i. 'inrv^w'^'' Division.,,.. >r^ C-^C-^ Section,...^ ycP/ Mo., ■'S^n.n; THE ^ ^ BETWEEN THE ( AEV. DR. W. 0. BROWBrZiEE, ON THE PART OF THE PROTESTANTS, AND THE RcT. Drt. John Power, Thos. C. LeTinf, and Felix Varela, ON THE PART OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS. PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY BOYLE & BENEDICT, Sold, at the Pennsylvania Branch Tract Depositorv, 31 N. Fourth street; Office of the Philadelphian, 9 Library street; Office of the Presbyterian, 9 George street ; by G, W. Mentz & Son, 53 N. Third street; French & Perkins, Chesnut street, opposite the U. S. Bank ; Lattimer & Co, Fourth, between Market and Chesnut streets ; Thos. Sutton, 211 N. Third street ; Shadrach Taylor 384 N. Second street ; at 44 Spruce street; and by the Publishers, N. W. corner of Coates and Second streets. 1833. ' C^ ^ " / ^ «^^^( \ CONTKOIERSY. The origin and cause ivhich led to this controversy are briefly explained in the followinfi; Utter from Dr. Brownlee, published in the *•' Truth Teller.'' of Anv York, of the 2d of February, TO THE EDITOR OF THE TRUTH TELLE. Sir: — In a series of letters addressed, by a Roman Catholic writer, to me by name, in your columns, I have been Jionored with a succession of public challenges to come out in the dis- cussion of the Roman Catholic tenets. And you have, once and again, in the frankest and most candid manner, by a print- ed invitation, in your journal, offered me your columns for a re- ply. And to-day, I have received a verbal message from you, by Mr. Chambers, to the same purpose. I have stated repeatedly to my friends, and also in a letter to a Roman Catholic gentleman of my acquaintance, and yours, — 1 mean Dr. B., that I shall not come out in reply to any anony- mous writer. And you know as well as I, that no man of honor would do it. I have waited for several months to see some responsible name appear ; I have been hitherto, disappointed. Even as late as Saturday, the same writer equally reckless of truth, and decency, again presents himself en masque^ in your columns. But, now, feeling as every Protestant minister does, that no one should decline a call given by the Divine Master, to defend his truth, I beg leave to make the following propositions, in all frankness, and candor. Through you I beg respectfully to give a challenge in my turn, to any one of the following gentlemen, Roman Catholic Priests, in our city, to come forward, and dis- cuss, in a series of Letters, alternately with me, the great lead- ing doctrines, and practices which seperate the Protestant Churches from Rome : — I mean the Right Rev. Bishop Dubois ; or the very Rev. Dr. Power; or the very Rev. Dr. Varela; or the Rev. Mr. Levins; or any other, whom they will publicly nomin- ate, and recommend as their substiute. I offer to begin the discussion, if you please, any time after the first day of March ensuing; or, when they shall name the day ; or 1 shall let them commence the discussion. And it is to be understood that the respective letters shall be printed in your columns faithfully and precisely, as they have been given in by their authors : and also in the pages of the Protestant <" faithfully and precisely, ^s given into it, — errors, of course being corrected. A reply, as early as you can make it convenient, is respect- fully requested. I am, Sir, your most obedient and humble servant, W. C. Brownlee, To W. Denman, Esq. > Editor of the Truth Teller, I JVew York, January, 2Sth, 1833. The following letter appeared in the "Truth Teller," in re- ply to Dr. Brownlee. ,^ ACCEPTANCE OF THE CHAI^T^ENGE. Mr, Editor: — We accept Dr. Brownlee's " Challenge.'' But, to exclude all chance of introducing equivocal or irrevelant matter, to secure singleness of view, and unity of object, to pre- vent shift, subterfuge, and cavil, " to avoid foolish and unlearned questions, knowing that they beget strife," 2 Tim. ii. 23. ; — he is requested to state what is his Rule of Faith, and who, or what is his Judge of Controversies in matters of faith. (Signed) John Power, V. G. and Rector of St. Peter's. Thomas C. Levins, Pastor of St. Patrick's Cathedral. Felix Varela, Pastor of Christ's Church. Dr. BIl01¥J\IiEE'!S LETTER, N&. 1. COMMENCING THE DISCUSSION. To the Editor of the Truth Teller. Sir : — I feel indebted to your politeness and courtesy in causing to be inserted in your columns, my call for a responsible name : and, through you, I tender my respects to the learned gentlemen who have met my invitation. I hope we shall not be so long in settling our preliminaries, as the two gentlemen were, who have commenced their discussion in Philadelphia. At any rate it shall not be my fault, if we are. I hope Sir, the learned Priests do not mean to throv; a barrier in the way, to prevent our discussion: although the request, or insinuation put forth in their " acceptance" of my " Challenge," does appear to me to be something which squints that way. The fact is, Mr. Editor, — I do not mean to be stopt at the very threshold of the discussion, by any invitation to settle the Rule of Faith and the Judge of controversy. If we must pause here until we agree on this point — then we shall stop here for- ever. The Protestant and the Roman Catholic do not ; — and what is more, they cannot ever agree on this point : this creates the abyss which lies between them : it* they could agree on this point, they would no longer stand in the relation of Protestant and Catholic. The only Rule of faith, and final Judge of controversy y with, every Protestant, is the Holy Spirit speaking to us in the WRITTEN WORD OF GoD, THE HoLY ScRiPTUREs J Containing alt the books of the Old Testament, and all the books of the New Testament. In these God spoke to the Church in Hebrew and in Greek : if there be any thing not so plain, at first view, as I wish, I compare parallel passages, and evolve the meaning by all proper means, under the guidance of the fountain of truth,, the spirit of God, who has promised to " guide us in all truth.''* John 16, 13. To charge the Holy Scriptures with obscurity, or deficiency no christian will venture to take it on himself: to do so, would be to bring a charge against the Holy Ghost. The obscurity that exist is not on the pages of the Bible, but in our own minds. Hence the Spirit of God teaches us to pray — " Open thou mine eyes that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law ! " [ Psalm 119, 18. ] and shall I dare to call that obscure or imper- fect, which the Spirit of God gave forth, and has declared to be clear or "plain to him that understandeth;" so that he may run who readeth it"? Shall I dare to add human traditions, or the laws of a mortal man to that Rule which God has given to the Church, and pronounced is his Divine Majesty, as the only law- giver, to be " perfect" and " sure" and " right," and " pure9" [Ps. 19.] Should T dare to add to God's holy word, who has laid this solemn command on Protestant, Pope, and Priest, say- ing, " ADD THOU NOT UNTO HIS WORDS, LEST HE REPROVE THEE AND THOU BE FOUND A LIAR !" — [Pi'ov. 30, 6.] Shall any man, priest or lay man, dare to add to that Holy Book of God which the Holy Spirit has made perfect, and closed up, and seal- ed with a tremendous malediction on the mortal who shall ven- ture " to add to it or take away from it."" [Revel. 22, 18, 19.] 1 can appeal, in controversy, to no tribunal but to that of the Holy Ghost speaking in the sacred Scriptures ; — who has ex- presssly enjoined on us this command, [Isaiah 8th, 19, 20.] " Should not a people seek to their God? for the living to the dead 9 to the law, and to the testimony, if we speak not according to this word, it is BECAUSE THERE IS NO LIGHT Iff THEM." The Bible contains the whole religion of the Protest- ant. But if a mortal man has a right to add to", God's word, then why may, he not also alter, and new model it 9 But the man, bo he Pope, Priest, or Protestant, who would dare to do 6 this is taking on him to usurp the throne of God : he sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God ! He sits in judgment on his maker — calling him up to his bar, and daring to dictate to God ! If this be not the consummation of blasphe- mous daring, I profess 1 know not what can be ! As for traditions and oral laws, we will treat them with the same respect as we do the Koran of Mohammed, until the evi- dence of their divinity be produced, and established by pro- phecy, tongues and miracles : and the fact be confirmed that God gave them to the Church of Christ for a Rule. As for the Fathers of the Greek and Latin Churches, I pro- fess to read them as much as any of my learned antagonists. And I will receive their pages with profound veneration, and sit at their feet, as the expositors of truth, as soon as the Catholic Church of Rome shall produce a genuine copy of them as the fathers wrote, and left, their sentiments : — namely and editio ex- purgata, free of all the scandalous alterations and corruptions made in them, by the monks of the dark ages ! For the Pope, 1 shall yield myself a dutiful son of '^ Holy Mother Church," and throw myself at his Holiness' feet as soon as he can produce, before the Christian world, his genuine, and authentic credentials, from the court of heaven ; confirmed in- fallibly by the miraculous gifts of tongues, and prophecy, and miracles — as the holy Apostles did — that God Almighty has really constituted him, the legal deposit of truth; the fountain of immaculate purity, and the accredited expounder of the Holy Bible; to create mental light, and with his keys seal up darkness in the heretical mind ; and be the final judge of controversy. I am inclined to think that the world has become rather too en- lightened to give credit to a man who takes it into his head to- set up for the "standard" of truth, as one who is admitted into the secrets of Heaven, and a cabinet minister of the Court of the Almighty. Nay, so unruly has the human mind become in consequence of its bursting the horrid chains of darkness and superstition, and emancipating itself from the ghostly pow- er of the dark ages, that it not only ventures to call a man a fanatic; but actually to propose a tight jacket, and a bedlam, for the man who would enact the scenes of former days ; and propose, and constitute himself the final judge of controversy, to set up claims over God's own word ; — pass gag laws against freedom of speech and tiie press ; to forge chains lor the human conscience ; and prevent the progress of glorious liberty ! — This is Protestantism. On the contrary, every body knows that the Roman Catholic Church rejects these opinions of Protestants with disgust. They deny, with indignation that the written word of God, or, the Holy Ghost speaking in the holy sciiptures, either is, or can be iheruleof fmth^ or Judge of controversy. What we call God speaking in the scriptures, they venture to pronounce to be obscure powerless ^i}ii\d. utterly unfit to be a Ruler or Judge. What we call the voice of God speaking: in the Holy Word, has, with them, no authority, no power, no binding obligation on the conscience: — until the Pope, or a Council, or the Pope and a Council^ or the Holy Church pronounce the word and give it vitality and authority ! Even God cannot speak through his own word with either intelligence or authority until the Pope shall bid it have intelligence and au- thority ! He is the " living speaking Oracle," of truth, the "only final Judge of controversy ! Hence it is a moral imposi-ibility that the Protestant and the Roman Catholic ever can agree upon this point. I am fully aware, Mr. Editor, of the object which the learned Priests had in view, in putting the question to me, in their " acceptance," of my " challenge ;" respecting the Rule of my Faith and the Judge. But 1 am resolved that no barrier shall be allowed to rise up here, to prevent discussion, on the main points which I have selected for myself. And 1 hope Mr. Edi- tor, that you also will allow none to be thrown in the way. And I can retort on my learned opponents: I can even, for the sake of argument, grant them the benefit of their " living, speaking Oracle," for a season : what will they gain from it ? They believe, and do here insinuate, that the absence and want of a livi7igf speaking oracle, has originated and perpetuated the various divisions and sects among Protestants. And this has afforded a rich harvest of materials for our good humored oppo- nent's eloquence. Every body in New York State, and in Penn- sylvania, has heard Dr. Power's famous and eloquent sermon on Unity, Catholicity, and the endless divisions of the heretics ; — Socinians, Arminians, Lutherans, Calvinists, et id genus omne ! Now, sir, it so happens that we Protestants are also quite elo- quent on this very point, and with the same materials too : — We say, "Behold, ye men of the world, a picture of the Protes- tant's mildness, charity, and forbearance ! See how all sects and classes of Christians can live in peace and harmony, in the United States, — a blessed republic, where there is no established religion ; no union of Church and State ! What a glorious change of times ! — There is not, perhaps one sect now known among us which has not, in one age, or other, sprung up in the bosom of <' Holy Mother." But, then, sirs, the Holy Inquisi- tion sought them out with dutiful and assiduous care, and made CLORious BONFIRES OF THEM ! Evcry retumipg year at the Fecist 8 of Charity^ called an Auto da fe, did Holy Mother turn all these young heretics, and would-be founders of sects, into the iire, and burnt them up. And by way of maternal kindness sent them to the fire of perdition ! But, after all, it is a pleasant piece of humor, to hear the Ro- man Catholic Priests ridiculing *' the endless divisions, and sects of the Protestants; while they laud the unity of Holy Mother Church, created and cemented by their living, speaking Oracle! What ! This coming from the members of the Roman -Church; — a Church containing, in her bosom, more divisions, and sects, than all those of Protestants ! A Church rent and torn by divisions of the most untractable and irreconcilable kind ! Ask you for proof 9 Witness the feuds in that day when three rival Popes were mutually putting the sacred ban of Heaven on each other ! Wit- ness the divisions and horrid scenes of conflict in the bosom of Holy Mother in the great Western Schism which every Roman Catholic historian details. At the death of Pope Gregory XL, two Popes, rivals, were elected by the two ferocious factions ; they mutually cursed and excommunicated each other. Alas ! where was " the one living speaking oracle ! " then ! This schism and its evils existed from A. D. 1378 to A. D. 1428. [See Du Puy, Histoire &c. and Dupin &:c.J SVitness the divisions caused in doctrines by the Augustines, conflicting with other sects ! Witness the violent feuds between the Jansenists and the Jesuits in France, which set at defiance the entreaties of the Pope, and even the thunders of the Vatican ! Witness the divisions in sentiment, and doctrines, and rites, caused by the Dominicans, so famous for their zeal in burning, better and more virtuous men than themselves ; and the differ- ent sects of gray friars, and white, and black ; and the mendi- cants ! Witness the exasperating feuds between the Franciscans and the Dominicans, touching the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary. The former, stoutly maintaining that she was conceived by her mother, as pure and innocent as Jesus Christ was. And the latter sect, with no less than Saint Bernard at their head, insisting that this was a damnable heresy ! Witness the eternal wars, in the bosom of Holy Mother, between these unnatural and turbulent sons, the Scotists, and the Thomists ! From time immemorial the French and the Flemings have openly opposed and denounced the Pope's supreme dominion in the Church I And in their turn the Popes have dutifully denounced them, and hurled their potent bulls against the refractory Galil- ean Church. Witness the terrific feuds and brawls of the Je- suits, the Benedictines, and Dominicans. Witness the six grand 9 heads of controversy in the sixteenth century, which rent the Holy Church in pieces ; and which are familiar to every Roman Catholic student of their own iiistories! The fierce and indomi- table Jesuits were pitted against the Jansenists and Dominicans, and Augustines. Sometimes the Jesuits and Dominicans were pitted against each other, as, for instance, on the doctrines of grace ! At other times, the Jesuits and the Dominicans united on the efficacy of Sacramen's, opposing all other sects! [See Dr. Courrayer's translation of Paul Sarpi's Council of Trent.] Witness, moreover, the controversy in Holy Mother Church, in the sixteenth century between M. Bains a doctor of Louvain, and his opponents, touching the doctrines which now divide Protestants. Whoever will read carefully the history of the Romish Church, of that age, will see within the very bosom of Unity itself, positively, almost all the different sects of Protes- tants. [1 refer to the Roman Catholic reader, in proof of this to the Jesuit, Dominick Colonia's work ^'Biblotkeque Janseniste,''^ &,c. published in A. D. 1735.] Witness the violent conflict be- tween the Franciscans and the Pope John XXII. in the four- teenth century ! and the fierce contest between the Jesuits, on the one side, and the Augustine doctors, and the University of Louvain, and of Douay ! Witness the long and furious contro- versy between the Molinists of Spain, with the Augustines and Thomists, and which set at defiance Pope Clement VIH. and all his influence, for a long season ! Witness the controversy, kindled in France, by Quesnel's New Testament ; which was condemned by the famous bull Unigenitus of Pope Clement XL; but which was firmly sustained by the appellants of that king- dom, in defiance of the Pope ! In fine, I know scarcely a single century of Holy Mother Church's history, when the bosom of her Unity was not a fright- ful arena of fierce contending Priests, whom no power on earth, fallible or infl\llible, could compose, till they had exhausted their mutual fury ! See the pages of Nicholas de Clemengis ; Wessel of Groningen; Cassander, Rayner, and Ferus, Cap. 8. Judic. As for Unity, — there was Unity, Mr. Editor, I do readily admit itj — most striking Unity in Holy Mother. There was U7iity in opposing the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures, as the only rule and judge. There was unity in revering imnges and relics; and invoking the Saints. There was unity in decla- ring for severi sacraments instead of the Bible's two. There was unity in the belief and profit of purgatory : there is perfect unity in believing that the Pope has the keys of Heaven ; and that he and the Priests will allow no heretic to pass in : and that all iO Protestants are heretics ! There is perfect unity in Mother Church in denying the necessity of regeneration and a new heart, by the Holy Ghost; perfect unity in denying that Christ finished his atonement on the cross: on the contrary, that he is continually to be offered up, afresh, for the sins of the quick and the dead (heretics always excepted I ) in the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass! There is perfect unity m denying the justification of the sinner by the righteousness of Christ alone ! There is perfect unity in believing that Christ is not the only mediator, that the holy virgin is mediatrix ; and "Jwre matris jubet Jilio ;'''' and by "the rights of a mother commands her son " to hear us. [SeQ the Rosary and Missal. And particularly see the Psalmster of the Blessed Virgin, p. 84 of Bntiriventurn's works. The edi- lion I consult is that of 1484, Argent : from a Roman Catholic printing press.] In this Psalter the Saitit, who is worshipped by every good Catholic, on July 14, has gone over the Psalms, and for Lord, ^c. has inserted Our Lady, or Holy Mother^ ^c. And in one of the chaunts at the end of the psalter, he sets down this " O mother of God," ^'jubefiliOf^^ " command thy son, £s?c." This is a specimen of the true unity which characterises the Holy Mother. No other unity such as we admit of, is promoted by this " living, speaking Oracle." And it must be obvious to all who have followed me in this discussion, that it is worse tha-n* vain, to pause here, to settle this Rule and Judge. And I have no doubt that, my learned antagonists, being all men of sound discriminating sense, will cordially acquiesce with me in this opinion. Indeed, I cannot see how any reflecting man, who thinks for himself, and not by proxy, can, for one moment, hesi- tate on this subject. Besides sir, — " Ego et Rex," — I and the learned Priests have, already, tried our mutual strength on the floor, at oral debate. And they know, as well as I, that we got along, in perfect good humor, and quite successfully, without stopping to settle the point about the Ride and Judge. Each one took his own way; as I now respectfully propose to do; and went straight forward like honest men, and skilful controversalists. I mean, therefore, Mr. Editor, with your, and their leave, soon, to pass on to one great and vital point, — say the church. I am, sir, your most ob't and humble servant, W. C. BROWNLEE. W' Denmanj Esq. Editor^ £s?c. Uc. February C, 1833. 11 Reply of IPrs. Power ami Sjevins, TO DR. BROWNLEE. No. 1. Rev. Sir: — The days of chivalry, at least in the field of reli- gious controversy, are not passed. If your weapons be as vari- ous as the topics introduced into your last letter, we may filly term you the most redoubtable Knight vrho has couched a spear since the days of the Lion-hearted Richard. A "Challenge" to the Catholic Prelate and Priests of this city ! ! This, it is hoped, indicates nerve and intrepidity, not vapid boast and pre- sumption ; argument and the ''form of sound words," 2 Tim. i. 13, not idle declamation and petulant phrase; — charity and a sincere desire to elicit truth, not rancorous spirit and the dispo- sition that seeks retreat under subterfuge. In entering on the present controversy, our object is — we write it sincerely — to elicit truth. Against the rules of courte- ous intercourse it shall be our endeavour not to offend. From you, reverend sir, a Minister of good education and reputed abi- lities, those courtesies are expected, which characterise " a mo- ral, sensible, and well-bred man." The Roman Catholic and Protestant religion are not merely differences in opinion, they are opposite, and must always mu- tually counteract each other. If the Catholics are right, your reformatio)! was not merely superfluous, but must be stigmatised as a rebellion against the powers established by God himself If you hold the truth, the chief part of Catholic worship is not only erroneous, but idolatrous; an offence against Heaven, instead of a reasonable service. Taking the subject in this point of view, we think it a duty incumbent on every sincere Christian— Pre- late or Peasant — to have recourse to every possible means by which truth may be discovered, and to test every point, by in- vestigating the principles upon which each of these Churches claims her authority. From your letter it is not difficult to infer the form of warfare you would adopt. You have taken a range as extensive as it is indefinite. You are, at once, familiar with almost every contro- verted point. Genius like to yours, mighty in theological lore, and at home in the very abysses of erudition, may ambition a limitless expanse, but we are content with a space of very nar- row dimensions : — our aim is concentration of vision. When 13 many objects are presented to the view, there is danger of dis- tracting the attention from singleness of scrutiny, and producing that obliquity of perception which you classically term '^squint.