receive 
 your pretended ancient Liturgies, which 
 your last letter confessed ' were not, for a 
 long time, committed to writing at all:' or 
 how can you expect us to receive any of 
 your traditions, as an infallible rule of faith 
 and practice, on a footing with the holy 
 word of God, who cannot lie? Can we re- 
 ceive as infallible interpreters of Scripture, 
 those who corrupt their ecclesiastical stan- 
 dards with falsehoods which they cannot be- 
 lieve themselves. 
 
 You say that Papists are at liberty to be- 
 lieve these legends or not as they please: 
 yes, and the community are equally at liber- 
 ty to believe or not to believe your legend- 
 ary calumnies against* Martin Luther, and 
 your opponent. If your church will not tell 
 the .truth to its own ministers and members, 
 how can it be expected to keep faith with 
 Heretics? and the fact of their utter and im- 
 pious disregard of veracity and honesty, 
 even in their standards, is a proof of the 
 general, deep, and horrible immoralities of 
 your Popes and Priests, attested by 77m- 
 anus, du Pin, and Baroniits, ..jour own his- 
 torians. As to the revision of ecclesiastical 
 formularies, you seem frequently and great- 
 ly amused with its supposed absurdity; so 
 that your falsehoods are incurable, be- 
 cause, like quack medicines, they are infal 
 lible. 
 
 Through the kind assistance of my Heaven- 
 ly Father I have now endeavoured to show 
 that it is not the champion of the Protestant 
 faith who has retreated; — that your charges 
 of incompetency arise from your experience 
 of his strength; — that such sorts of misma- 
 nagement as are alleged belong more proper- 
 ly to the Popish Advocate; — that it is he 
 who is wanting in courtesy; — that he wan- 
 ders from the point; — that he adduces spu- 
 rious authorities, — vague quotations, — per- 
 versions, — corruptions, — and falsehoods. 
 
 I shall thank you to correct any error or 
 mistake. I write for truth, and am willing 
 to receive it from any quarter. But what- 
 soever fault you may find with me, it is im- 
 possible that you can be right. You profess 
 to believe in the supremacy of the Pope, and 
 
324 
 
 the infallibility of the church, and yet you 
 refuse to acknowledge and believe the Index 
 and Breviary which tliey have made obliga- 
 tory. Or if you believe in these instruments 
 of oppression and persecution, and these 
 chronicles of 'lying wonders,' you show 
 yourself the enemy of light and liberty, of 
 truth and righteousness. May Gnd open 
 your eyes and those of your deluded follow- 
 ers, through the Spirit of Jesus. 
 
 W. L. M 'CALL A. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 (No. 1.) 
 Philadelphia, September 19th, 1833. 
 To the Rev. John Hughes, 
 
 Sir, — When I accepted your offer of a public 
 controversy, I proposed to you the alternative of 
 a connected discussion in successive volumes, or 
 of a public oral debate. You declined both of these 
 however; and after much difficulty and delay the 
 present plan was finally adopted, under a limita- 
 tion of six months. The reason of this limitation 
 was the nature of my present occupation which 
 requires me to be absent from home, a greater 
 part of the year. By the indulgence of the Board 
 of Education of the Presbyterian Church, in 
 whose service I am engaged, I was enabled to 
 add two months to the six already devoted to 
 you. These have now expired ; and my duty 
 imperatively calls me to leave the city and travel 
 at large through the country for several months. 
 
 As I am very solicitous however to continue 
 and complete this Controversy, I now propose 
 to you a public oral discussion of the remaining 
 topics as soon after my return as may be conve- 
 nient for the parties. In this way, and in this 
 alone, we can in a few successive days investi- 
 gate every subject which it may be desirable to 
 discuss. I now claim this arrangement, not only 
 as due to me in justice, but in the exercise of 
 that choice which you conceded to me in your 
 note of August 1st, (See Appendix to Letter No. 
 XXVIII.) w here you say "you will have it in 
 your power to fix the limitation, when and where 
 you may deem it convenient." I now fix it on 
 the Rostrum, before the American people. If 
 you decline this proposal in view of the above 
 facts, it must be considered as the expression of 
 a desire to retire from the defence of your cause. 
 