^^ We are of the old School. We lay no claims to the illumina- tion produced by the modern schoolmaster. Hence, it is con- ceived, the vast field of polemical theology is too extensive to be embraced at one glance; and it is, also, respectfully suggested, that, had you restricted yourself to the single question asked — the RULE OF FAITH — uiuch labour, at present superfluous, might have been saved. To establish the right Rule of Faith is a point of the utmost importance. The v/ho!e system of religion de- pends upon it. It is its key-stone. To adopt a wrong rule, and to follow a false system of religion are, equivalenlly, synonymous terms, or, at least, the second is involved in the first. Hence our great suprise at finding so zealous and professing a Chris- tian as Dr. Brownlee, manifesting any reluctance to investigate this point, as tending " to throw a barrier in our way, and pre- vent our discussion!!!" But, reverend sir, though you, "a teacher in Israel," will not be stopt at the very threshold of the discussion by any invitation to settle the Rule of Faith and the Judge of Controversy, you will permit us to '* pause here" and examine this point, in the hope that by the grace of God, we may agree, and '' stand no longer in the relation of Protestant and Catholic." You tell us, reverend sir, "That the only Rule of Faith, and final Judge of Controversy, with every Protestant, is the Holy Spirit, speaking to us in the written Word of God, the Holy Scriptures, containing all the books of the Old Tes- tament, AND ALL the BOOKS OF THE NeW TESTArdENT. Ju thcSG God spoke to the Church, in Hebrew and in Greek, if there be any thing not so plain at first view, as I wish, I compare paral- lel passages, and evolve the meaning by all proper means, under the guidance of the fountain of truth, the Spirit of God, who has promised ' to guide us in all truth^^ John xvi. 13." Having stated your Rule of Faith, reverend sir, you appear to think all difficulty removed, all objections answered, for you say, " I do not mean to be stopt at the very threshold of the discus- sion, by any invitation to settle the Rule of Faith, and the Judge of Controversy.''^ Do you mean to affirm the Rule of Faith to be of no importance *? If of no importance, why state it, if of importance, why shrink from canvassing its truth '? If rational, it will pass unscathed through the ordeal of criticism; if not ra- tional, it will be a public good to brand it as an imposture, -s When you assert you *' will not be stopt at the very threshold of the discussion by any invitation to settle the Rule of Faith, and 13 the Judge of Controversy ^^^ are we to infer, are the members of your creed in the Middle Dutch Church to infer, that the Pro- testant Rule of Faith is an untenable position, the *' baseless fa- bric of a vision," a specious subterfuge to warp the minds of the unreflecting and cheat them into submission'? Should you re- fuse to found your Rule of Faith on argument, will you deem it a trespass against civility to suspect that you cannot maintain this vital point? But, while this is submitted to your most se- rious consideration, we refer you to the records of history to discover the uses that are made of your Protestant Rule of Faith in the early days of Christianity. The Valentinians, Eu- nomians, and Marcionites, were heretics, and they sought a shel- ter under it. It was the final refuge to Maximinus, the Arian Bishop : — it is now the watchword of every Protestant. Does not the coincidence suggest matter for reflection, nay, matter for legitimate deduction. The matter for reflection we leave you to develope, our deduction is, simply, this. Has it ever been known that the guilty appeal to a judge where certain condemna- tion awaited them '^ We believe not. But the abettors of heresy, and heresy involves guilty always appealed to the sentence of the Sacred Scriptures. Why did they appeal !■ Because the Scrip- tures, simply as Scriptures, could not give a living and effective utterance to their condemnation, and this it is presumed, has been the influencing motive, why the Scriptures have been ap- pealed to by Protestants as their only Jud«-e of Controversy. We beg to inform you, that in our opinion, you wrote without reflection, when you told us, that as a Protestant, you "com- pare parallel passages, and evolve the meaning by all proper means, if there be any thing not so plain at first sight in the Scriptures as you wish." What are we to think, reverend sir, when we find Protestants disagreeing on this fundamental point. Doctor Field, in his Book of the Church, says, ^^ that neither conference of places, nor the consideration of things /)rec6c?cn^ or subsequent, or looking into the original, are of any force unless we find the things, which we conceive to be understood, and meant in the places interpreted, to be consequent on the Rule of Faith, and which Rule of Faith must be tried by the general practice of the Church, or the renowned of all ages." Here, Sir, is a learned Protestant utterly condemning your Rule of Faith and Judge of Controversy. We think it a fair question to ask you, reverend sir, how do you know that the Bible is the Word of God? How do you know the books written by divine inspiration 9 Does the Bible contain the whole of the Word of God, or does it not^ These are fair questions. Dr. Brownlee. For, if it be true that the Scrip- tures are the sole rule of Faith, there ought to be the most un- 14 doubled evi(kn€e on these points — presunnptive evidence will not do. If there be not positive evidence, there must be an un* certainty, and if there be an uncertainty therie must be room for doubt. Now, if this be the case, the Scriptures so far from be- ing a rule of faith will be no rule at all, for, where there is room for fJoubt, there can be no certainty of faith, and consequently no faith can exist. Vv'here then is this evidence, reverend sir'? Undoubtedly it is not in the Bible itself, for no book can give evidence of its own authenticity. Is there any internal evidence in the Scriptures'] If there be, why does it not flash on the minds of all, and why are there Deists and other unbelievers^ — Should you say that the Scriptures were handed down to us through every age in such a manner that no man of reason can doubt of their authenticity, then we will agree with you. But, answer us, by w^hom have they been handed down '? We beg of you to solve this question, for an important argument depends on it. To know those by whom they were handed down is a proper knowledge, for on their credit and faith depends the proof of their authority. The veracity o'i their tradition must be the cor- ner stone of your faith, and it must be believed with divine faith before you can believe a word of Scriptures. Again we repeat, answer this one plain question, by whom were they handed down 9 The rule of faith with every Protestant, and the final judge of controversy, is, you say, "the Holy Spirit speaking to us in the written word of God the Holy Scriptures; containing all the books of the Old Testament, and all the books of the New Tes- tament." We presume you admit the Lutherans into the fellow- ship of good Protestants, and that their rule of truth is ^Hhe Holy Spirit, speaking in the written word of God, the Holy Scriptures." Now, reverend sir, if we take the Epistle of St. James, to the Lutheran, and ask him if that Epistle be canonical Scripture, he will tell me it is not — if we ask his reason for re- jecting it — his answer will be that he rejects the Epistle of St. James on the authority of the Spirit of God, speaking in the written word of God, the Holy Scriptures. Were w^e to present this identical Epistle to you, reverend sir, and put to you the same questions we did to the Lutheran, you would tell us the Epistle of St. James is canonical Scripture, and this you believe on the aidhorily of the Spirit of God, speaking in the Holy Scrip- tures. Here, then, we find the Spirit, telling the Lutheran, that he is to reject a book as uncanonical, and telling the Calvinist that the same book is canonical and divinely inspired. It is not going too far, to say that this spirit of contradiction is a spirit of falsehood, and, is it not blasphemous to say, that such a spirit is the spirit of God. 15 We know not if Dr. Brownlee ever saw the following' confess sion of the famous Wesley, one of the strictest adherents to the Protestant Rule of Faith and Judge of Controversy : we shall give it, as one of the most perfect developements of the practi- cal consequences of this rule. — ^'1 am not afraid to lay open to you, said the reverend enthusiast, what have been the inmost thoughts of my heart. I have thought that I am a creature of a day, passing through life as an arrow through the air. I am a spirit come from God and returning to God, just hovering over the great gulph, till a {q\n moments hence, I am no more seen. I drop into an unchangeable eternity ! I want to know one thing — the way to Heaven — how to land safe on that happy shore — God himself has condescended to teach the way — for this very reason he came from Heaven. He hath written it down in a book, O give me that book — at any price give me the book of God ! I have it — here is knowledge enough for me. Let me be homo uniiis libri. Here then I am far from the busy ways of men — I sit down alone, only God is here. In his presence I often read his book, for this is to find the way to Heaven. Is there a doubt concerning the meaning of what I read? Does any thing appear dark, and intricate'? I lift up my heart to the Father of lights — Lord is it not thy word ^ Jf any man lack wisdom let him ask of God ! — Thou givest liberally and upbraid- est not. Thou hast said, if any be ivilling to do thy luill he shall know. am willing to do. Let me know thy will. 1 then search and consider parallel passages of Scripture comparing spiritual things with spiritual. I meditate thereon with all the earnestness and attention of which my mind is capable. If any doubt still remains, I consult those who are experienced in the things of God ; and then the Scriptures, whereby being dead, they yet speak. And what I thus learn that I teach. Here Lev. sir, we have your Rule of Faith and Judge of Controversies aptly expressed in the above much admired passage; — it also con- tains its own refutation. — The Methodist reformer first asserts, that in the Bible there is knowledge enough for him, that he wants no other book, yet almost in the same instant, he is forced to con- fess that there is not knowledge enough in the Bible, for, after praying, searching, meditating, comparing texts with texts, he tells us that he consulted the experience of living witnesses, and the vvritings of the dead, for knowledge in dark and intricate passages, where Scripture alone could not remove his doubts, — and then concludes, that, what he thus learned, not from the Bible only, but from the testimony of dead and living witnesses in addition to it, that he taught. But did he succeed, even with those helps to remove all his doubts concerning the way to Heaven, which it was his object to tind for liimsi If and then 16 show others? Let him speak for himself. ** I have set down in the following sermons," says he, "what I find in the Bible con- cerning the way to Heaven. — But some may say I have mistaken the way myself, although I take it upon me to teach it to others — It is very possible that I have ! ! ! Wesley owns then, it was very possible he had mistaken the v/ay to Heaven, though under the guidance of the Spirit of God, speaking in the Holy Scriptures. You, sir, must express a similar admission if as can- did a,s the Methodist founder. You have nothing but your own private judgment which can never give an infallible assurance to your followers, that you are not leading them astray. Hence we Catholics conclude, and strictly and fairly, that the Protes- tant Rule of Faith is false, and that Scripture interpreted by every man, is not the means which Christ has established to show us the way to Heaven, and to make us " land safe on that happy shore." We earnestly solicit your attention, Dr. Brownlee, to the ob- servations now submitted to your consideration — Meet the ques- tion fairly and honestly as a logician, as a theologian — jirove your Rule of Faith. It is, and must be the key-stone of your reli- gious system. If you shrink from it, a reflecting public — the members of the Middle Dutch Church, will attribute your conduct to reason unworthy of a watchman on the turrets of Zion. As for ourselves we mean to sift this point thoroughly. We ask for argument, — cool, logical and theological argument. No decla- mation — no appeal to the prejudices or passions of your follow- ers. We in the spirit of charity, tender you a few words of advice. When com\)^r\ng ^^ paralell passages'^ in order <^ to evolve the meaning of the Scriptures under the guidance of the fountain of truth" do not forget the simile de cauda equina, fmare's tail) so quaintly applied by old Donne, ^' Sentences in scripture like hairs in horses tails, concur in one root of beauty and strength, but being plucked out one by one serve only as springs and snares. See Edinb. Rev. 1831, article Evangelical School. That you and our readers may know what we require, our de- mand is this ; Tell us how you know the Bible to be the word of God ? How do you know which books were written by divine inspiration *? Does the Bible contain the whole of the word of God, or does it not 9 When these questions are duly answered, the other topics of your letter will receive the considerations they merit, from your verv obedient servants, JOHN POWER, THOMAS C. LEVINS. Mm Yorkt February Uthy 1833. 17 BR. r. VARZSLA'S Z,£STTEZl TO DR. BROWNLEE. Rev. Sir: — No doubt you have missed my signature in the an- swer to your article, on declining to enter into the investigation of the Rule of Faith, with your opponents leave (which I am very glad they have not granted,) and that you may not think that I disagree with my learned companions on point of doctrine, or in the way of explaining it; or tliat there is any misunderstand- ing between us : 1 take tliis opportunity to state that 1 ap- prove whatever they said, and in the way they said it; and that /would have signed the article had / seen it before it was printed. The duties of our ministry and some other circumstan- ces made it rather inconvenient for us to meet, and my friends through point of delicacy did not put my name to tiieir article. However, as I do not see any necessity of joining them, either of them being quite sufficient to defend our cause, /leave them with you on the field of controversy. Now by way o( farewell, allow me to submit to your consideration the memorandum that /made when /thought to take part in the discussion, hop- ing that you will excuse the want of order as 1 do not intend to write a regular article. QUERIES. 1. Where in the Scriptures do you find that the Scriptures are the only rule of faith 9 Do you establish this rule without Scrip- ture 9 Then it is unscriptural. Take care. 2. From what Scriptures, were the Scriptures believed, when they were first written ^ 3. Not the Scripture but its interpretation from the different creeds of different Protestant sects. Hence these interpretations are real articles of faith. Now what Scripture have Protestants for these interpretations'? Where are they openly expressed'? You then believe articles of faith not expressed in the Scripture. 4. If the Scripture be so plain, why do Protestants explain it'? why do you preach'? /advise you dear sir, to spare yourself the trouble — give the Scriptures to your congregation, and stay at home. 5. You establish as a rule of your faith that the Scriptures must be understood and observed according to private interpre- tation, and not precisely according to the judgment of the Church. Where is any such thing said in the Scriptures? Your very rule is unscriptural. Lookout. No. 2.— S 18 6. Why did not Luther and Melancton on one side, and Cal- vin and Zuinglius on the other, agree upon the meaning of these plain words — This is my body? Who have the spirit ? 7. You know, dear sir, the multitude of Bibles that Protes- tants have given to the world, contrary to each other, on the most essential points, according to their own doctors. Pray tell me, which of them is your rule of faith, and if you point out any of them, pray let me know did you ascertain that this and not any of the others, is the infallible rule of faith 9 / wrote a pam- phlet entitled the three bibles, proving that Protestants ac- tually give three different Bibles to the people of New York. You found the facts so evidently proved, that you did not make any defence, but you (or your friend Mr. Bourne,) issued in the Protestant a complete Phillipic against the Managers of the Bible Society. — But 1 let you know that there are no three Bibles, but four Bibles actually sold by your people, for the German Bible sold by the society is still different from all the rest. Now point out your rule of faith, before you commence your dispute with my learned friends. You may have your choice. 8. Why do not Episcopalians agree with Baptists, and you Presbyterians with either of them on the point of baptism? Is not the Scripture very plain 7 In one of our t^erfeaZ discussions, held at Clinton Hall, /called upon your friends the ministers of different persuasions (and / am sorry you were not present,) to come forward and to state that they agree on essential points^ and 1 beg leave to copy the last part of my speech, which your- self printed in your Protestant. "Gentlemen," said /, ''you are convinced, you do not agree in the most essential points. Now this question must be decided in presence of this audience, /am ready, with all the Priests here present, to take our oath upon this Bible, that we agree exactly upon these points, and upon every point of the Catholic faith. Now come forward and do the same — / am sure you will not dare, because this audience that knows the contrary, would despise you for your perjury. The answer is a profound silence ; the question is decided ! " Indeed, reverend sir, the question was decided in a very public, solemn, and fair manner. Their rule of faith could not bring them to the unity of doctrine, their spirit did not inspire them, and the Scriptures were not so plain as they pretended. How- ever I give you a chance to make all right. Let the Protestant Bishop and any respectable Baptist Minister, such as M'Clay and yourself on the side of the Presbyterians, give out under your signatures, either that the point of Baptism is of no conse- quence, or that you agree upon it. There is no doubt but you will do it, ad calendas groecas. 19 9. Can the law be the judge, who applies it *? Are not the Scriptures the law 9 Can they be the judge 9 10. Private spirit is fallible, can it be the judge of an infalli- ble faith? 11. Private spirit is unknown but to him who possesses it; can it be the known rule of faith that will gather men in one in- fallible faith and religion. 12. The spirit is your key to open the mysteries of the Scrip- tures, but what sign have you to distinguish the true from the evil spirit 9 — Sincere prayers? — All the sects of Christianity, and I may say all the religions, pray fervently and sincerely. — The satisfaction or pleasure of your mind 9 In every religion it is experienced. Constancy in religious feelings 9 We the wicked papists, beat you all. But /remember that you did express your wish for signs on our part, — have you any on your own^ The only sign we are informed of by Bolseus (protestatu He- ron Bol.) is that performed on the poor Brulleus by Calvin, who in order to prove his doctrine, agreed with the unfortunate man, that he would pretend to be dead, and his wife would cry, as she did, bitterly. Then the Holy Calvin came and invoked God to prove by the resurrection of that man, that he was authorised to teach ; and indeed his prayers were heard against him, for the man was found actually dead, and the widow, confessing her crime, almost tore Calvin to pieces. We heard also of an at- tempt made by Luther to restore the poor William Nisenum, who was drowned, and Staphylus who was witness, states, that Luther after many very mysterious prayers, made in company with his disciples, left the man, dead as he was, because God did not hear him. At any rate, you have no signs to show, and there- fore you have no right to require them from us, much less, when you establish the doctrine that the time of miracle is passed. 13. How can you prove a man to be a heretic, if he has the same rule of faith with you, and the same right to apply it? — Then no heretics. But the Scriptures say that there are heretics, 14. Can any man learn by himself from the Scriptures every essential point of faith without any fear of error? Then your ministry is only to teach the unessentials . Then it is an unes- sential ministry. Then it is nothing, and this / firmly believe. Quotations from the Fathers of the Reformation^ and their eminent disciples, I beg of you, Rev. Sir, to compare the following text with your article, and see whether you agree on the rule of faith with your leaders, although on this subject you got enough in the an- swer given by my learned fellow clergymen. so Luther. — We cannot be sure whether any man has or Ims not the true spirit of God. I do not presume to have done what no learned and holy man ever did or could do; that is, to understand and explain the Psalms in all their parts, and in their real sense. I know that it is an impmlent temerity to assert that any man can understand a single book of the scriptures in all its parts." — [Prget. in Ps.] He thus wrote to Felicanus. ''If you have not printed the llth Ps. I beg of you to leave out the 1 Ith verse, and the three fol- lowing. You may observe how grossly I have been mistaken in the proper meaning of the words." [ib.] Remark that Luther proceeded according to the explanation he afterwards reproved^ and gave it as inspired to him from Heaven. ** Leave out what 1 dreamed upon 26 verses of the loth Ps." Speaking of the Zuinglians, (they are your cousins, sir,) says Luther, — I scarce ever read of a more deformed heresy, which presently in the beginning was divided into so many heads, such a number of sects, not one like another, and such a variety of disagreeing of opinions.^' [Tom. 6. p. 3S0.] Surely by apply- ing your rule of faith. "If the world lasts long, it will be necessary, on account of the opposite interpretations of the scriptures, to admit the de- crees of the Councils as our refuge.^' Remark the ultimate rule of faith. [Lib. i. cont. Zuing. et Cecotamp.] Calvin. — " I confess that as a prophecy is not given by pri- vate spirit, in like manner it is not becoming to bring it to any private sense. [" Ad. sess. 4. Con. Frid.] Keanitius. — "God has placed in the Church the gift of inter- pretation, which as the rest of gifts, is not granted to every man." [In Ex. 4. sess. Con. Frid.] Centuriatorp:s. — The Apostles judged that scriptures could not be understood without the spirit and the interpreter." [Cent. lib. 2. c. 4.] Melancton. — "We believe the Church as a witness, and un- doubtedly as a Doctor. It is a great ignorance to dream that the Church v/as before the word of God — men were called, and regenerated by the word of God from the beginning of the world. It is ridiculous to pretend that the Church has more authority than the Gospel, because she was before the Gospel, as if the Gospel did not exist until it was written." Here Melancton trying to answer our argument confirms our doc- trine. The word of God was from the beginning kept by men without being written. The Gospel is not the book but the doctrine, either written or propagated by word, that is, by tradition^ and the Church is the unexceptionable wit- ness and Doctor. Compare this doctrine with your rule of faith. *'The Church has the greatest authority. She is called th« people of God, and she has the promise that Christ will nevcT abandon her. Therefore every man of good sense must be moved by ihe authority of the Church." (ib.) *'By canons we understand the dogmatical decrees against the heretics, such as those of the Council of Nice. Speaking of such canons, we properly can say, that it is in vain to keep the Gospel, if they be not kept. The Councils do not form any new articles of faith, but they restore to the Church the articles of faith contained in the Scriptures, and deformed by the here- tics." (ibid.; Pray, Dr. Brownlee, tell us who is the judge to decide and point out the meaning of the Scriptures, according to Melancton. Poor MelanctonI! He certainly was nothing but a coward Catholic, who through human respect and fear be- came a profound Lutheran. Christens tells us his uneasiness and doubts, (tom. 6. page 522.) and fVolffgangus fconcoin de mat.j states that Melancton wrote to a nobleman by the name of Velbergk, advising him to remain in the Catholic Commu- nion. Although he professed to follow your rule of faith, he could not calm his conscience, and in his writings, he often be- trays his cause. :> CEcoLAMPADius. — Sclneccrus tells us that OEcolampadius be- ing dangerously ill, thus prayed: — ^' O Jesus Christ, let me know the truthl Let me know whether /have taught the true doctrine on your Holy Supper." (Seln. part l.com. in Ps. fol. 215.) You see. Sir, that your rule of faith could not produce it, and the unfortunate CEcolampadius taught, what he was not sure of, and in moments of danger, the truth came out. What faith could he have, being guided by a flillible rule! Now Dr. Brown- lee, I must be candid, you are in the same case. You are learn- ed enough to know that divine faith must be infallible, that your fallible rule cannot give it; and that your faith is human faiths the same as any other human opinion. I have yet a great stock in my memorandum, but I am afraid that my communication will not be inserted if it be too long, Farewell, Dr. Brownlee — 1 leave you in good hands, and as to me, whether you believe me or not, / profess to be, Respectfully, your affectionate, FELIX VARELA. Reply of Rev. Hr. Brownlee, TO DR. VARELA. Rev. sir: — The unique letter which you did me the honour of addressing to me, in last Saturday's paper, would, to me, have 2S been amusing, had it not been for the spirit of uncompromising DEISM, — pardon me, — which is interwoven out and out, in it! What amused me was the manner of your retreat from the pre- sent discussion, — after you had signed your pledge to stand by your Rev. Brethren. I knew that my kind-hearted neighbour, Dr. Varela, was an antiquarian and a classic scholar. And he has shown it : he has been studying the antiquated Parthian character. These ancient worthies, when they saw the enemy, would retreat at full gallop ; but in their retreat they always dis- charged a shot or two, with their bows and arrows. Even so friend Varela, Parthian like, retreats; but fires off an epistle from his retreat among the bushes, before he gives me his **fare- well," and '^ leaves me in good hands !" But, Sir, you should not have retreated, you should have re- mained firm to your pledge. It is true, I am aware, you could not digest such letters as the other two Priests are placing in the Truth Teller. But still you were pledged ; and should not retreat, even though you would sooner have consented to have your hand taken off, than sign such letters! But, it is painful to see a gentleman of your age and experi- ence, advocating the leading p: inciple of Deism ! Yes, Dr. Va- rela, Thomas Paine and David Hume would have acceded to, and applauded your sentiments against the Holy Bible as being v^njit and too imperfect to be the rule of faith! I appeal to the Christian community to say, whether on a review of your letter, it is not obviously the spirit of infidelity that you advocate. I beg to give a brief reply to your queries. 1st. You ask, '* Where in Scriptures do you find that the Scriptures are the only Rule of Faith"?" [I have already shown this in my two letters.] See Psalms 19. Prov. 30. 5. 6. Isaiah 8. 19. 20. 2d Tim. 3. 16. 17. Rev. 22. 18. 19. &c. 2nd. "From what scriptures, were the scriptures believed, when they were first written?" I reply, — can these be the words of a professed christian? Do you then not know how to reason with a deist in defence of the Holy Bible? Do vo u not knojy that the Scriptures were believed by the people of God, on the evidence which the inspired prophet or apostle produced, to es- tablish his commission from heaven'? His miracles and predic- tions showed that God sent him; and then, his words and his writings were believed to be from God. Do you not know that the Scriptures are believed on account of their externa/ evidence as well as their internal evidence'? I am aware of the radical error under which you, and all the Catholic Priests labour; it is this, — you believe that the Bible has no evidence and no authori- ty y but Just that which the Pope and the Bomish Church choose to give it! You will not allow even God himself to speak to ua, 23 and all men, but jast as the Pope pleases. This is the fundamen- tal error of the Romish Church ! But the world is now too en- lightened to submit to this ! 3d. " Not the scriptures but its interpretation form the diffef- ent creeds of the different Protestants, &,c. — To all this I reply that God speaks in the scriptures plainly and clearly ; and true christians in the Church of God, take up this meaning without difficulty. And we prove our creed amply from the texts of Scripture. Look into the confessions and creeds of the true Church of Christ, and you will see this infallibly : for you can- not mistake it. 4th. "If the Scriptures be so plain, why do you Protestants explain them? Why do you preach? &.c." In reply I ask you, Do you or do you not believe that the spirit of God inspired men to write the Scripture'? If you do not, you are a Deist! — If you dOj — then you admit that God the Spirit, speaks to us in the Scriptures. And here, then, you charge the Holy One, with speaking obscurely and not plainly, and in a manner not to be understood by the people! I assure you, sir, this doctrine of yours would be applauded by Owen and Fanny Wright, in the Hall of Science! I retort on you, your own words my friend Varela, *roofj since the shadow of logical proof is not to be found in your discussion. If the rule be oi infinite importance, as you admit, why not establish the basis on which it rests, — why not prove the Bible to be the word of God 7 Again, in your letter, No. 2, you write thus gently : " But, I am not tenacious ; I yield to courtesy ; qua via ducit, sequar. Since you insist on it, that the rule shall be discussed first, even so heit: only let none of us propose a retreaty Here then is a promise urbanely expressed to the ear, but, oh, how broken to the hope ! The Bible is not yet proved to be the word of God, and yet, in the same letter 70 from which the preceding passage is taken, you yoke the inte- rior spirit to the interpretation of five Scripture texts to prove the infallibility of the Bible. This is a ludicrous specimen of the nursery see saw logic; or, to dignify it with a scholastic appellation, this is a happy illustration of the vicious circle. The interior spirit, is tasked to prove the infallibility of the Bible, and the Bible is used to prove the right of the interior spirit. You insist on the Bible being the only Rule of Faith ; that each individual, no matter how gross or uncultivated in mind, possesses the right to adopt that sense of Scripture which appears to him the best according with truth ; that God has pro- mised the illumination necessary to discover this accordance with truth, and yet all this you pretend to prove from Scripture texts, ere the Scripture is proved to be the v^'ord of God ! Can any procedure be more absurd — more evidently defective in argumentative precision*? Is not this the vicious circle? The preacher in the Middle Dutch Church will obstinately pretend, that the Catholic, by admitting the church to judge of the sense of Scripture, invests it with an authority superior to that of God, yet he will concede this authority to each individual ! We would intreat the "Christian public" to note this inconsistency. But you, Rev. Sir, and every Calvinist professing adhesion to the principle on which your rule of faith is founded — the right of private interpretation of Scripture, contradict this principle and this Rule of Faith by your conduct. You do not adhere to the Sacred Scriptures solely; you add to them, and this was ob- served in our last letter, but you found it not your interest to grapple with the unyielding force of the remark. You shunned it in the spirit of crafty Calvinicity. Why are there, we demand of you, if the Scriptures solely be your rule of faith, why are there catechisms, professions of faith, synodical decisions ^ Why condemn the Anabaptists, the Arminians, Socinians? Why did your holy founder, John Calvin, illuminate the streets of Geneva with the funeral pile of the unfortunate Servetus *? All, equally as you, may pray, and invoke the aid of the inferioi spi- rit to interpret the Holy Scripture; and all, equally as you, may exult in the truth of their interpretation. Will you establish a monopoly of trade, and fix a tariff rate on the interpretation of others'? Is the Middle Dutch Church the only tabernacle of the interior spirit? Does not the "Lord of Conscience" deign to dwell in the temple of the Unitarian ^ Do you and the Uni- tarian agree on the number of the articles of faith ^ If you do not, why is the Unitarian in error *? He professes as sincere respect as you for the Scriptures ; he prays and invokes the assistance of the "Lord of the Conscience." Why, then, should n not the Lord of the Conscience accept the invitation : and why should not the interpretation of the Unitarian be tlie very essence of truth '? His authority is equal to yours ; and the basis of his system of faith, derived from the principles of your Rule of Faith, is founded on more logical and more consistent inferences. Do, Rev. Sir, intreat your interior spirit to evolve the difiiculties and consequences embodied in the preceding hints. It is hoped the *' Christian public," and specially the members of the Mid- dle Dutch Church will attend to your explanations. We, of course, not being trained to ''the Protestant lesson and logic, have ?io right to pronounce sentence; we are neither judge nor jury!" Having shown the futility of your reasoning in establishing your rule of faith, the only topic, which, in strictness, should liave occupied your attention, we shall now notice the serious deficiencies in your last "good earnest" letter. It is, we must say, a strange blending of matter absolutely irrelevant to the primary subject under dispute. You adduced a few texts of Scripture to establish its infallibility, and this, be it remembered, ere the Bible was shown to be the word of God. The conclu- sions deduced from your texts were proved to be illogical, hence they are useless in argument. You, Rev. Sir, have not refuted our explanations of these texts. They, as yet, exist in their strict force. Our readers are referred to our letter No. 2. You are evidently not familiar with the writings of your " hero of the Reformation," INIartin Luther : your denial of our charges relatively to his rejection of the Epistle of St. James, 6lq,. is proclaimed in a most dogmatical form, yet it is not true. We repeat your words, that the members of the Middle Dutch Church, and the "Christian public" may appreciate your dilection of truth. "You gravely [that is, we] asserted that Luther rejected the epistle of St. James, Hebrews, &c. Tins I solemnly DENY ; and every theologian knows that your assertion is/aZse/" Patience, gentle Doctor, — suppress the ebullitions of your inte- rior spirit; — this matter does not depend on the "Hebrew and Greek of the Holy Ghost!" Was Luther "half a monk" when he wrote the work, De Capt. Babyl. If you have read it, you must have noted the following words : "Si uspiam deliratum est, viz, de extrema unctione, et etiam si esset epistola Jacobi, dicerem non licere apostolum sacramentum instituere." "If the madness of folly were ever displayed, that is, in reference to extreme unction, though it were the Epistle of James, I would say it was not in the power of an apostle to institute a sacra- ment." In the original edition of Luther's works printed at 72 Jena, this canonical Epistle is insulted with the terms dry, chaffy, (straminosa,) and unworthy of the apostolic spirit. The Epistle of St. Jude is called ^^superfluous and useless,^'' superfluem et inutilem. For farther information we refer you to the first edi- tion of Luther's German New Test, and its thousand errors, published in the year 1522. When you have read it your inte- rior spirit will be enlightened, your tone of dogmatism subdued, and your ignorance instructed. To enhance the estimate of your ^^ hero of the Reformation," we present you with the judg- ment of Zuinglius of this eminent Biblimastix ; — Zuinglius, it is presumed, is one of your theologians. *' Thou dost corrupt the word of God, Luther. Thou art seen to be a manifest and common perverter of the Scriptures." Zuing. Op. Tom. 2. Lib. de Sacr. ad Luth. But, possibly, you may reject the authority of Zuinglius as you do that of Mosheim alluding to your favorite *' primitive christians," the Albigenses. Receive, then, the infal- lible evidence of Luther himself a^'ainst Luther; and, on the next Sabbath, ^' with divine permission," present it to the mem- bers of the Middle Dutch Church, as a happy effort in the art of interpolation. Li St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, iii. 33, there exists the following text : " We conclude that a man is jus- tified by faith, without the deeds of the law." After the word faith, Luther adds the word alone. Does your hero of the Refor- mation express regret for his corruption of the text 9 No, he defends it, and his defence is in terms of the most gross, profane, and insulting arrogance. Mark the temper of his language : *' Sic volo, sic jubeo. Sit pro ratione voluntas. Lutherus ita vult, et ait se doctorem esse, super omnes doctores in toto papat. Propterea debet vox sola, in meo Novo Testamento manere, * ^ "^ ^ etiani si omnes papasini ad insaniam rcdigantur, tamen eam inde non tollent. P^nitet me quod non addiderim et illas duas voces omnibus et omnium, viz. sine omnibus oj^eribus omnium legum. 5th vol. of Luther's works, page 141, original Jena edition. As the import of this modest and inspired extract, though not in the " Hebrew and Greek of the Holy Ghost," may be interesting to the members of the Middle Dutch Church, we present it to them in English : "This is my will, this is my com- mand. Let my will be reason. So Luther commands, and he proclaims himself a doctor pre-eminent above all the doctors of the entire papacy. Therefore the word alone shall remain in my Nev/ Testament ^' ^ ^ though all the popish asses should run rabid, they shall not remove it. I regret the words without all and of all were not intro- duced ; namely, " without all the deeds of all the laws." In the way of additional strcngti), to prove that Luther rejected the 73 Epistle of St. James, you are referred to a Protestant authority, Buck's Theological Dictionary, article, Lutliorans. We now interrogate vou, did we allirm truth, when it was said Lutlier rejected a portion of the Scriptures? Did we make a *' powerless attempt to injure the hero of the Reformation V^ Was Luther '• half a monk;" a thorough divine when he wrote the preceding edifying passage ? There is, also, another im- portant question to be asked ; it is repeated from our last letter, because the whispering of the interior spirit warned you to evade it — by falsehood and a "solemn denial." Was Luther right in rejecting a part of the sacred Scriptures you receive ; are you in error while admitting what he rejects '] Is Luther in error; are you right. The " Christian public" await your answer. Let there be no squinting; no plea of '-skirmishing," to cheat the hopes of your friends. The mode of disproof adopted by you against our allusions to " honest John Wesley," is new in the art of criticism. It must be noted. " 1 have 7iot doubt,^^ you say, " that you have misquoted honest John." This, then, is sufficient warranty to reject an evidence, because, " you have no doubt !" Your mere doubt, however must not be admitted to a higher order of critical evidence than your " solemn denial" of our testimony of Luther. We at once subvert it by a reference to the preface to "honest John's" sermons, and, as we need not the interference of" Doc- tor Bangs of the Christian Advocate" in quoting a simple pas- sage from Wesley's writings, you are referred to the learned Doctor to explain the difficulties involved in your rule of faith by the admission of Wesley. The preface from which the pas- sai^e was selected was written by honest John himself in the year 1771. You will find it in the 6th vol. of Harper's edition of his works, printed in this city, year 1S26. But we, receive a little more truth stamped with the authority of your " good man," " honest John" against the religion you profess — Calvin- ism. The founder of Methodism was, of course, seraphically intimate with the dove — breathing of the " interior spirit." Attend, Rev. Sir, to the convictions they wrought; they are thus expressed in the " Minutes of Conversations between the Rev. Messrs. John and Charles Wesley, dsc. June 25th, 1771." Quest. 