 An early and explicit answer is requested. 
 I remain your obedient servant, 
 
 JOHN BRECKINRIDGE. 
 
 P. S. You will be so kind as to receive the 
 bearer, the Rev. William L. M'Calla as fully au- 
 thorized by me to negotiate the proposals of this 
 letter, and all things connected with it, or result- 
 ing from it. J. B. 
 
 (No. 20 
 To the Rev. Mr. Breckinridge. 
 
 Dear Sir, — A few minutes after we parted on J 
 yesterday, I had it in my power to present to Mr. | 
 
 Hughes your letter inviting him to discuss on the 
 rostrum those subjects which have for some months 
 occupied you in the press. He declined a written 
 answer, but made me his authorized reporter. He 
 referred to a letter of his preliminary to the pre- 
 sent controversy; to the contents of which he still 
 adheres. The following are the words of that 
 letter, viz. " If yon" prefer an oral discussion un- 
 der the guidance of these rules, let it be in the 
 presence of twelve enlightened gentlemen, neither 
 Catholics nor Presbyterians; and again I am 
 ready. But I cannot consent to exhibit myself as 
 a theological gladiator, for the amusement of an 
 idle, promiscuous, curious multitude." In expla- 
 nation Mr. Hughes spoke of these twelve judges 
 as composing a jury, whose province it should be 
 to make decisions far more important than on 
 mere points of order. 
 
 From a recent correspondence about the conti- 
 nuance of the Controversy, your letter of yester- 
 day quoted Mr. Hughes's words empowering you 
 to decide that matter li when and ivhere you may 
 deem it convenient." Without deciding upon the 
 when, you deemed it convenient that the ivhere 
 should be on the rostrum. This, Mr. Hughes 
 says, is a misunderstanding of his words; he 
 meant that you might close* the discussion at 
 whatsoever time, and in whatsoever stage of the 
 Controversy you might choose. He observed that 
 he should, if alive, feel bound to resume it, if, on 
 your return to the city, you should intimate such 
 a desire. 
 
 I was a little importunate in a request that he 
 would commit these things to paper; but he would 
 not consent. I observed that I was cheerfully at 
 the service of the parties in this matter while it 
 might be necessary. 
 Yours, 
 
 W. L. M'CALLA. 
 Philada. Sept. 20, 1833. 
 
 (No. 3.) 
 
 Philada. Sept. 21, 1833. 
 To the Rev. John Hughes. 
 
 I have received with extreme regret your verbal 
 reply to my letter of the 19th inst. in which you 
 wholly decline my proposal to finish the pending 
 Controversy in a public oral discussion. 
 
 In existing circumstances, therefore, my letter 
 of the 25th will close the Controversy, until my 
 return from the tours incident to my office, at the 
 present season of the year. If, however, you de- 
 sire its unbroken continuance, I offer to you as a 
 substitute (according to your own suggestion, in 
 view of possible interruptions on my part) the 
 Rev. William L. M'Calla during my absence. If 
 Providence permit my return, as I hope, after 
 some weeks, I shall be prepared, and disposed to. 
 resume the discussion in such a way as may be 
 agreed upon between us. And I hereby assure 
 you that nothing shall hinder me (if God permit) 
 from bringing this whole subject before the Ame- 
 rican people. 
 
 I remain your obedient servant, 
 
 JOHN BRECKINRIDGE. 
 
:t*j 
 
 .» 
 
 (No. 4.) 
 
 To the Rev. Mr. Breckinridge. , 
 
 Dear Sir, — Your letter of to day was handed to 
 Mr. Hughes a few minutes ago. He promised to 
 send you a written answer before 10 o'clock on 
 Monday next. He persevered in claiming the 
 light to answer your last letter; and declared that 
 he would not recognize any substitute in your ab- 
 sence, and of course would not notice any reply 
 which I might make to his letter. My desire was 
 to keep out of the Controversy; and if your journey 
 shall claim only one letter from me, my wish is 
 very nearly gratified. 
 
 Yours, 
 
 W. L. M'CALLA. 
 Philada. Sept. 21, 1833. 
 
 (No. 5.) 
 
 Philad. Sept. 23d, 1833. 
 
 To the Rev, John Breckinridge. 
 