5. What was the rise of Methodism, so called ? */9ns. In 1729, two young men reading the Bible, saw they could not be saved without holiness, followed after it, and in- cited others so to do. They saw likewise that men are justified before they are sanctified; but still holiness was their point. God then thrust them, utterly against their will, to raise a holy people. When Satan could no otherwise hinder this he threw 10 74 Calvinism in their way P^ Here then, Dr. Brownlee, and ye members of the Middle Dutch Church, Calvinism, in the opinion of '^ honest John," is the agent used by Satan himself to pre- vent holiness I ! Again, from the '^good man's" journal of the year 1773. "Monday, Nov. 1," I set out for Norfolk, and came to Lynn vi^hile the congregation was waiting for me. Here was once a prospect of doing much good ; but it has almost vanished away. Calvinism breaking in upon them, has torn the infant society in pieces !" Here the "good man" who could interpret the '*He- brevv and Greek of the Holy Ghost," says that Calvinism pre- vented the " prospect of doing much good !" Honest and sera- phic John, thy words are '*in the way" of Dr. Brownlee's interior spirit. We refer him to Dr. Bangs. You assert " it was not in your way to drag in the name of John Wesley ;" was it not in your way to solve the difficulties introduced into the dialogue between yourself and the Arian cobler'? You left the cobler to "stick to his last." — Why not ^^ squinV at the difficulties involved in our remarks on the Epis- tle of St. Barnabas 9 Are the authorities of Du Pin and Doctor Lardner " in your way 9" Were they " half monks'?" Considering the character of the station you hold in the Mid- dle Dutch Church, Vv^e regret the irksome and painful necessity imposed on us to note so frequently your "solemn denials" and utter disregard of truth ; — even in the teeth of St. Paul. You say you have visited the Philadelphia Lunatic Asylum, — this may be the radical cause of the aberrations of your intellect." *^Not one book," asserts Dr. Brownlee, "not one sentence o^ inspired Scripture is known to be lost." Is St. Paul an autho- rity admitted by your interior spirit? Pt.ead his words from the 4th chapter, 16th verse, of his Epistle to the Colossians : " And when this epistle is read amongst you, cause that it be read also in the Church of the Laodiceans ; and that ye likewise read the Epistle from Laodicea." V\niere is the Epistle to Laodicea ^ In the Jirsf Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, c. 5, v. 6, the words are ; " I wrote to you in an epistle, not to keep company with fornicators." — The epistle of St. Paul containing the words now quoted, is i\\Q first to the Corinthians, and he refers to an epistle written by him prior to this first. Where is it? In op- position to this glaring and invincible evidence, will you now recklessly and unblushingly assert, that " not one sentence of inspired scripture is known to be lost 9" We recommend you to the pity of the members of the Middle Dutch Church ; to the sympathies of the " christian public !" The length of our communications. Rev. Sir, appear to dis- please you. You were nearer the truth had you attributed your displeasure to our arguments and tlic elucidation of your rule of faith. It involves you in the most illogicnl contradictions, insu- perable difficulties, and in " solemn denials" against the most evident truths, — against St. Paul himself. The length must, in fairness, be attributed to you. Had you adhered to the proba- tion of your rule of faith, we should have been brief, concise. Had you adhered to the logical order of procedure, and solved our queries logically and theologically, without submitting to the whisperings of your ^' interior spirit," the grand basis on which our future discussions should rest, would have now been established. But ho is more than earthly who can stay your deflections of vision, — your squintings. You admitted the infi- nite importance of your rule of faith, and yet you introduce a thousand topics remote from the subject under debate. Your views, your intentions, are obvious. Our arguments, and illus- trations of your rule of faith, you avoid ; and, then to conceal your infirmities, irrelevant matter is brought into view. The uneducated and prejudiced minds of the Calvinistic party are cheated into a high estimate of your prowess as a scholar and disputant. If a single topic introduced by you, no matter how indefinitely distant from the real point at issue, be not met, you are cheered as victor, and seated in a triumphal car. This is the secret of your polemic conduct up to the present time. Thus your "christian public" are gulled. This is the artifice of your Calvinicity with the members of the Middle Dutch Church. The import of these few remarks will, we are sure, with all judicious readers, be admitted as a sufficient plea for the length of our communications. Therefore, let us onv/ard. We have fully proved, that Protestants have been obliged to admit of Tradition and Church authority, in order to admit of Scripture itself. We have quoted Field and Hooker, in our last letter, and they distinctly tell us, that we know the Scriptures only through the medium of the Catholic Church. The vera- city, then, Kev. Sir, of her Tradition, is the corner stone of your faith, and to her testimony, you must give implicit credit, before you can believe a single sentence of the Bible. We assure you, Rev. Sir, that the thinking public, will regard you with a suspi- cious eye, when they see you attempting to prove the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures by their own reasonableness and charac- ters of divine wisdom, in order to evade the authority of the Church of Christ. Allow us to ask you, whether it is by these characters, you have discovered the Song of Solomon to be inspired % Td deny that the Catholic Church " had not the honor of giving authority to this Song," would, Sir, to use your own words, bo ** sheer knavery, or a derangement in the moral 76 faculty.''^ It now remains with you to show, that the same authority, which in the first ages of the Church, discriminated and proscribed so many false Gospels, has lost the right of judging and proscribing, the false interpretations, that have and may be given to the true Gospels. We hold it to be a palpable contradiction, to receive from the hands of the Church the book of the Gospel, and to ascribe to it, a false meaning which the Church reprobates. The tradition then of the Church must ac- company and explain the sense of the Gospel. We have already cited the authority of the learned Doctor Hare, Protestant Bishop of Chester. His words will open the eyes of many who have been deluded by your mischievous' Rule of Faith. '' The orthodox f^iith," says the learned Prelate, '• does not depend upon the Scriptures considered absolutely in themselves, but as explained by Catholic Tradition.^^ And here. Rev. Doctor, we call your attention to the words of the famous Dudith, in his Epistle to Beza : "If that be the truth, which the ancient Fathers have, with one accord, professed, it must be owned, that this truth, will be wholly on the papists' side." See Brere- ly's Protestant Apology, Tract 1. Sec. 3. Now, Rev. Sir, as the most learned Protestants acknowledge, that we have the Holy Scriptures on the authority of the Catholic Church, nay, on the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, for Dudith says, that all the ancient Fathers are on •' the side of the papists ;" and your favorite, Middleton, says, "that he pities the Protestants when he sees them struggling to reconcile the Fathers to the reformation." Have you not made a distinction without a dif- ference, between the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church ? It is the impossibility of reconciling those great lights of Christianity to the Reformation, that drew on them the disre- spect of such preachers as you, and of which the celebrated Warburton bitterly complains in his Julian I. "A sovereign contempt for the authority of the Fathers is what now-a-days makes a Protestant in fashion, but this is prejudicial to religion and also to learning." Pity he had not seen Dr. Brownlee's " squints" on the Protestant Rule of Faith. He would have been opposed by the authority of Chillingvvorth, whose words, as quoted by Dr. Brownlee, are subversive of the Christian reli- gion. If they have any bearing on the point in debate, they deny the right of the Church of God to direct the consciences of men, and to keep them to her own interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. Recollect, Rev. Sir, that Christ promised to teach his church all truth ; that he himself would remain with her to the end of the world. Recollect that St. Paul calls her the ** Pillar and the ground of truth," and it is on this very account, 77 that the Church says to you, Right learned Doctor, " That Bible which you do not understand is abused by you. You pervert it to your destruction, by preterring tlie rude vagaries of your own brain to my sense of it. Sit down at the feet of your old mother, and learn from her what she has been taught by the spirit of truth. If, like the soul in the Canticles, you know not where the Bridegroom feedeth, 'get tliee forth by the steps of the flocks, and feed thy kids by the tenls of the shepherds.' " " But Holy Mother," says Dr Brownlee, " this is contrary to what Paul says, 2 Cor. 1 v. 24. ' Not for that we have dominion over your faith.'" " Not at all, my child," continues the Church, ** you seem not to understand St. l*aul. He was accused of claiming a tyrannical and arbitrary dominion over the faith of the Corinthians, and this he disclaimed ; but recollect, that he writes to the Galatians as follows: 'Though we or an angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel unto you, let him be ac- cursed,' Gal. 1. V. 8. Here you see that he demanded an entire submission to the doctrine he had taught them ; and I also de- mand an unqualified submission to my interpretations of the Sacred Writings, and my warrant for so doing I have already exhibited to you." "You are therefore infallible," says Dr. Brownlee. "Yes, 'I am the pillar and ground of truth.' 1 cannot, therefore, give you for scripture, what is not scripture, and for the meaning of scripture, what is not its meaning." "But where is this infallibility lodged ?" says Dr. Brownlee ; " some of your children say it is in the Pope alone." " Whoever told you so,' told you what is not true ; the infallibility which / hold you to, is, not lodged in the Pope alone, and no enlightened son of mine ever taugfit this doctrine." " Others place your infallibi- lity in a general council, independently of the Pope," remarks Dr. Brownlee. " No such thing," answers the Church. " Where then is your infallibility ^" " It is seated in all my Bishops and Pastors throughout the. whole world, professing the same doc- trine, and united in faith and communion with their supreme Pastor, the Bishop of Rome. It also resides in a general Coun- cil, at which the Pope is present, either in person or by his legates, after it is conformed by the Pope himself. This is an article of faith wherein all Catholics agree. See Snares de fide, page 5. sec. 7. No. 9. You now know where to find my infal- libility, and on this subject you will find no diflierence of opinion among my children." " But did not the Council of Pisa depose two Popes'?" " Their election was doubtful, and they could not have been considered by me as true and lawful Popes." " Was not John XXIII. a lawful Pope 9" Dr. Brownlee will say. " He was until he violated the condition of his election by running 78 away from Constance. By violating this condition, viz. that he would resign if the peace of the Church required it, the Papal Chair become vacant, and John was virtually dead." <' But did not the Council of Basle excommunicate Eugenius the 4th V " It did not. He was excommunicated by a schismatic club only. The Popes then who were opposed by the Councils of Pisa, could not be considered as Popes. And John the twenty- third, who was deposed by the Council of Constance, actually forfeited his title. Your objection, then, against my infallibility on this score, originated in ignorance, and falls to the ground ; and if you wish for further information on this head, go to my faithful son Bellarmine, and he. will tell you that all Catholic divines constantly teach, timt general councils confirmed by the Pope, cannot err, either in explaining matters of faith, or pre- cepts of morality, wherein the whole church is concerned." Lib. 2. de cone, et Eccle. c. 2. " But then there yet remains Pope ]\larcellinus," continues Dr. Brownlee. " The calumnious charge against Marcellinus," answers the Church, " originated with the Donatists. You say he was condemned for idolatry. The illus- trious St. Austin says in his work, De unico Baptist cent. Petilia- num, c. 16. — ' Lapsum Marcellini Donatist quidem Catholicis objecerunt : sed crimen commissum esse hactenus non probave- runl9' Of Marcellinus, Theoderetus thus writes, lib. 1. c. 3. viz. ' persecutionis temporibus magna gloria nobilitatie.'" "But U'hat am I to do with all your folios, and those enormous heaps of stuff that have floated down on the wind and miasmatic air of 1,260 years ?" *' You are not scholar enough to approach these folios. Learn your catechism first. That you will find to be the same, from ' Indus to the Pole ;' and if you wish to study theo- logy, which I would not advise you to approach, at this advanced period of your life, you may go to one of my Universities, and after becoming acquainted with the language of my Liturgy and *if my Schools, of which you have already a little smattering, you may form some acquaintance with Saints Jerome and Au- gustin, and the others. You might also in a few months become acquainted with my decrees concerning faith and morals. All tliat is necessary for you as a plain, simple man, is to know the summary of Christian doctrine, which you will find in the hands of every Catholic child in this city. This will give you a more perfect idea of the religion of my Holy Founder than you can ever expect to acquire from the polluted commentaries of Cal- vin, Luther, &c. Remember that though the Scriptures are the tt?orc/ of God, that the Church is the spouse of Christ. Though the Scripture is the truth itself, that the Church is the ground of truth. Though the Scripture is the law^ the Church is the kingdom of Christ. This kingdom must be cjo^emed by that law, but that law must be interpreted by the representatives of that kingdom." You assert Rev. Doctor, tliat our Rule originated with " an ignorant, debased and enslaved generation of men, in tlie dark ages," Recollect that the Devil is the Auher of lies, and that he will claim those as his own, who prove themselves to be his true children. What, Sir, our Rule of Faith, "got up by ignorant, debased, and enslaved men" in the middle ages ! Is this. Sir, your judgment of the most ancient father, Ireneus, or did he live in the dark ages? His words, Rev. Sir, are truly expressive. Mark them. "If there be any disagreement among Christians, concerning any controversy in religion, what other course is there to be taken than to have recourse to the most ancient churches, and to receive from them what shall be certain and manifest. Iren. lib. 3. c. 4. You who invite us to come with you to Christ, and to desert " Holy Mother" Vvill say that Origen was born in the middle ages, and that he was an ignorant fool, when he wrote as follows : *^ As often as the heretics produce the canonical books, they seem to say, behold God is made the in- mate of your houses; but we ought not to believe them, nor to stray from the older ecclesiastical tradition, nor to believe other- wise, than according to what has been delivered to us by the succession of the Church of God." Origen Horn, in Matt. 29. Were you better acquainted with Protestant theology, we would have been spared great trouble, and we should have the satisfaction of grappling with argument, instead of barefaced assertion. Bancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, says in the pre- face of his book entitled " ab acta colloquii Belgardensis respon- sio, part 1. p. 21, " We must hear what the Church shall say and determine in matters of controversy, for God has bound himself to his Church, that men by her good direction, might in matters of doubt be relieved." Doctor Field, in his sermon, Sth of Feb. 1588, says, "Seeing the controversies in religion, in our times are grown in number so many : in nature so intricate: tiiat few have time or leisure : fewer strength of understanding to exa- mine them : what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence, but diligently to search out, which of all the societies of men in the world, is that blessed company of Holiness, the Spouse of Christ and Church of the living God, which is the pillar and ground of truth, that so we may rest in her judgment." We feel no small satisfaction in seeing you thus abandoned, by the great lights of Christianity, and also by the brightest ornaments of Protestantism. Peter Martyr, in his^ Common Places part 2d, says "doubtless among all testimonies^ 80 . that testimony is of the greatest account, which is given by the enemies." Tully also says in his oration for Cecilius, "Testimo- nium tuum, quod in aliena re leve, hoc contra te grave." It is, therefore, that we run to our enemies for our justification. You claim them as yours, and you see they have abandoned you. Hooker and Field and Calvin and Luther, have said more in our favor, than you, we believe, are aware of; for your satisfaction, you shall hear what they have said of the Roman Catholic Church. Chillingworth, p. 265. lib. cant. sect. 20. p. 528. calls the Church of Rome " TAe true Church, the Catholic Church, the only true Church.^^ Calvin in Gratul, calls the Church of Rome " The Sanctuary of God^ Luther lib. con. Anahap. con- fesses, that " there is very much good to he found in the papacy, nay, every good christian thing, and that from thence they were derived unto us. In the papacy there is true Christianity, nay, what is more, the very kernal of Christianity.''^ Your answer to this will be, of course, that Luther was yet a " half monk, and without his full measure of the spirit.''^ It is painful to be obliged to expose your ignorance where you ought to be better informed. Are you not aware. Sir, that the Vulgate, which you call the worst of all translations, and which you say is considered as such by all enlightened Protest- ants, was partly made and partly corrected by the first biblical scholar, and one of the greatest and most holy men who ever lived, St. JeromQ. You ought to know that this version was made when the best and purest copies, of the Hebrew, Chaldaic, Greek and Latin, together with the polyglots of Origen were to be had. That this version has been constantly in the hands of the Western Church in all its extent during fifteen centuries. You ought to know on the other hand, that the Hebrew and Greek Originals have been during many ages in the hands of wandering Jews, and divided oppressed Asiatics, and that there- fore you cannot possibly answer for the changes they may have undergone. This circumstance ought to cause you to observe deep silence, on this point. Our remarks on your translations, and the spurious copies from which they have been made, are reserved for another occasion. Are you ignorant, that the most learned Protestants in Biblical criticism, such as Mill in his pro- log, p. 142, Walton Prolyg. c. 110, and others, have professed the greatest esteem for the Latin Vulgato. They acknowledge it to be farther removed from the suspicion of prejudice and par- tiality than any other version. See Diet Histor de Feller; — ar- ticle Jerome. The learned Grotius writes of the Vulgate, thus *' Vulgatum, interpretem semper plurimi feci, non modo quod nulla dogmata insalubria continet, sed etiam quod multum 81 habet in se eruditionis." Grot, in annot in Fit. Test.; And notwithstanding this mass of respectable testimony, the Preacher of the Middle Dutch Churcli tells us that the Vulgate is the worst of all possible translations" — Quid Domini facient, audent cum inViafures. To see Protestants, who know their Scriptures on the au- thority of the Church, classing among the Apocrypha, some of the books contained in our canon, which we have on the same authority as they, and under better circumstances, is a paradox, which to us is passing strange. Our canon of the Scriptures is the only one, which is founded on the universal tradition of the church. The Council of Laodicea, the greatest authority on which Protestants rely for their canon omits the Apocalypse, and Rufinus is the only ancient writer vvho mentions the books as you have them. The od Council of Carthage, held in the year 397, examined the Tradition of the Church, witii regard to those books about which there was any doubt, or difference of opinion, and found all the books recommended in our canon. In the 47th canon, the Council defines our books to be canonical, saying, "We received from our fathers, that these books are to be read in the Church." Pope Innocent the First, who lived A. D. 401, was requested by Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, to tell him what books were canonical, sets down in the 7th Epistle, all our books. St. Austin lib. de. doctr. Christiana c. 8. does the same. After him comes Pope Gelasius, A. D. 492, who confirms our canon. After Gelasius comes the Sixth General Council, A. D. 680, in which our books are defined ; and, lo and behold, the preacher in the Middle.Dutch Church rejects this canon, because he knows, from the teaching of the Holy Spirit, that some of the books are apocryphal or fabulous! ! Your quotation from Bellarmine is an old calumny. It has been renewed by Southey in his book of the Church. The pas- sage is found in the Treatise of Bellarmine De Romano Pontifice liv. 4. c. 5. of the Lyons edition in fol. 1596. We refer our readers to this place as it stands in the book, and there they will find that Bellarmine merely states a proposition ; contro- verts it, and proves it to be erroneous, by showing that if it were true " it would authorize the Pope to make virtue vice, and vice virtue^ You say, that the Pope has been called ''God." Your rule of faith, Sir, styles Kings, Princes, and Magistrates, Gods. Read Calvin's Commentaries on the Passages in the Psalms, in which Solomon is called "God." Judges are called " Gods." In order that your hearers in the Middle Dutch Church may No. 6.— U S2 see how easily the Scriptures can prove their own infallibility, which is undoubtedly a point of great importance, we beg leave to refer them to the following passages : Matt. 1, v. 17, it is said, *' all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen gene- rations ; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon, are fourteen generations ; and from the carrying away into Babylon, unto Christ, are fourteen generations. In the first 14, Abraham is the first, and David is the last. Solomon then must begin the second fourteen, and Jechonia's is the last. The first in the third fourteen is Salathiel, and the last is Christ. Now poor weak human reason tells you, that you must find twelve generations between Salathial and Christ, or else infallibly, you have not fourteen generations, as St. JMatthew says you have. St. Luke, giving the genealogy of Christ, says, chap. 3, v. 35, 36. " Salah which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of x\r- phaxad." Now look to Genesis 11, v. 12, and you will find these words, *' and Arphaxad lived five and tliirty years and begat Salah." Whereas St. Luke says, that Salah was the son of Cainan. 2 Kings chap. 8, v. 26, we read, 'Uwo and twenty years old was Ahasia, when he began to reign.'' Now turn to 2 Chronicles chap. 22, v. 2, and you will read '^ forty and two years old was Ahasia, when he began to reign." Now, Rev. Doctor, be pleased to shew us the infallibility of the Scriptures, by your Rule of Faith, notwithstanding the contradictions here noticed. Again we ask you, that the "christian public" may judge, though " we are neither judge nor jury," to return to the great point not yet proved — your Rule of Faith. Discard your ^'squinting.'''' Tell us how you know the Bible to be the word of God. How do you know which books were written by divine inspiration ? Does the Bible contain the whole of the word of God, or does it not'? Then solve the difficulties involved in Luther's rejection of a part of the inspired Scriptures. Look to Wesley and the Arian cobler, &c. &c. &c. Do this and our letters will be much shorter. Do this and you will please the learned among your ^^friends;^^ — You will please your obedient servants, JOHN POWER, THOS. C. LEVINS. JVew York, March I2th, 1833. 83 &r. Urow ulceus JLcttcr^ JVo. 4. TO DRS. POWER AND VARELA, AND MR. LEVINS. " Every word of God is pure — Add tlioii not unto his words lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar !"' Prov. xxx. 5. (5. Gentlemen, — Drs. Power and Varela leave to Mr. Levins all the '^squintino," and "skirmishing;" and also all the scavenger work of " billingsgate," and *' blackguardism !" — and, more- over, all that blasphemy which has shocked Christian ears, in his taunts against '* the Hebrew and Greek of the Holy Ghost." For (hey are gentlemen. Claiming also to be a gentlemen, I will, of course, not follow him in his pages of pollution. "The members of the Middle Dutch Church" are very different people from the flock of St. Patrick's pastor. I write for '^the mem- bers of the JNliddle Dutch Church." His style is adapted to the meridian of ^' the Sheet Anchor,''^ and '^ the beastly grog-shops.''^ And most assuredly when " it happens unto such," as St. Peter says, ^' according to tiie true proverb, the dog is turned to his own vomit again ; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire" — no gentleman would covet any communion with him. See the 2d Epistle of St. Peter, ch. ii.v. 22. I thus des- patch all his invective, and personalities : to the public this man must give his account, not to me. I have in a former letter, laid down the two Rules of Faith under discussion. The Church of Christ, resting on the Rock of Eternity, has, for her only rule, the written word of God in the Old and the New Testaments ; and the Holy Ghost speaking to us therein, is the only Judge of Controversy. And I have distinctly stated to the Ciiristian public, that no Roman priest will have candor enough to honor our definition, as we give it. The Protestant churches never have declared that their Rule of Faith was the Scriptures, as received by every one, by private interpretation. This is an interpolation by the priests; for they cannot defend their cause without this perversion. The Holy Spirit speaking unto us is the Rule and Judge; and it is to be received as Hi: interprets it to us, in his plain, simple and perspicuous words. We exercise the Y\i^\it oi^ '' jmvate judg- ment,^^ and " liberty of conscience," as extorted from ghostly tyranny, at the ever-blessed Reformation. J3ut that ^^ private judgmenV^ does not constitute the Pcule. Hereby, as rational beings we are put into the possession of the means and faculties of studying and finding out the mind of the infallible Rule. It is one vexatious difficulty which we have to encounter in this discussion, that our opponents cannot take up, and appre- ciate the meaning and force of certain words and phrases cur- 84 rent with Protestants. A Roman priest can, for instance, no more take up the meaning, and estimate the force of the terms *' liberty of conscience," and *' private judgment," in religious matters, than can the legitimates and tyrants of Europe appre- ciate the "rights and privileges" of American republicans! Their minds have never conceived the possibility of their exist- ence. They can no more form an idea of their real value to immortal souls, and the divine glory, than the man born blind, can form an idea of colors ! And what do my readers suppose to be the reason, why the priests, my opponents, have so long and so doggedly insisted on my letting their infallible Rule alone; and confining myself simply to the proof of the inspiration of the Bible ? They have two reasons: The first is, that they are aware, as we shall soon show, that their whole system touching " infallibility," and their *' infallible rule," is their open flank — their weak side. And second, the main reason is this : The Roman Church holds this dogma as the basis of her whole system, that " the inspnation of the Scriptures relies only on an external authority — even the au- thority of the Roman Catholic Church.''' My opponents express this in their Letter, No. 3. Now, they believe that no Protestant can prove the divinity of the Bible but by the voice of^' Holy Mother !" You may advance all that has ever been written on it — yet, if you do not yield up the question in debate, and fall down and acknowledge ihe Ro- man Goddess, as above " all that is called God, or is worshipped," they raise the outcry, that you have not touched the point. " Yield me all I want," cries the priest — ''or, you shun the whole ques- tion ; and know nothing about logic, or theology. " And, more- over, when we have such anthropoi alogoi, " unreasonable men," as Mr. Levins, to deal with, whose Liishowen inspirations render him unfit to take up a solid argument, one gets heartily *^ blackguarded" in the bargain ! Now, we have discussed the proofs of the inspiration of the Bible, and shown that it is established perfectly by its own in- ternal evidence^ and by external proofs, such as miracles, tongues, prophecies, and by historical evidence, and tradition also; as that of the Hebrews and Jews, " to whom was committed the oracles of God;" and by the Church at Jerusalem; and by the Church at Antioch ; by the whole Greek Church ; by the apostolical Church of the Waldenses, and by the Church of Rome. All these were checks mutually on each other ; and handed down the Holy Scriptures to present times. There never was exhibited such another master-piece of ghostly assurance and impudence, as that of the Romish Church, 85 in pouring contempt on the Ciiurclies of the East — say of Anti- och ; and all the Creek Church, far more ancient than herself, and far purer ; and also on all other branches of the (.'hiirch : and of claiming the exclusive honor of handing down the Bible, by tradition. Nay, to crown the climax, she arrogates, before Almighty God, the right of prescribing and dictating the inspi- ration of tlie Bible. It depends, she says, on her authority. This, we repeat, is either sheer knavery, or an indication of de- rangement in the moral facultij ! I trust, gentlemen, that now "all the members of the Middle Dutch Church," and the religious community, see distinctly the reason of your " zealotry" in this mode of conducting the debate ; and demanding, imperiously, an answer to questions again and again answered. And I close by stating again distinct- ly, that you have no right to pronounce on one of my arguments. You are neither judge nor jury ; the public are your umpires and mine ; and to them 1 appeal. The Rule of Faith of " Holy Mother Church," we also stated ; it is this: "infallible Scriptures," together with the Apocryphal Books ; and oral traditions, with the unanimous consent of the Greek and Latin fathers; and all as explained by the infallible head, the Pope, or a Council, or the Church, or a Pope and Council. "The Bible," or "infallible Rule" of the Romish Church, in a word, is large enough to load four carts heavily ; besides all their traditions. And then the " Pope," or "Council," or " Church," is mounted on them as the " infallible judge and interpreter." We are now prepared to go on with our "dissection" of this Rule. The whole of the Roman system, as is evident from his- tory, scripture, and dear-bought experience, is a cunningly de- vised scheme to gain — not the salvation of souls ; she who is " drunk with the blood of the saints" has no anxiety about the salvation of souls; but to gain unbounded civil power, and wealth for Peter's purse. And as a preparatory step to this, she seeks to gain a complete ghostly power over the souls and con- sciences of her crushed and trodden down victims. Hence we are taught where to seek for the originating cause of the Church of Rome's adopting not God's holy word, but this Rule as the '^in- fallible Rule.^^ The question, with its devisers and inventors, was not. What has God spoken ? What is his word ? But it was this : What shall we adopt to achieve promptly the consumma- tion of our scheme of spiritual subjugation ; and, thence, the temporal power over the souls, and bodies, and purses of men, women and children? The famous Chillingwohth, whose complete works are now 86 on my table, furnished us, in our last letter, the true origin of this Romish Rule. This writer is, on our side of the Romish controversy, what Homer was among the ancient poets; and Demosthenes was among the orators. And yet my Inishowen opponent, Levins — (for as the Roman Catholic Herald of Phila- delphia sr.ys in truth, he does all — rs factotmn) — this same wor- thy gravely quotes, in his last letter, this Protestant Hercules, as one actually favoring his heresy I ! If there were an asylum for phrenzied polemicks, our Vicar General, 1 am sure, would have bowels of compassion enough to send him to it ! But that lies between them ; not us — and " the members of the Middle Dutch .Church." According to Chillingworth, this is the precise attitude of the Pope, and the Roman Catholic Church, before the world. That THING, be it Pope, or Council, or Pope and Council, or " Mother ,Church," in which infiillibility is lodged, does in a condescend- ing manner, take the Holy One and his blessed world, under its special protection : gives the Bible its inspiration, and all its ;authority -.claims the uncontrolled right of explaining the Bible to all men's consciences ; and of adding new doctrines, and even new sacraments : appoints his own devoted priesthood, as *' their other God upon earth," as Mussus, bishop ofBotonto said ; doles out a portion of the '' infallible interioi spirit" to each priest and every little scribe, for the defence of the scarlet woman of St. John ;and brings every thing into market, for money, even souls and bodies of men, and 6ach sin, which has its own price in the Pope's exchequer book. They avail themselves of the benefit of the Bible when it seems to *• squint" that way ; and when it is dumb, or condemns them, they put it on the Pope's rack, until it speaks out what they want, before an ignorant and unlearned generation of men ! We finished our first /wo arguments against the Roman Rule. We showed that, with all their pretensions, their best and most intelligent writers cannot tell us where it is to be found. " We do have it in good earnest, but we cannot come at it." There is an unique illustration of this, in an anecdote of a cook of one of our fine packets. He was a "rale sprig" of St. Patrick; and, therefore, my opponents being judges, it is an orthodox anec- dote. Honest Patrick, in his vocation, happened, while washing a fine copper kettle, to let it roll overboard into the sea. It was gone in a moment. There was no use in lamenting; he could not recall it. He made his way directly to the captain : — "Arra, now, captain, can a thing be said to be lost, when we know where is is?" *' Certainly not, my good lad !" replied the captain. " Well, then, by St. Patrick !" cried our cook, " then 87 my fine copper kettle canna be said to be lost, at all ; for / know that it is in the bottom of the sea.'* "Holy Mother's" infallible judge is in precisely the same predicament I But who shall bring it up, and make it visible and tangible ! Our 5ec'();i(Z argu- ment was this : No mortal man, Pope or Council, can wiold this same Rule, or make any practicable use of it. We will go on ; III. Your infallible Ihde can never he found out, on your jvin- ciplcs, or employed for the benefit of man. This Uule must have been established by Christ for the benefit of all God's moral subjects ; or only for the benefit of the Pope and his Clergy. You will scarcely deny that God designed his message to be addressed to all men. Christ says, — " What I say to you, I say to all, ivatch.^^ 'Hie that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches." "Search ye the Scriptures, &c." " Blessed is he that readcth and they that hear, &c." You You will scarcely venture to allirm in this enlightened day, that none but priests ought to read the Bible : tiiat God addressed his word only to priests; far less that any polluted and immoral priesthood can be the grand depository of God's truth ! I beg pardon : I wrong you : you have actually declared this. But the assertion of a criminal who has abstracted, and wasted his mas- ter's goods is not a witness in his own case : his proofless word passes for nothing. Give us proof, instead of mere assertions. Now, how must those wdio are to receive benefit from your Rule, arrive at the evidence of the fact that your rule is the only infallible rule ? On the principles you hold, no one can find it out. You condemn, and in genuine Romish spirit, yoa even ridicule the rights oi private Judgment, u.nd private inter- pretation, in this matter. Now apply your own argument here,, and you shall see whither it leads you. You say that the Holy Bible is the inflillible rule, so far as it goes : then you add the Apocrypha ; and a chaotic mass of tradi- tions : and all these are to be taken according to {\\c unanimous^ consent of the fathers ; of whom any two are scarcely of one mind. How go you to work here ? You set out to seek this rule and judge, either as a Cimrcli, en masse : which is utterly impossible ; or you go as individuals ; but how can you, as indi- viduals, be assured of the inspiration of the Bible; of the genu- ine traditions; and of the consent of the fathers'? You must either form a judgment and belief, or not. If not, then there is no faith ; nothing is done. If you do form a belief and a judg- ment ; then mark your dilemma, you do by private judgment, and by private interpretation, determine yourself^ that tliis is the rule and judge. And thus you do, as fallible men, by pri- vate judgment, determine the infallible rule. That is to say, 88 private judgment, and fallible individuals do that which you have declared they never can do. And, hence, in determining your rule, you overthrow all your objections against ours. But even admitting that you have, by private and fallible judgment, determined the infallible rule, you will find your- selves no nearer the end of your difficulties than before. Your infallible head, the Pope, happens to be a mortal and erring man. Besides he is not accessible, except to only a few in Italy. He cannot exhibit truth, and decide controversies in every Chapel ; in every house, in every heart, in all lands. A Council can do no better. There has been no council since that of Trent. And the ghost of that " holy infallible Council," can- not walk the earth ; and stalk into all houses, and Chapels, and hearts, in all lands ! — It could not do this, v/ere it even now in life, at Trent. "Holy Mother Church," can act no better part. You send your people to her for the true infallible Rule : the act of faith is thus expressed in your Douay Catechism ; and the definition is a curious one ; it embraces the sum total of a Papist's faith ; <' Great God, I firmly believe all those sacred truths which thy holy Catholic Church believes, and teaches, because thou, who art truth itself, hast revealed them, Amen!" I will not stop to remind you that the Mahommedan belief is as simple, namely, — *' there is one God, and Mahommed is Ms Prophet.^^ And throughout all Turkey, there is much more unity in belief, than in your Church. But vvhat I urge on your attention is this ; the difficulty is not removed by this chicanery. " Holy Church," cannot do any thing better, in this affair, than the Pope. For what is " Holy Ciiurch?" Roman Priests do not even agree in the answer to this question. Some say ^' tlie Church," is the Pope and his Clergy : some say it is the priesthood : Mr. Hughes, and you seem to include the laity with the priests, and so make it " the people and their pastors." (Hughes* Letter, Feb. 28. But here is the difficulty; how can you congregate all these into one speaking rule 1 How, and wjiere, can the simple faith- ful find the response of this oracle 7 No where, under the sun, can they find it. She cannot speak and judge ; the faithful can- not hear her voice from all places where the people and priests are scattered abroad. Either then, the faithful flock have no faith, because they have NO response from this oracle, and no rule ; or else they must heWeye by p7'0xy ; and rujt only so, but truly believe that of which they have no knowledge whatever ! And this last is the alternative as every one knows ! And any man can make the experiment to satisfy himself, with a true and devoted son of 89 the Church. Let any one ask a Catholic who follows implicitly the priest, ^' Pray, what is your belief?" he will reply, '^/be- lieve as the Church believes." 'MVell, what does the Church believe'?" He will say, '^ Holy Church believes as I believe." *' But what do you and the Church believe?" " Why, arrah, now, We both believe exactly the same thing !" This is the uni- form answer ; and you never can get any other answer out of him, for the best reason in the world ; because there is nothing else in him I And what is much worse, by the Rule, and the priests' influence, nothing else is allowed to enter into his hum- ble and wofully abused mind. '* Ignorance is the mother of DEVOTION ! This is their old and tried maxim. Finally, shall the flock be sent to what your cliampion, Dr. Milner, calls " the whole icord of God written and unwritten V This, as 1 have said, is large enough to load some four carts ! Having found these 130 folio volumes, and the unwritten tradi- tions, if he can, the simple inquirer is no nearer tiie end of his difficulties. For, alas ! should a layman in his simplicity, dare to take it on him to use his private judgment, and reason, and make a mental effort to find out his Maker's will, and the holy vrord speaking to him, he should forthwith have the ban of the Priest pronounced on him, and threatened away from his sin of daring to think for himself, by the fires of purgatory ! He must yield up his conscience, and his soul to be guided by the Pope, or Council ; that is to say, a Rule and a Judge which he can never see, or discover ! IV. That Christ established your infallible Rule, in his Church, we utterly deny. The Roman Catholic writers have, here, exhibited a curious specimen of logic, in their abortive efforts to prove that Christ established their Rule. Milner in his End of Controversy, has led the way ; all of you follow after him. You assert in strong terms, that Christ did establish your Rule ; and gave it to the Apostles : tiiat you are the only apostolical successors : and, therefore, you only have that Rule of Christ, that is infallible. Now, let us see a specimen of the logic and proof. Christ, you say, established your Rule. This was the first thing to be proved. Now, let us not lose sight of the materials of this Rule ; if Christ ordained your Rule, then he gave forth by inspiration the n-^pocrypha, as well as the Bible; then, also, he ordained by inspiration, all the oral traditions of your Church ; and he also told the Church, by the Holy Spirit, that lie gave the unanimous consent of the endlessly contradicting fathers, as a part of that Rule, and that he appointed, by name and title, the Pope, t.j 12 90 Council, oY the Church, you know not which, as the only infalli- ble judge. This was the point to be proved: but they do not touch it ex- cept by assertion. Nay, they all, as well Milner, as Hughes and yourselves, shift, completely, the subject to be proved. And instead of showing that Christ ordained the materials out of which your Rule is made, they labor to show that Christ ordain- ed teaching by word of mouth. " Christ," says your champion, Hughes, — " has made the promise of infallibility to the succes- sion of TEACHING and NOT to Writing, reading, or private inter- pretation." And Milner in his End of Controversy, declares that Christ sent the Apostles, and their successors, to preach the gospel by word of mouth. '' If," says he, " Christ had intended that all men should learn his religion from a book, viz : the New Testament, he would have written that book himself; and enjoin- ed the obligation of learning to read it, &c." "But," adds this Vicar General of England, with unblushing impiety and infideli- ty, *' Christ wrote no part of the Kew Testaynent himself, and gave no orders to his Apostles to tvriteit." See Letter VI. &,c. p. 63. &c. Thomas Paine uttered nothing worse. Thus, having on the principles of deism, got rid of the written word of God, although in contradiction to the Council of Trent, which admitted the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, they do, by a dexterous shifting of the question, make this teaching, by word of mouth, to be the rule establislied by Christ in his Church : and being established by him, it must be infallible. And thus, my readers must see that the real infallible rule of Rome, is abandoned, without proof, to its flite. Instead of prov- ing the inspiration of the Apocrypha, traditions, and the consent of the fathers, and the divine authority of the pope, they, very gravely set to work, and try to prove that the " infallibility was promised to teaching by word of mouth !" But were it possible that you, gentlemen, could prove the in- spiration of all the materials of your Rule, and were it possible that you could prove the infallibility of the successors of the Apostles, this would not avail you, or your church. For, V. The line of your succession is entirely broken off^ both as to the Popes, and the Church. 1st. The succession is cut off from Rome, by the loss of the essential bond of holiness. Christ says, " ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever 1 command you." " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God." *'If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his." This is the essential doctrine of Christianity. Hence no wicked man, no infidel, can be considered a member of Christ's Church. 91 But, without denying that there are individuals who are true christians, within the pale of the Romish Church, we do assert that, as a Church, she has not only lost this badge of holy disci- pleship; but even maintains that holiness of heart,. or internal grace is not necessary to membership. Hence the usual expres- sion with the Roman priests, — " Such a one is reconciled to the Ciiurch;" not to God ; but to the Church. And Bcllarmine main- tains an argument that wicked men, infidels and reprobates, re- maining in the public profession of their Romish Church, are true members of the body of Christ ! See Bell. Lib. 3. De Eccles. c. 7. The Rhemist Annotators declare the same ; on 1 Tim. 3. sect. 10, and on John 15, sect. 1. 