 ReV. Sir, — In reply to your letters of the 19th 
 and 20th Inst. I have to inform you that I see no 
 reason why We should depart from the form and 
 medium of Controversy which we have used hi- 
 therto, and which was agreed upon between us 
 after mature deliberation arid repeated conferences. 
 It is unnecessary here to state the reasons that in- 
 duced me to prefer conducting the Controversy in 
 the form of letters, nor will the public be at a loss 
 to divine your motives for now declining that 
 mode, as it must be evident that in an oral discus- 
 sion, you would have the opportunity of quoting 
 authorities in a manner to suit your own purpose, 
 when it would not be in the power of your oppo- 
 nent to detect and expose you, as has been suc- 
 cessfully done in a variety of instances. It would 
 seem as if you considered yourself justified in 
 overturning our rules and regulations in globo, — 
 having contrived to evade and violate them in de- 
 tail, during the progress of the Controversy. But, 
 Sir, I am not to be made a party to such proceed- 
 ing. It was through the press you first assailed 
 the Catholic church. Through the press you cir- 
 culated your memorable challenge to "Priests 
 and Bishops." Through the press I have, thus 
 far, successfully exposed your incompetency to 
 defend your cause, except by misrepresentations 
 of doctrines or perversions of authorities — and 
 through the press I shall continue to submit the 
 case to the judgment of a discerning and enlight- 
 ened public, until the final close of the Contro- 
 versy. If your business carry you abroad, you 
 are free to discontinue when you please, and to 
 resume when you may find it convenient to do so. 
 But you must not deprive me of my right to re- 
 turn the arrow which j r ou shoot — in retreating. 
 When you return, you may resume the contest, 
 and I shall be prepared to receive you. 
 
 In the mean time I have to assure you that I 
 have not sent any " verbal reply" to either of your 
 letters. 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
 JOHN HUGHES. 
 
 (No. c.) 
 
 Philadelphia, Sept. 28, 1833. 
 To the Rev. John Hughes, 
 
 Sir, — I have received your answer of the 23d, 
 to my communication of the 21st ; and have also 
 seen your note to the publishers of the Presbyte- 
 rian asserting your purpose to reply to my Letter 
 No. 34. It is difficult for me tell you, how pain- 
 ful it is to me, on the point of my departure, to 
 see you pursuing so unworthy a course ; or to 
 frame an apology for it. As you wrote the first 
 letter in the series, so it is clearly my place, as 
 respondent to write the last. Yet you insist on 
 writing the last as well as the first. If it re- 
 quires two of your letters to answer one of mine, 
 then can any one be at a loss to draw the infer- 
 ence ] What renders your desperate condition 
 still more apparent is, that you seek the exercise 
 of so unjust an advantage at the moment of my 
 departure, and not only insist on a supernumerary 
 letter, but Would deny me the right of responding 
 to it, even through a friend — while necessary ab- 
 sence renders it impossible for me to do it in 
 person,- while yet you first suggested this very ar- 
 rangement in view of my possible interruptions ; 
 and while, with the resolution of despair, you re- 
 fuse to meet me on the Rostrum. When you 
 charge me with seeking an oral debate that I 
 may shun your examination, and exposure of my 
 authorities, you forget that a cart-load of 'authori- 
 ties,' might attend each of us to the stage ; and that 
 this will be the very place to confront and expose 
 false references. I am so accustomed to the lan- 
 guage of insult from you that it now passes me, 
 with no other emotion but pity, and regret that I 
 am constrained, to sustain a Controversy with one 
 who defends his cause at the expense of his char- 
 acter. Your praise might now appear almost a 
 reason for self-examination ; and while I can ap- 
 peal to God, and my country for my character, 
 and to your own monuments for the truth of all 
 my citations, I shall continue to construe your 
 personal attacks, as the last struggles of a "sys- 
 tem which has ceased to be defended by argu- 
 ment and truth. My reasons for proposing a 
 public debate were these. I desired from the 
 very first a discussion which could be presented 
 in a body, (as in a book) that all our arguments 
 njight rapidly, and together, be examined and re- 
 viewed. But for this you proposed to substitute 
 the columns of a daily newspaper ! 
 