2d. And in addition to this, the Romish Church has aposta- tized from the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel. They reject the one only and perfect atonement of Christ ; and substitute in its place, the Mass, in which they profess to offer up weekly, an unbloody sacrifice for the living and the dead ; they reject justi- fication by faith alone, through Christ's righteousness ; they de- ny the eflicacious work of grace, by the Holy Ghost : with them a sinner is saved purely by human merit, and the efficacy of their sacraments. And to the pure and simple doctrines and institutions of the Gospel of Christ, the Roman Catholics have added an endless train of doctrines, and will-worship, and rites, and ceremonies. The whole face of Christianity has been changed in that church ; the whole system new-modelled, in the most heaven-daring manner. In Christ's throne ihey have reared "their Lord God the Pope." They have introduced the adoration of Saints, a thing unknown until after the beginning of the third century ; a thing violently opposed until the 7th century ; and finally established in the 9th; a thing violently opposed by St. vVugustine, Atha- nasius, St. Ambrose and many others. They have introduced the idolatrous veneration of images ; though the use of them was solemnly condemned in A. D. 700, by the Council of Con- stantinople ; and by the 7th general Council, in A. D. 754. They have invented a purgatory, though opposed by St. Augustine, and the best fathers, before the Gth century. They deny mar- riage to the priests ; and, by way of a pleasant joke, they call a bachelor's life, '"'chastity." This imposition on the rights of man, was made by Pope Gregory VII. in 1074 ; simply to secure all the moneys for Peter's purse ! Transubstantiation, and the Mass, though invented in the 9th century, were imposed on the Roman church, only so late as 1215, in the 4th Council of the Lateran, by Pope Innocent III. They deny the cup to the laity 92 in the Lord's Supper ; even though Pope Gelasius in 492, pro- nounced it sacrilege to do so ! Thus, your Church is apostate in doctrine; and so the succes- sion is cut off. Hear the words of Gregory Nazianzen, speaking of Athanasius succeeding in the Church of St. Mark, — " He was not less the successor of his piety, than of his seat ; in point of time, distant from him : but, in piety, which, indeed, is properly called succession, directly after him. For he that holdeth of ihe same doctrine is of the same chair ; but he who is an enemy to the doctrine, is an enemy to the chair!" Orat 21, on Athan. Paris edit, of 1777. But, 3dly, your succession is broken in the broken line of the Popes, and true ordination. The very nature of the Apostolical character, and call to office, will show that the Apostles had no successors in office. An Apostle was one who had seen Christ alive, after his death ; was sent by immediate inspiration and a call to office, by Christ, visible to him ; and who, moreover, could establish his divine call before the world, by miraculous powers. This is what the Apostle Paul says in Galatians, ch. I. and 1 Cor. 9. 1. <^c. Besides these, Christ appointed Pastors, and Teachers. When the line of extraordinary offices, like that of the Apostles and Prophets, ceased, the ordinary line of Pastors and Teachers, continued. These alone, had successors ; as these were succes- sors to the Apostles in that pait of their character, which made them Teachers. " Go ye and teach all nations*" This was spoken as much to the pastors and teachers, as to the Apostles; and to the successors of that class which actually had successors. This is the sentiment of the early fathers. But even admitting, what was impossible, that your Popes were the successors of the Apostles, the line has been broken oftMong ago. I have before me copious extracts from Platina, Baronius, Genebrard, Dupin, &c. all the Romish writers, which show, that the Roman Catholic church was corrupt from the 4th century ; and increased continually in corruption until the 9th ; and from the 9th to the Council of Trent, say for GGO years, she was in a state of the most friglitful corruption. The tumults and bloodshed at the election of Popes, proves to all impartial men, that Rome was converted into the syna- gogue of Satan. Could such gladiators be the Apostolical suc- cessors? — Pope Liberius [A. D. 353] became a heretic by the Emperor's inliueuce, and that of the apostate Bishop Hosius, Hear your writer Andre du Chesne, — " Not to dwell on all the persons of distinction, who imitated him. he notoriously carried 93 along with him, in his fall, the supreme bishop of the intire orthodox church !" Platina, in his life of Damascus I. A. D. .'366, says, — "that when he was elected Pope, lie had a rival in the church called Sicinus; where many were killed on both sides, in the church itself: since the matter was discussed not only by votes but by force of amis /'* Baronius, vol. 6. p. 562, A. D. 498, tells us that the Emperor's faction sustained the election of Laurentius to the papacy. In this struggle, " murders, robberies, and numberless evils were perpetrated in Rome." Nay, such were the horrible scenes that, says Baronius, " there was a risk of their destroying the whole city !" In the schism between the Popes Sylverius and Vigilius, in the 6th century, the latter, though an atrociously wicked man, — *^ implicated," says Baronius, — "in so many crimes," that all vir- tues men opposed him, was raised to the papal chair. Yet this man was pronounced a good Pope. Baronius says he is not to be despised though a bad man. "Let every man recollect, says he, " that even to the shadow of Peter immense virtue was given of God !" Bar. vol. 7. p. 420. In the midst of contentions which rent the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Pelagius I. was chosen. — This Pope approved the Council which Pope Vigilius had condemned. This increased the flames of ecclesiastical war to such a defrree, that the Pope could not find a bishop of Rome, who could consecrate him : and he was constrained to beg a priest of Ostium, to do this ser- vice ^^ a thing" says Baronius (vol. 7. p. 475.) " which never had occurred before." The Popes Formosus and Stephen lived in the 9th century. The latter says Baronius, was so wicked, that he would not have dared to enroll him in the list of Popes, were it not that anti- quity gives his name. In the excercise of his infallibility, he not only rescinded the ads and decrees of his infallible predeces- sor Formosus; but, collecting a council of cardinals and bishops, as bad as himself, he actually had the old pope taken out of his grave; and he brought him into court; tried; and condemned him; cut off three of his fingers; and plunged his remains into the Tiber. See Platinas Life of Stephen VI. and Baronius do. Pope Romanus I. in his turn, abrogated the decrees and acts of Stephen VI. " For, " says Platina, — "these Popes seem to have thought of nothing else, than to extinguish the name and dignity of their predecessors." Life of Rom. Genebrard, in his Chronicles, under the year 904, says, " for nearly 150 years, about 50 Popes— deserted wholly the virtue 94 of their predecessors, being Apostate rather than Apostoli- cal!" Baronius, under the year 1004, names three rival Popes, who perpetrated the most shameful crimes and bartered the Papacy, and sold it for gold. He, though a Roman Catholic writer, calls them," the three headed beasts, which had issued from the gates of hell!" Bzovius in his Eccles. annals, A. D. 1411, tells us that after the Council of Pisa, the head of the Church was three schisms, three Anti-Popes. The Council of Pisa deposed two Popes, whom in their sen- tence, they pronounced notorious heretics, and guilty of jjer- jury. , The Council of Constance in A. D. 1414, deposed three Popes, namely, Benedict XIII, the Spanish Pope : and Gregory XII, the French Pope ; and John XXIII, the Italian Pope. In short, so early as A. D. 1073, there had been no less than :25 schisms, by the anti-popes, and the general profligacy of the Priests. And the most violent ones happened after that date. Now the present Pope, and all his prelates, and all his priests :are as incapable of tracing their succession through these end- lessly broken lines of papal succession ; as are the present Jews, of tracing their descent from their respective tribes and families. It is all idle and absurd in them to set up the claims of apostoli- cal succession. Their own Jerome and Gregory Nazianzen tell them that the succession is that of piety and doctrine, not THAT OF MERELY SITTING IN THE SAME CHAIR, OR THRONE ! On this same principle, the Turks' or Egyptians' power and domi- nion in Jerusalem, worshiping in the Mosque of Omar, are the true aud lineal successors of Moses and AarOn, and the Hebrew Church of old ! Here I shall add an appropriate remark of Baronius. At first view one must perceive that this man, though a Roman Catho- lic writer, seems to labor to make out the case that your church is as degenerate from the once Holy church of Rome, as is the Turk's Mosque at Jerusalem, from the pure ancient Hebrew church. Hear his words in his life of Pope Stephen VII. A. D. 900. "The case is such, that scarcely any one can believe, or ever will believe it, unless he sees it with his eyes, and han- dles it with his hands, viz. What unworthy, vile, unsightly, yea, execrable and hateful things the sacred apostolical See, on whose hinges the universal apostolical churph turns, has been compelled to see, &c." — "To our shame and grief be it spoken, how many monsters, horrible to behold, were intruded by them" (the secular princes,) " into that seat which is reverenced by 95 angels !" The Holy See, he adds, is '•' bespattered with filth," "infected by stench," "defiled by impurities," and "blackened by perpetual infamy !" And to cap tlie climax, your own Baronius, under the year 912 adds : " What is then the face of the Holy Roman Church ! How exceetlingly foul it is ! Wlien most potent, sordid and aban- doned women [" ^Icrctriccs,"] ruled ai Rome ; at whose will the Sees were changed ; Bishops were presented ; and what is horrid to hear, and unutterable, False Pontiffs, the lovers of those women, were intruded into tiie chair of St. Peter, &c." He adds — " for who can affirm that men illegally intruded by bad women [" Scortis,"] were Roman PontitVs !" Again : " The canons were closed in silence ; the decrees of Po-ntitis were suppressed ; the ancient traditions were proscribed ; and the sacred ceremonies and usages of former days were wholly extinct !" [See his annals, A. D. 9l2.] Here we have evidence, not from Protestant authors, but from your own authentic and favorite Baronius, that your succession, in all senses, is completely cut off. You have neither Pope nor Prelate, nor Priest, nor Sacrament, nor infallible Rule ! But I must pause here for want of space. I shall endeavor to finish, in my next, my exposition of your Rule, and will in due time notice your objections. I have them on file, and shall ren- der them all justice in " the dependency" of our argument. You have thi'ee letters to my one. The slanderous attacks you make on the Reformers, lean easily repel, by saying that they are mere fictions. It is unmanly and in bad keeping in Dr. Varela, to proclaim the notorious Bolsec's fiction. He was the last man that a son of " Holy Mother" should quote ; he was, as you well know, an apostate Carmelite Monk, who died under the ban of your church : and so profligate that he gave his wife to be a prostitute to the Holy Canons of Autun to regain the Catholics' favor. He was a miscreant hired to slander Calvin and Beza. And you know well that this was his infamous character. [See Lemprier, article Bolsec] Only such men can slander Calvin. But were even Luther and Calvin, the monsters you would wish to make them, this aflects not the question in discussion. We never made these men our living spkaking Rule ! I quoted your profane Popes and heretic councils quite in point ; and also the errors and divisions of" Holy Mother Church," for the best reasons in the world. These you make your living, speaking, and infallible Rule. Suiely, if 1 demonstrate their errors and heresies, I annihilate your Rule. But as our rule is the Scrip- tures, and our Judge of Controversy, the Holy Ghost speaking 96 vin them, not as understood by " private interpretation," but as interpreted by God, speaking in them to us, surely all your in- vectives against the Reformers are utterly irrelevant matter. And >the enlightened public will decide. I shall finish my argument against your Rule and then minute- ly examine all your objection. I am, gentlemen, yours, &c. W. C. BROWNLEE, One of the ministers of the North and Middle Dutch Churches. New York, March 20, 1833. 97 Reply of nrs. Power and L,evin9j TO DR. BROWNLEE. No. 4. I will not utterly consume thee; but I will chastise thee in judgment, that thoumayest not seem to thyself innocent. Jer. 30. 11. Rev. Sir — In the days of Pagan Philosophy it was observed, that an honest man struggling with adversity, was a spectacle worthy of the Gods. Whether any distinction of case in the object of their contemplation has been remarked by the ancient Scholiasts is unknown to us; — that is, whether the Gods be equally aflected by the patience of him, who, though innocent, contends with the bitterness of his affliction, and of him who has been the cause of his own woe. Not having studied the phases of mental affection to which the Pagan Deities were sub- ject, it would be presumption in us to estimate the degree of compassionate admiration they would extend to you ; but it is suspected it would not widely differ from that now cherished for you by your controversial opponents, — even by the Members of the Middle Dutch Church, your sacerdotal brethren, or to ex- press it briefly, by the enlightened among your " christian pub- lic." But, whatever may be the gradations of pity in the minds of Pagan Celestials, there is a fixed standard of measure among the mortals of earih. He who is the mechanist of his own merited misfortune is conceived to have but a slight claim on ' pity. He who rushes headlong into difficulty, without calcula- ting results and consequences; he who like a player struts forth on the public stage stiffening his hamstring and proclaiming a CHALLENGE iu " King Cambyses' vein," yet fails in the execution of great promise, is deservedly a mark for the finger of deri- sion. He who idly and presumptuously forms a false estimate of his mental strength, though familiar with the *' Hebrew and Greek of the Holy Ghost," and summons notoriety to his prowess in polemic fight, yet cannot establish his Rule of Faith by ar- gument and logical proof, sinks unpitied and unwept to that state where mock and gibe are his comforters. This is the re- tributive justice of human judgment, — and, had the old Scho- liasts philosophically pondered on the question, a similar one might have been discovered among the crowned heads of the Pagan Heaven. Were it your destiny to have been present at a levee day on the summit of Olympus, and had you edified the assembly by the ribald phrfises and gross allusions which, in your last logical epistle, abound in such unpruned luxuriance, No. 7.— 13 98 the punishment of the old blacksmith of Lemnos would have been your meed, and Minerva's bird would have derived your fate. ^ Passing, however, from the lighter tone of these remarks, we would seriously interrogate you, Rev. Sir, is your last letter, no matter how interpreted by the mind most biased in your favor and to your creed, no matter iiow enwrapt in contemplation of your exalted worth and character, is your last letter worthy of a scholar, worthy*of him who is intimate with the interior spirit, and familiar with the '-Hebrew and Greek of the Holy Ghost 9" Is it, in any sense, a logical and theological production ^ Does it, even remotely, bear on the matter in question — your Rule of Faith ? Does it evolve any of the important queries so often required of you ^ — Every impartial mind will say it is as distant from the point at issue as the filth of the Collect is from the far- thest orblight in Heaven's firmanent ! Between it and the reply you should have given, the difference is as wide as between the architecture of the Middle Dutch Church and the sublime Tem- ple of the Catholic Vatican ! You are again interrogated. Does your last letter honor the station you occupy? Does it honor the Gospel you preach to your flock ; that Gospel which commands the love — even of enemies'? Does it honor him who wastes the midnight oil over the Holy Scriptures, and who " evolves the meaning by all pro- per means, should there be any thing not so plain as at first view youwishT^ Does it honor him who erects his Rule of Faith on the whisperings of the interior Spirit, and through its illumi- nations, selects from the " Hebrew and Greek of the Holy Ghost," those necessary articles of creed on which his salvation depends*? To reconcile the aflfections of soul evinced in your last letter with the gentleness, urbanity, and religious decorum, generally supposed characteristic of the sacerdotal garb, is a task not easily effected. It is as difficult as to blend in one system of rational dependency the endless and irrevelant topics on which you have endeavored to found your Rule of Faith 9 A theme to which you fondly recur is the " glorious liberty of conscience" secured by what you term, the " ever blessed Re- formation !" You love to descant on it, and by it enlist in your favor republican feeling. — Is it a part of the glorious liberty to exhibit the '' spleen of the under fiends" in your polemic " squint- ingSy^ when you shun the real point in question, and wantonly riot in disgusting ribaldry? Attend to the monition of St. Paul, — " if you bite, take heed that you be not consumed." You vaunt your intimacy with the interior Spirit ! Wheie are its fruits? Are your vituperative words your foul allusions, your 99 envenomed drivel against Catholic rites, practices and ceremo- nies, its fruits? In your last letter you designate tlie Clergy of the Catholic Church a " polluted and immoral priesthood!" Is this a fruit of your interior Spirit'-^ Is this proving your Rule of Faith and the inspiration of the Bible*? You call the Catho- lic Church the *' scarlet woman of St. John !" Is this a fruit? Is ih'is your '* Protestant lesson and logic T^ You say the celi- bacy of Catholic Priests is *' a pleasant joke," — an ^'imposition on the rights of man to secure all the monies for Peter's purse!" Is this a fruit ^7 Is this Protestant argument? You say the Ca- tholic Church '* brings every thing into market, for money, even souls and bodies of men, and each sin, which has its own price in the Pope's exchequer book I" Is this a fruit 9 Is this fiend- ish slander one of your proofs to establish the canonicity of the Scriptures, and that the Bible contains the whole of the word of God? Among the fruits of the Holy Spirit, St. Paul enu- merates '• charity, peace, benignity, mildness, modesty" Are the fruits of j[>r. Brownlee's spirit like to these 9 But, then, you exultingly '* claim to be a gentleman," and that you " write for the members of the Middle Dutch Church i" What, is it thus you insult your flock ! Thus you slander them ! Thus you explain the "Hebrew and Greek of the Holy Ghost" to them ! What, you " write for the members of the Middle Dutch Church," and proclaim the clergy of the Catholic Church a '* polluted and immoral priesthood !" — Surely, though you be their writer and their preacher, they cannot sanction the filth of your tongue, the grossness of your mind, and the malignity of your heart! If they do, — if your words convey the real estimate of their character, we, in truth, admit, but in sorrow, the force of your observation, that the members of the Middle Dutch Church *'are very different people from the flock of St. Patrick's Pas tr." If, when it is avowed, "you write for the members of the Middle Dutch Church," you mean that they approve and applaud the virulent pollutions and falsehoods oozing out from your writings, then we say, and every honorable, manly, and christian heart will sanction our remark, the flock is worthy of the Pastor, and the Pastor of the flock. But it is not possible — it cannot be believed. The virtuous, the enlightened, the manly among the members of the Middle Dutch Church and there are many rich in these endowments among your congregation — cannot honor with approval your impure and defiling slander, that the Catho- lic clergy are a "polluted and immoral priesthood !" Though you proclaim yourself their writer and their preacher, they can- not venerate him, whose heart and mind, rankling in the bitter- ness of discomfiture, and writhing under tortures of defeat, seek 100 ease for their griefs and sorrows in the basest indulgence of spleen ! Unable to meet your antagonists in manly and logical argument, — disgraced in the judgment of all who can form an opinion of your artifices, tricks, and cavils, — fallen from your high estate as the proclaimer of a presumptuous challenge — skulking under the shelter of subterfuge and rank slander, into which you breathe a still ranker life, — a prey to the gnawings which eat into your very heart's core under defeat, disgrace, and dishonor, you sputter out the morbid secretions of an envenomed will, then "claim to be a gentleman," and honor the virtuous and religious members of the Middle Dutch Church with the sponsorship of your ribaldry and rancor I ! This, for a gentle^ man, theologian, and preacher, is a strange form of procedure, unusual in the annals of religious controversy. The main topic under discussion is avoided, studiously shunned, and you name it by your own classical term — ''squiniing.^^ You shrink from the necessary queries so frequently put to you, though you avowed their " infimte imjwrtance," and promised to " discuss them/rs/," and this you call ^'skirmishing. You designate celibacy of the Priests a " pleasant joke," " an imposition on the 7'ights of man to secure all the moneys for Peter's purse," and yet you "claim to be a gentleman." You say the Catholic Church " brings every thing into market, for money, even souls and bodies of men, and each sin has lis own price in the Pope's exchequer book," and you shout " Billingsgate." You deliriously charge the Catholic clergy with bein^ a polluted and immoral priest- hood," piteously whine out * ^Blackguardism," and invoke the commiseration of the members of the Middle Dutch Church against the lash of your antagonists, by saying you are " their writer." In truth, it may be said, " the tribulations of the just are many ;" and with the afflicted Job, you may exclaim, "the arrows of the Lord are in me, the rage whereof drinketh up my spirit." Job 6. 4. But your cry for succour from your flock will be despised : — your evasions, subterfuges, and rancor- ous slanders, are profitless, — they will be contemned. "Thou may'st toil and strain, Ransack, for filth, thy heart; for lies thy brain ; RaVf, storm ! — "tis fruitless all." Consigning you, Rev. and gentlemanly Sir, to the sedative in- fluence of the proceedinp; remarks, and your "claims of being a gentleman" to the members of the Middle Dutch Church and the "christian public;" — committing you to the fostering love of your '^most virtuous, pious and highly intelligent ladies,^^ who you say sat in judgment on the luscious slander and tale, " Lorette, or the history of a Canadian .TVwn," and whose verdict is, " that it must be printed and given to the public as an Instrument of 101 instruction for their sex" — (see an article signed Dr. Brownlee in last Saturday's '^Christian Intelligencer," — the Instrument o( the Middle Dutch Cliurch,) — we proceed to your last epistle. We have read tliis exotic, rather this Q,uix-otic, production of your interior Spirit; and, while reading it, our spirit yearned after the '^form of sound words I" Where are tlioy, logical and gentlemanly Doctor *] Reason and argument ! Where are they? Answers to our queries ! Where are they? Proofs of your claims to gentlemanship ! Where are they? Pardon; there is one, — a deep damning one ! You write for the Members of the Middle Dutch Church, and drench with your slaver the Catholic Clergy by denouncing them a ^'polluted and immoral Priest- hood." We await their approval of your claims; — we await the verdict of " your virtuous, pious, and highlif intelligent ladies" who correct the proof-sheets of your 7iew bantling — the " InSTRUiMENT." Again our queries are repeated. To your ^'christian public" and your flock they must now be as familiar as "household words." How do you know the Bible to be the word of God ? How do you know which books were written by divine inspi- ration ? Does the Bible contain the whole word of God, or does it not *? Have these queries been answered ? Though you have been tortured by the iteration of them, and though, under the evident excitement of the interior spirit, you a second time affirm in your lost epistle, that " we have no right to pronounce sentence on one of your arguments," we greet you in the gentlest and most gentlemanly words, suggest, that if these queries have been answered and proved, the answers and proofs are as invisible as if surrounded by the darkness of an Egyptian fog. Condescend to point out the column and letter of the Truth Teller in which, they may be found. This, if done, will save you much irrita- bility of temper, and confer on you the title of a logician in a slight degree, though it will not force from the " Christian pub- lic*' an admission of your "claims to be a gentleman." But you assert you have proved your Rule of Faith. Where 9 in your last letter*^ Here we must express our dissent by that Jvery uncourteous monosyllable — No. Not even the shadow of an argument on this point. Nothing in your last, but an assump- tion of " claims to be a gentleman," — that you " write for the members of the Middle Dutch Church," — nothing but an idle drivel about the " liberty of conscience," — American Republi- cans, — a startling phrase, anthropoi alogoi, to prove intimacy with the Hebrew and Greekjof the Holy Ghost,— ".//■'" ^^5 and Jews,^' — ''Ihe Church at Jerusalem, Antioch," &c. — " Inish- owen," — '^the cook and the copper kettle." — '^a polluted and immoral priesthood," — " the Pope's exchequer book," — the celi- bacy of the priests, " a pleasant joke/' — " Mr. Hughes and Bishop Milner," — a bead roll of Popes, and " other branches of learn- ing ! ! !" Thus you go up, up up ; And thus you go down, down downy ; • Thus you go backward and forward,— Andj heigh for your logic, dear BfiowM-rc ! The proofs of your rule of faith are not in your last letter,— they were not given in your former letters. Do you forget our expositions of your evasions and subterfuges in asiion for your present No. 9.— 17. 180 slowly state. You have already been informed that you were not challenged by us, not by our Bishop, not by the Rev. Mr. Varela, either directly or indirectly. The trick implied in your term — pnrtisanship, we scorn, — such artifice we contemn. Dis- tinction from controversial contest we did not ambition. To disturb the religious harmony of society was never our object. Did we descend to the low g;asconade of challenge, we tell you, in words that cannot be misinterpreted, you would not have been the ^^ gentleman" sQlecied, — higher quarry would have been sought. This, it is hoped, will calm your interior spirit, and lull it to gentleness. Whatever chagrin and bitterness of heart you now reap, be it remembered you were the herald of your own woe : your " Challenge" was addressed to four, either ** singly or in a boc/y.'^ These are your own words. This, then, is your first claim on the sympathy or approval of the Members of the Middle Dutch Church ! Your next claim rests on your claims to be a ** Gentlemen, and Writer for the Middle Dutch Church ;" and this claim is sup- ported by language not usual with those who whisper with the interior spirit and interpret the " Hebrew and Greek of the Holy Ghost." Excuse us while we select a few of your gentle' manly and charitable phrases — "The Catholic Church brings every thing into market for money, even souls and bodies of men, and each sin, which has its own price in the Pope's exche- quer-book !" You say the Catholic Clergy are *' a polluted and immoral Priesthood," that the celibacy of the priests is a ^^pleasant joke." The same foul and gross slaver is sputtered through your last letter. This is your second claim on the sympa- thy, it is hoped, not on the approval, of your flock. Your third claim on the sympathy and approval of the Mem- bersof the Middle Dutch Church, ascends loahighorder of worth, — it segregates you as one of the elect, one of the Calvanistic predestined. By it you merit the compliment of the old classic Poet — " serum in cocluai rctleas ;" — and when that hour is near when you are to pass that " bourne from which no traveller re- turns," receive our * fare thee well' in the words of the Lyric Moore, to the patriot Minstrel, — "go where glory waits thee." — This third clairh rests on your letter in the " Christian Intelli- gencer" of Saturday March 23d, in which you and your " virtu- ovs ladies" recommend the printing of the obscene tale and slander, " Lore/^e." Is not this a claim of the most elevated purity of heart and dignity of mind? Does it not merit the sympathy of the Members of the Middle Dutch Church 9 It certainly cannot captivate their approval, — no, nor the approval of any father of a family or any virtuous woman to whom the 131 name of religion is dear. Will not your flock sorrow over the indiscretion — to use a mild term — of their Preacher, their " Writer," their " Gentleman?^* Ho, who from his very station should be the very guardian of every thing pure, the sentinel over every tiling chaste, the seraph keeping watch over every tiling unearlhly in love; he, who, from his rostrum in the Middle Dutch Church should be the first in scathing and de- nouncing whatever crawls into the paths of society to pollute the mind and corrupt the heart, — he, who should raise a hurri- cane of fire, pitch, and brimstone to annihilate the obscene de- famer and the ribald slanderer, is among the foremost who ambi- tion a " bad eminence, by recommending a gross and immoral fiction ! ! ! Truly, Rev. Preacher, *' Writer," and *' Gentleman,^* your third claim on the sympathy of your flock is founded on great merit and worth. But ere this topic is cloe-cd, receive ihe judgment of a gentleman, scholar, and the virtuous father of a family, the Editor of the " Nqw York American," on the foul tale which you and your " w/woms," ladies have sanctioned. Let your flock and " christian public" contrast it with your letter of recommendation, — with your ^'-pleasant joke*^ on the celibacy of the Priests ; — and, this done, let them meditate on the moni- tion of St. Paul, who says, there are matters which should " not even be mentioned, as becometh saints Ephes. 5. 3. **This" writes the Editor of the New Yo-k American, "is a most reprehensible publication, and quite unfit to be introduced into any family. It is intended as is professed, to unveil the de- pravity of Catholic Convents, and Confessors in Canada ; and in order to do so, a tale of gross incredible and revolting depra- vity is invented, which becomes the more shocking from the mingling up with it of religious dissertations. — We are ashamed that the New York press should have ushered such a publication to the light." Having stated your claims to the sympathy and approval of the Members of the Middle Dutch Church, we now enter on the claims of your last letter to logical and theological preci- sion; At length, after dragging a thousand irrelevant topics through the tedious length of four crude and mishapen letters, there is a twilight gleam of hope that you will enter on the real point at issue, — your Rule of Faith, — that your squinting and skirmishing will soon terminate. You state our first question and thus answer it. How do you know the Bible to be the word of God 7 Ans. — 1st. From their external evidence of prophecy, and of miracles ; and the gift of tongues : from internal evidence, namely their majesty, their purity ; their sublimity^ their efficacy 182 in convincing, converting, and comforting their perfect harmony in all their parts : finally, from their uncorrupted preservation : and from the historical evidence of their tradition, from the Hebrews and Jews ; from the Greek Church ; from the African Church ; from the Church of the Albigenses and Waldenses : and from the Roman Church. All these unitedly handed down the Holy Scriptures to us. Do you seriously, Rev. Sir, intend this answer as a proof that the Bible is the word of God? Here there is nothing but a series of assertions, Assertions are not proofs. Where is the form of argument, — where the " form of sound words '7" Where is the logical concatenation, — where the convincing and logical conclusion 9 Is it thus you demonstrate this question of *' infi- nite iynportanceV If this be proof, then, the merest child in any infantile school in this city may repeat your answer to our question, and conclude in as rigid a sense as you, ergo the Bible is the word of God 1 But, though the child may repeat the words of your answer, are we, therefore, to admit the child has logically proved the Bible to be the word of God '') Surely not. Will you seek refuge under your usual artifice and evasion — the ludicrous charge of impiety and Deism, because we will not ad- mit this answer to be argument ^ We will suppose a case to illustrate your mode of logical procedure. A boy says he knows the first six books of Euclid. You wish to test his knowl- edge, and you select the following proposition from the sixth book. "The perpendiculars drawn from the three angles of any triangle to the opposite sides intersect one another in the same point." The boy under your examination says, the lead- ing steps in the demonstration of this proposition depend on the 31st proposition of the 3d book, the loth of the 1st, the 4th of the 6th, the iCth of the 5th, the 0th of the 6th, the 21st of the 3d, and the 32d of the 1st. Does a reference to this register of propositions prove the boy can demonstrate the proposition in question ? No ; — a mere reference to any number of proposi- tions is not proof, for if it were proof, then an enumeration of any other propositions would, equally, be proof. I'he regular form of demonstration is, therefore, necessary to ascertain the boy's knowledge, — or, in other words, it is necessary to establish the proposition in question. Now, most logical preacher and demonstrator of your ''Pro- testant Rule of Faith," apply the force of this illustration to your answer to our question, — " how do you know the Bible to be the word of God V Like the boy, you enumerate a series of propositions, and imagine it lacks only the appendage of a Q. E. D. to make itfi logical bastion impregnable to every attack from 183 your opponent'! science of strategy. But, believe U3, you are within the distance of our point-blank range. The glacis of your bastion is passed ; and like old Chasse at Antwerp, com- plaining of Marshal Gerard, his bombs, and genades, you will soon report to the Members of the Middle Dutch Church and your " chislian public," that in vain will the annals of history be searched to discover the example of a bombardment equal in brutality to that wiiich the enemy is directing against the citadel. Never among a civilized people did any thing similar occur. Vou could not admit that reference to any series of proposi- tions would be the proper form of logical proof to establish a proposition in the sixth book of Euclid, — we will not concede that reference to any number of propositions in your answer to our first question is a proof that the Bible is the word of God. That you may know the work you have to execute, we register the propositions contained in your answer. Question. How do you know the Bible to be the word of God 9 Answer 1st. "I know it from its external evidence of pro- phecy." — Prove it. 2d. '• 1 know it from its external evidence of miracles." — Prove it. 3d. " I know it from its external evidence of the gift of tongues." — Prove it. 4th. "I know it from its internal evidence, namely, its ma- jesty." — Prove it. 6th. '* I know it from its internal evidence, its purity." — Prove it. Gth. " I know it from its internal evidence, its sublimity. — Prove it. 7th. •' I know it from its internal evidence, its efficacy in con- vincing." — Prove it. 8th. " I know it from its internal evidence, its efficncy in con- vert ing." — Prove it. 9th. *' I know it from its internal evidence, its efficacy in com- forting." — Prove it. 10th. "I know it from its internal evidence, its perfect har- mony in all its parts." — Prove it. 11th. "I know it from its internal evidence, its uncorrupted preservation." — Prove it. 12th. *' I know it from the historical evidence of its own tra- dition." — Prove it. 13lh •• I know it from the Hebrews and Jews." — Prove it. 134 14th. "I know it from the African Church." — Prove it. 15th. *' I know it from the Church of the Albigenses and Wal- tlenses." — Prove it. 16th. " And 1 know it from the Roman Church.^^ — Prove it. To embody 16 propositions in your answer to our first ques- tion is some evidence of extensiveness in your powers of mental conception, though eight tedious weeks have been worn in its con- coction. Now if in your boy days you formed an intimacy with Old Cocker, favour us with ano/Aer answer to this "rule of three" query; If the length of two moons be required to concoct six- teen propositions without proof, how many lunations will be ne- cessary to prove them? It is looped your answer will be worthy of a place in the foreign annals of the French Institute. By the time you shall have demonstrated your sixteen propositions, the difference between a Catholic Q,. E. D. and what you desig- »ate " Protestant lesson and logic,^^ will be visible to the mem- bers of Middle Dutch Church, your sacerdotal brelheren, and the "Christian pubHc," to whom you appeal as your "judge and jury." Enter at once on the subject, else the dog days may over take you in your logical labors, and, then there might be danger of rnbbidness. But this visitation may heaven forfend. Give some heed to the advice of Shakspeare's Sir Nathaniel to the Schoolmaster, Holoferness, — *' let the epithets be sweetly varied, like a scholar at the least." If not, we shall be forced to compliment you in the words of the aforesaid Schoolmaster, — *' God comfort thy capacity." Waiting the demonstrations of the sixteen propositions, con- tained in your answer to our first query, we pass on to your an- swers to our other questions — liovv do you know which books were written by divine inspiration*? Your only rule of faith and judge of controversy, the written word of God, speaking to us in the Scriptures of the Old Testa- n>ent and the New, is utterly abandoned by you. When asked to prove the Bible to be the word of God, you say you prove it from the external evidence of prophecy, and of mira- cies : and the gift of tongues: and that the church tells you, SHE has this evidence, from the authors of the books of the holy Scriptures." Here, then, Rev. Sir, is your unequivecal ad- mission of what we contend for. We contend that without the testimony of the church, the Bible could never be proved to bethe word of God. This you adynit. Therefore, Sir, the writ- ten word of God, in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and of the NeWy is not the rule of faith established by Christ. It is an article of Christian belief, that the Bible is the word of God. But this article of belief could not be known from the Bible 135 alone, how then can it be said Christ established, it as a rule of faith, that, which could never bring man to the faith of the Di- vinity of the Scriptures, Strange, Rev. Sir, that so able a Divine as you, never detected the absurdity of your protestant rule of faith and judge of controversy, until it has been fully de- monstrated to you by your Catholic antagonist. 'I'he Divinity, then, of the Scriptures rests on the authority of the church. This admission from you, argues in this instance at least, no " derangement in the moral faculty ;" — on the contrary, it is an evidence to the " christian public," that you are no longer deluded by your ignis fatuus, but that you now think soberly on this most important point. But, in the meantime. Rev. Doctor, what has become of your affected veneration for the written word of God, for you tell us " that the Bible contains the whole word of God, that there is no inspired book lost, and that the same evidence which establishes the fact of their divine inspiration establishes this!" Now, Sir, as the inspiration of the Scriptures is established by the evi- dence of the Christian church, and this you admit — show us, when and where the church of Christ has declared, that no in- epired book, and no part of any inspired book has been lost I This you are strictly bound to do, as an honorable and honest adversary. If you will but consult the learned work of Adamus Contzin, on the four Gospels, and also the great work of Serr«- rius, you will find that no fewer, than twenty several books of Scripture have wholly perished. "These books, says Dr. Brown- lee, referred to by deists and Romish priests — such as Jasher and and certain epistles and Gospels, were not given by inspiration." The trick of your design is obvious. How far it can serve your cause, the public will judge. Was the author of the book Num- bers, a deist or a Romish priest? Does he not refer, c. xxi. v. 14, '*To the book of the wars of the Lord?" Where is this book'? In the 3d book of Kings, [which you call the first, c. iv. v. 32,] we are told "That Solomon spoke three thousand proverbs, and " his canticles were a thousand and five." Where are these? In the second book of Chronicles, c. ix. v. 29, it is said, *Now the rest of the acts of Solomon first and last, are they not writ- ten in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Abijah and in the vision of Iddo. " AVhere are these three books9" The first book of Chronicles ends with these words, "Now the acts of David the King first and last, behold be they not written in the book of Samuel the Seer, and in the book of Nathan the Prophet, and in the book of Gad the Seer." Where are these books 9 In the last to the Colossians, St. Paul commands them to read in the church, the epistle from Laodicea. Where is it? 136 In the first to the Corinthians, c. v. v. 9. St. Pauls say^, " I wrote to you an epistle." Where is this epistle*? St. Matthew, whose Hebrew Gospel does not exist, xxvii. c. v. 9. quotes words spo- ken by the prophet Jeremy, which are not now found in the wri- tings of the prophet. St. Matthew, also, c. ii. v. 23. says, " it was spoken by the prophets, " Me shall be called Nazarine." Where in any of the prophetic books now existing is Christ cal- led a Nazarine ? The books, then of the prophets, here alluded to by St. Matthew, must have perished. This was the belief, Rev. Sir, of the great St. John Chrysoslom, whom we are better pleased to follow, than the preacher in the Middle Dutch Church. In his 9th Horn, on St. Matthew, he snys *• many of the prophetical monuments have perished ; for the Jews being careless, and not only careless, but also impious, they have care- lessly lost some of these monuments, others they have partly burnt, partly torn in pieces. St. Justin, writing a^yainst Tryphon shews that the Jews maliciously destroyed many of the books of the Old Testament. Yet against the testimony of the Sciiptures, and in opposition to the most respectable historical evidence. Preacher Jirownlee asserts, '* there is no inspired book lost !" Truly, Rev. Preacher. " duem Deus vult perdere, pnus dementat ;" and your insane flippancy of assertion, if not gross ignorance of the subject on which you write, places you before the "christian public," in the ludicrous attitude of a frantic fiinatic, declaim- ing to a " conclave" of virtuous ladies, on the all sufficiency of a mutilated rule of faiti, while you leave to your opponents the rich and noble eloquence of the Chrysostoms, the Gregory's the Basils, the Justins, the Cyprians, &c. If we must believe that the Scriptures alone are a sufficient rule of faith, we now call on you to give us all the Scriptures, and not a part of them. We must have all, that we may know, what is written in all. Where is it ivrittcn that all things neces- sary to be believed, are written !■] '.iie books which we now have? Produce the text and you \\\\\ reduce us to silence. Are you not aware, that, in asserting " the Scriptures alon.e are a sufficient rule of faith." — Your doctrine is truly unscrip- tural ? How can you make the assertion, when Saint Paul tella you, that there are unwritten Traditions taught by the Apos- tles, to wliich he attaches the same weight and authority, as to his own epistle, because they convey to the pure word of God, as certainly as the Scriptures themselves." Therefore Brethren, stand fast and hold the Traditions, which you have been tanght, whether BY WORD or our Epistle." — 2 Thess. 11. v. 15. But you reject Traditions and adhere solely to the written word. tar Therefore you disoboy St. Paul, and you teach the virtuous crones of the Middle Dutch Church, who passed their verdict on the ''Instrument,'' to disolx^ St. Paul. If the scriptures alone nre a suthcient rule of faith, let us know, luliat text of Scripture, you have to detciininc, precisely the number of canonii al books. You must believe that all the books of the Old Testament, together with all the part of the New Testa- ment, as printed in your Bible, are canonical Scriptures. This is necessary to be believed. But if you can produce no text, which can, precisely, determine the number of canonical books, then it evidently follows, that there is something to be believed, which cannot be found in the Scriptures themselves, and, by consequence, the written word of God alone, is neither a full nor sufficient rule of faith. If you could have produced the text, you would not have referred us to passages in Holy writ, which can never prove, nor were they ever intended to prove, that the Scriptures alone, are a sufficient rule of faiih. They have as much reference to this, as the first chapter of Genesis. You quote Psalm the l9th 7. Its words are, — " The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul ; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple." Does this verse tell you, that all the books of the Old Testament and all the parts of the New Tes- tament, as printed in your Bible, are canonical Scriptures? No. Hence, it is no proof that the Scriptures alone, are a suffi- cient rule of faith. We put you the same question, with regard to Isaias 8— 19. 