 The next best form and the nearest approach to 
 the former, is a public debate. This, besides 
 passing before our hearers in a few days, tho 
 whole matter of controversy, might be speedily 
 finished, and then allow me room for other du- 
 ties which call me much abroad. Either of 
 these methods is better suited to both these ends, 
 than a protracted newspaper discussion, which 
 may become interminable, and affords to you the 
 occasion of incessant evasions. On the Rostrum 
 I could bring you to the point, and confront you 
 before the people, where cowards lose their shel- 
 ter, sophists their veil, and Jesuits their power 
 to dally and deceive. 
 
 Being now, in the providence of God called 
 
320 
 
 away for a season, as you insist on still another 
 letter, I must leave you under the care of my gal- 
 lant friend, during my absence. I shall request 
 him to do no more than is necessary, in replying 
 to your forth-coming letter, if you persist in so 
 unjust an act. 
 
 In closing this communication, I beg you to 
 bear in mind, that your fond hope of my " re- 
 treat," cannot be realized, however consoling 
 such an event might be to you, at the present 
 crisis. In the existing posture of the discussion, 
 I can scarcely believe that any one (much less 
 yourself,) will construe my absence into "a re- 
 treat," especially when our first arrangements 
 were made in view of that absence, and when I 
 spontaneously added two months to the six origi- 
 nally fixed on as the limit of the Controversy. 
 1 hope however soon to have it in my power to 
 give a practical refutation to so uncandid and 
 false a charge. If my life should be continued 
 by a merciful God, I shall promptly be at hand, 
 prepared to press the discussion to its legitimate 
 close, in any form consistent with my present 
 mode of life, whether on the Rostrum, or in per- 
 manent volumes, or in the weekly papers, either 
 with you or without you. 
 
 I remain, yours, &c. 
 
 JOHN BRECKINRIDGE. 
 
 (No. 7.) 
 Office of the Board of Education, 
 Philadelphia, Oct. 2d, 1833. 
 To the Rev. W. L. M'Calla. 
 
 My Dear Brother, — On the eve of my departure 
 from the city I address you a few lines to say, 
 that the Rev. Mr. Hughes has determined to 
 write, in my absence, a supernumerary letter, and 
 ihat the Editor of 'The Presbyterian,' to avoid 
 
 even the appearance of taking any advantage, ha9 
 consented to insert it. I need not here make any 
 comments on a course so unjust and ungenerous, 
 as that pursued by Mr. Hughes. He has known 
 the necessity of my absence for many months, 
 and has agreed heretofore to a suspension of the 
 Controversy when it became necessary. The 
 reason of his determination to write again, cannot 
 be the injustice which will be done to him by 
 suspending the Controversy at this stage — for 
 after he writes he must see that tenfold injustice 
 will be done to me ; since he will then have writ- 
 ten the first letter and the last. The community 
 therefore cannot fail to fix upon the true and the 
 only reason in the case, which is the condition of 
 the question, at this time. 
 
 It is very probable that his letter may require 
 no reply; for he has given us little " new matter'''' 
 lately. But I have to request that you will repre- 
 sent me in my absence; ami reply to his letter, if 
 you think it necessary. Allow me to add, that al- 
 though I know full well your superior qualifications 
 for ably defending our common and precious faith, 
 yet as God in his holy providence has called me 
 to begin this discussion, it is my earnest wish to 
 close it also ; and therefore I have to beg that you 
 will do no more than meet the exigency occasioned 
 by the Rev. Mr. Hughes' attack in my absence. 
 I hope soon to resume my place in the discussion. 
 But if I should be called by God to leave the 
 world before I return, I bequeath to you the com- 
 pletion of a Controversy on which many eyes are 
 fastened, and many solemn and dear interests 
 suspended ; and in regard to which my only 
 source of regret has been, my insufficiency for so 
 great and glorious a service. 
 
 I remain yours, in the best bonds, 
 
 JOHN BRECKINRIDGE. 
 
°" Theological Semmary-Speer L 
 
 1 1012 01056 6992 
 
 Date Due 
 
 facujji 
 
 
 
 
 ■:-mmmwt- 
 
 i *, 
 
 
 
 ^u^cty 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 %n& 
 
 *;>,'■* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ! 
 
 ^feStb. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f>