29. John 20. 31.2 Tim. 3. 15. 2 Peter 1. 19. Gal. 1. 6.— 9. Rev. 22. 18— 19. These are your references ; and we defy you to prove from them either singly or collective- ly,, that all the parts of the New, as printed in your Bible, are canonical Scriptures. If they cannot prove this, they cannot prove that the Scriptures alone, are a sufficient rule of faith. This, Uev. Sir, is the logic of Euclid, of Aristotle and of com- mon sense, and not that chaotic jumble, which you designate, by the abused name of ** Protestant lesson and logic." After thus prostrating you before your *' christian public,'* wo turn with pride, to the contemplation of that Church, which you and your fellow laborers endeavor to vilify. We leave the wholo world, to infer the excellence of the Catholic Religion from the nature of its tenets, from its antiquity, from its ditfusion, from the virtues and abilities of its countless number of professors, and, lastly, from the pood effects which it has produced. Is there a sublime idea of the Deity, derived from reason or revela- tion ; is there a correct notion of his nature, attributes and super- intending Providence, of the dignity and excellence of the human foul, its spirituality and immortality ; of our relation to God id 18. 1S3 this life, and in thai to come ; of a state of future rewards and future punishments which revelation has made known, that is not held by Catholics? Is there a duty of worship to God, of justice to our neigfibor or of controul over ourselves, which it does not inculcate ^ You unblusiiingly proclaim us idolaters, because we venerate tltc Saints of God, and pay a decent re- spect to images. We abhor id(datry as much as you, for we are christians, worshippers of the livin^jj God and of his son Jesus Christ. If to " lo\'Q the Lord our God above all things and our neighbors as ourselves" without distinction of nation or creed be the perfection of the law. [flom, 13. 10.] "If to visit the fatherless and the widow in tlieir tribulation, and keep ourselves unsfotted in this world, be religion clean and undefiled before G)d." [James 1.27.] These are the duties which our Church enjoins, whicli she orders us and hor other pastors to preach and to teach. Our daily admonition to our respective nf)cks is, *' whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are modest, what- soever things are just, whatsoever things are holy, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good re[)ort ;" if there be any virtue, if there be any discijdine, think on these things, these do ye. [Phil. 4. 8."] If these things are the abominations of the Church of Rome, verily, we fear not the abominable im[)utalions, and we hesitate not to say to you and your virtuous ladies of the Middle Dutch Church " Go you and do in like manner.*' If the church of Rome, be what you de- scribe her, then must Luther, the greatest Protestant and the first Protestant of all Protestants, have been a mad man or a liar, when in his first book against the Anabaptists, he confesses. *• That there is very much good to be found in the Papacy, nay every good christian thing, and tiiat from thence they were deriv- eport. See the pre- dicament in which you foolish drivel iiboni intention places you, no priest says Dr. Brownlec, can prove his ordination, for he can- not prove that the Bishop who ordained him, had tlie '*iMagic charm of intention." I-Jeally, most worthy preacher, '' writer,'* and '' gentlanafi,^^ we must greet you with the cons(iling words of the pedagogue, Holofernes, " God comfort tiiy capacity.'* We have strained hard to instruct you in the ways of logic and wisdom, but in vain. Your intellect has strange biasses; its propensity to ^^ squint ing,^^ is, we fear, incurable. How fitly it illustrates *' the ILd>rew and Greek of the Holy Ghost," — ** 'J'hough tiiou shouldst bray a fool in a mortar with a ])cstle, yet will not his fooIisiiiKss depart from him." J'rov. xxvii. 22. Your doctrine of intention is among the most ludicrous that could emanate from a rheumatic brain. It would uproot all confidence between man and man, dissolve the laws, of every system of compact, and taint with suspicion every pledge of trust. But to apply your pen rile argument to yourself. In the course of your ministerial duties, you are asked to baptize a child. You baptize it. According to 2/«w^' /fl?^ of intention the parents of the (diild cannot prove your intention to baptize, tli^ref )re,the child is not baptiz ;d ! This is your wondrous logic. Will the Preaclier who cotdd concoct it, ever prove his rule of faith? No. But, gentle Doctor, are you a christian^ — Were you baptized? Certainly not ; for, according to your own doc- trine, you cannot prove the intention of tfie Parson who baptized you. Ergo, you arc no christian. Q,. E. D. You interpret the " Hebrew and Greek of the Holy Ghost" to your -^ virtuous^* cronies. Can they have faith in the interpretation 9 Thej 44-0 cannot prove your intention. What think you of your logic, dear Doctor 9 You are now, Rev. Sir, openly and effectually defeated, on your rule of faiih. Speak and write what you can ngainsl Popes, priest, Jesuit's intention, &c. you can never prove, that the written word of God in the Old 'I'estamcnt and the New, is the rule of fiiith which Christ estahlished. The think- ing public already admit, that you have strayed from your sub- ject, in your malignant attacks on the Catholic Church and on her ministers ; that Calvinistic preachers pay but little respect to truth and decency, when they vent their spleen against the Popes. It gives us no little pleausure to place you in strong relief be- fore an enlightened community. We are convinced you will make a despicable figure by the sifle of the elegant and enlight- ened Roscoe, and hence we give his character' of the Popes, and solemnly call on the christian public to contrast it with yours. ** The qualifications, says Roscoe, chap. 1. Life of Leo X. page 53, by which the Pope is supposed to have merited the supreme authority, are such as would be mo:^t likely, to direct him in the in the best mode of exercising it : Humility, Charity, Temper- ance, Vigilance and Learning, are among the chief of these re- quisites ; and although snme of thcMU have confessedly l)een to often dispensed with yei, few individuals have ascended the pon- tifical throne without posessing more than a common share of in- tellectual endowments. Hence the Lomnn Pontiffs have frequent- ly displayed examples highly worthy of imitation, and have signa- lized themselves, in an eminent degree as Patrons of science, of letters, and art. Cultivating as Ecclesiastics those studies which were prohibited or discournged among the laity, they may in general be considered as superior to the age in which they lived ; and among the predecessors of Leo X. the philosopher contem- plates with approbation, the eloquence and courage of Leo L who preserved the city of Rome from the ravages of the barba- rian Attila ; the ben'fficence, candor, and pastoral attention of of Gregory L unjustly charged with being the adversary of libe- ral studies ; the various acquirements of Sylvester IL so extraor- dinary in the eyes of his contemporaries, as to cause him to be considered as a sorcerer; the industry, acuteness and learning of Inocent HI. of Gregory IX. of Inocent IV. and of Pius II. and the munificence and love of literature, so strikingly displayed in the character of Nicholas V." in conclusion, Rev. Sir, we must inform you that the bark of Peter, which has careerd through the storms of eighteen centuries, has nothing to fear from the spile, drivel, and malice of the preacher of the Middle Dutch Church ; &9r will the awkard weapons he has made choice of, injure the practised crew that mnn the goodly vessel. It is hoped you will attempt the demonstration of your sixteen propositions in your next letter. One monition ; grnppic with the renl matter under discussion : do not depart from it — your Rule of Faiilj. J. POWRR. T. C. LEVINS. JDrs. SSrownlcc-s JLclicr, »^1>. 6. TO DRS. POWER, & VARELA, k MR. LEVINS. Priests : 1st •' How do you know the Bible to be tlic word of God ?" Ans. 1st. From the external evidence of prophecy, which has been, and is now, fulfilling before our eyes: see the i)roof in liishof) Newton on the prnj)hecies ; and of miracles wrou<»ht by the inspired writers, and which were continued (btvvn to the time of St. Augustine, who saw some wrought : and the gift of tongues ; by which all the nations heard the gospel in their own native language. Also from in/erna/ evidence; namely, their majesty which every christian and every reasonable man may feel and see on every page, contrasted with every human writer : from their purity which no man could have conceived, or framed in his writings; from their sublimity in the conceptions and des- crif)tions of God, of heaven, of hell, which no uninspired man could execute; from their efficacy in convincing and converting sinners, and comforting the saints : no human composure ever has done this, 'i'he sacred writings, which have been the in- strument containing the gospel, have done what no human wri- ter can do, or ever lias done : and, from their uncorrupt preserva- tion. While the whole persecuting power of Rome pagan was bent on their destruction, and innumerable errorists and heretics sought to corrupt them, — neither they, nor [iome have succeed- ed. All the Roman Priests, and all the Voltaire and Paine school, being on one mind here, cannot prove one sentence ; far less one inspired hook lost. And we challenge these slanderers of God's ** pure and perfect word," to prove one, — even one of their slanders. Moreover, the Bible is proved to be the word of God from the historical evidence of tradition. To the Christian Church, as well as to the Jewish Church, were committed the oracles of God. The hundreds of thousands of christians who lived in the days of the Apostles received those inspired books from the Apostles, and Evangelists : and being fully satisfied of their inspiration, by their internal evidence, and by the miracles 143 and propliecies, :\:rA tongues, given in proof by God's inspired sservants, the clirisnaii [Deniber.s of the Church trauj^milted them to their children, with their certification of this evidence; and ihey to their chihlren, until they have reached us. And all the s;ections of the Cfin relics have done this : the Bihle has come cloun {() us hy {-he Si^v::^ and Hebrews; by the Syriac (^'hurches, still exi^tin,x in I'.nl ii ; as Dr. Buchanan who lately visited them testifies: and by i!ie Greek Church, m'>re ancient and more f)Uie than that of 11n, calfed the Cid Italick Version of the Bible, before the Vu};^ate was written : and linally by the Roman Church. Moreover ail the ancient versions of the Uiblc, made in the first, second, and tliird centurit^s, in Asia, in Africa, and Europe, [lave the valid authority of so many most undoubted tratbtions confirming the evitjem^e of the existence of the origi- nal word of God : amJ, finally, the enemies of the Church, such as ('el>us, I^orphyry, Zosimus, and Julian the Apostate do nil bear their testimony to tbe autlHuity and genuineness of the Apostolical writings. Thus, on thestrenf>th of this full and r» resistible moral evidence, do we believe the Bible to be the word of God. We are not so vteaky and bigoted, aufl f >oIish as t(» believe it, merely on the Chtirch's tradition. 'I'he internal eviden(!c isasstr(»ng, this day, on our minds, as it ever w;is : and we have the constant fulfilling «)f predictions biifore fuir Q\e»^ over the Cliurches, antl the world. And, fin;dly, wk. skk it MANiFr.sTLV provko in the conviction and conversion of every orre that is broutjht into the f
rove the inspiration of these lost books. If they do not finally enter on the proof of their ins[)iration, tlien we shall set it down as a public recantation of their error; and a confciiiiiua of their utt&r uufuocss to ]:i-ovc ihcir position. We 144 know they cannot ; and we are assured they dctre not offer any defence of their inspiration. Remember your own words, the mere fact of their being written by a prophet, or an Apostle, as Barnaba?, is no 'evidence, ah)ne, of their inspiration. Produce the evidence of their divinity, which we have for "al! Scrip- tures." You cannot : and you know that you cannot. Disprove this. I tell you, gentlemen, it is just as impossible that any of the inspired books could be lost, by the carelessness of the church, or the cunning of the enemy, as it is impossible that a book of the common law of the United States, or old England ; or any part of the Magna Charta, or our Declaration of Independence can be abstracted and lost ! Such a supposed loss could not take place in the days of the Apostles ; for they could bear their testimony to all that was inspired ; and against all that was forged. It could not take place after their death, for before the death of the last of the Apostles, namely, John — copies of the Holy Scriptures, even of the entire and perfect canon, were multiplied over Asia, Africa, and Europe. Disprove this. Priests 4. How can you prove that the Scriptures alone are the suiBcient rule'?" Ans. 4. By the strongest and purest testimony that can exist : namely, the testimony of Almighty God. And bold and unblush- ing must that Christian- Deist be who shall dare to give the lie to the Almighty. Psalm xix. — "The law of the Lord is perfect: converting the soul : tiie testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple: the judgments of the Lord are true and alto- gether righteous." " By them is thy servant warned ; and in keeping of them there is great reward." The whole of Psalm cxix : and particularly these: — "Through thy precepts I get understanding : — " Thy word is a lamp to my feet ; a light to my path." " Thy word is very pure:" &c Lsniah viii 19. 20. "If they speak not according to this word, it is bijcause there is no light in them." John v. 39. " Search in the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life : and they are they which tes- tify of me." John xvii. 17 — " Sanctify them through thy truth : thy word is truth." 2 Peter i. 19. " VVe have a more sure word of prophecy, whereuiito ye do well that yo take heed," &c. 2 Tim. iii. 15. "The lioly Scriptures are able to make thee wise unto salvation," &c. And, finally, they make "the man of God perfect, and thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Thus does the Almighty God solemnly declare the Scriptures the only and perfectly sufficient rule for every purpose of salva- tion : and in languages so plain that, as the prophet says, " he ihai runneth amy read I" It is impossibid without design, to 145 mistake : it is impossible, without deliberate blasphemy, to deny it : it is a deadly error to give the lie to the God of truth ! Thus we have fully met all your infidel queries. Disprove this. Rev. Gentlemen : — I finished in my last, my ten arguments DSjainst your Roman Catholic rule of faith. I have sufficient reason to know that the enliy^htened public are satisfied that these arguments are perfectly conclusive. Your pretensions to the rule being entirely anniiiilated, — the claims set forth in behalf of our Rule and Judge of controversy, are of course, without a ri- val from your anniiiilated system. I call the attention of the Christian public, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, to the fact, that the priests have not c.vamined or refuted one of these ten arguments: they have not even touched one of them. The strongest thing they have said is this : — " What has all this to do with the defence of your Protestant Rule'?" 'I'liis is really amu- sing. So utterly destitute do you seem to be of the true h^gic, and the scientific rules of defence and offence, — that even while your whole magazine of amunition was in the act of being blown up, about your ears, you gravely ask us, " pray what has all this to do with your defewce of the Protestant Rule 9" I had thought, gentlemen, that there were only two claims set up: that of the Protestant Rule in the Holy Scriptures : in which the infallible Judge, namely, Almighty God, the Spirit speaks unto us, by that which is already revealed, and closed forever, and pronounc- ed by the Almighty perfect and all-sufficient " to make the man of God perfect ;" and on the other hand, the Roman Catholic rule ; which your church, in fatal, but characteristic union with the deists, sets up in opposition to the holy Bible; even as, with unparalleled daring and impiety, you place the Pope and council in the throne of judii;ment, in rivalship with the eternal and Almighty God! And of these two rival claim- ants, your rule and the whole of your presumptuous assertions, being demolished and utterly annihilated : of course, our Rule, stands forward, in " the dependency" of the argument, alone, and without any rival. I shall now redeem my pledge, and take up your various ob- jections, errors and falsehoods. I have postponed tiie examina- tion of them, to this place ; because every one saw that you threw them out, — not at all because you, yourselves, believed them : but simply because you availed yourselves of every diffi- culty, and of even trifles to impede us in our demolition of your Rule. You had not the merit, nor the means of throwing down even a golden apple, to turn us out of our straight forward course. 1. One of the main objections, and that on which my oppo- nents establish the last hope of their sinking cause, is taken No. 10.— 19. 146 from their view of traditions. Their church like that of the Hebrew church, had the oracles of Cod committed to them; they conveyed them down to these times. This seems to be the innocent position ; but it was assumed as a position on which to plant the Anti-christian lever, by which they have moved and convulsed the civil and political world. ^' They have been," as Augustine says, " the librarian of the church ;" or as another shrewdly observes, " the mere carrier of the mail-bag;" to trans- mit to a whole vicinity, the contents of that mail-bag, for their own benefit, and that of others. But could the gravest refrain from laughter, if the post-boy, calling the community together, should gravely say, " It is well known that the general government has committed to me the one line of carrying the precious contents of this mail-bag : therefore in virtue of the right of being one carrier, 1 claim the right of being all the carriers : and I claim also the right to keep, in my power, all the contents of this mail : and all the other mails ; and to give my own personal explanations of every letter in it. He who sent them, and they to whom they are sent have no such power : and I shall send you to tiie fire of perdition, if you oppose my will. Moreover, in right of this power entrust- ed to me as mail boy, I claim the spiritual and civil power over you each, one, and all ; soul and body : to rule your destiny here ; to permit you, or refuse you, heaven, for money, as I see fit !" This claim set up by the post boy, is literally what the pope and his priests have set up. Because they happened to be the mail carrier of one line ; — because as one section of the church, they carried the Bible down to their vicinity, for which they re- ceived their to ages : they arrogate these extravagant ghostly claims to spiritual dominion over men's souls, bodies, and pro- perty. Had it not been for the inconceivable blindness and ig- norance of the dark ages, these claims would have been receiv- ed only with indignation, — or to say the least, with peals of laughter ! The post boy's ruviiigi were soberness compared to this. The whole of their doctrine touching traditions, is involved in fanaticism and extravagance. For instance : — 1st. Availing themselves of the ambiguity of the word, they use it to mean at one time, the transmission of the Bible to our names ; at another, to mean those oral doctrines, undefined, in- visible, artificial, and intangible,- — yet most convenient for a mischievous and designing power, — as an instrument to origi- nate, and establish new doctrines and rites. 2. The Romish church holds, that, by tradition alone, the evi- dence of the divine inspiration of the Bible is established. Sh« 147 merfi^es the whole internal, and the other branches of the exter- nal, in this; for one grand selfish object, namely, — sjain. 3. She pronounces herself the only church of Christ : she is *' the church," and all the churches that flourish in Syria, in Greece, Africa, and in Europe, are in her ambitious vievvs^ utterly nothing. The same selhsli end is here manifest. 4. It is the tradition of this one only churcii, which bestows on the Bible all the evidence of its inspiration and its authority. 5. Because she possessed the Scriptures, no account being made of the traditions of the other church, from which also comes down an unbroken line of the scri[)tures, — and l)ecause she hands them down, as the carrier by tradition. — therefore all their divine authority is deiived from her, and from her alonel Tiiis is not the whole of her maniac claims: -for — 6. This simple handing down of the Bible she says, gives her the entire ri^ht of determining the authority, and of fixing the meanin:^ of God's word : and of dictating that meaning to the consciences of all her subjects. Nay, like the tyrant, intoxicated with the fury of ambition, she claims from this act of conveying down the scriptures, an unbounded ghostly power over all souls and bodies and the property of men : she is thence a God on earth: she pardons sin : creates new objects of worship, by the power of canonizing. And to crown the whole of her unheard of claims, — wherever she meets, even in the pages of Protestants, with the word Church, or Catholic, — she assumes it as granted that she only is meant : and that all our Protestant champions even when opposing her, meant only homage to her, because they defended " the Church," the "Catholic," or general Church, — which of course, could mean only the Roman sect ! Such un- paralleled reasoning pervades all your letters. II. There is one leading sentiment interwoven into all the ob- jections of my opponents : and it is characteristic of catholicity, at home and in Europe : it is this. The priesthood is a spiritual nobility; an exclusive aristocracy of an awful order: tl)ey are in fact, every thing : and the pof)r laity are nothing, utterly no- thing ! Hence the terms in the priests' letter before us, "the poor ignorant people," of "scanty intellects,', and " weak capa- cities " " Strange to think that the Redeemer should require such to pick out their religion from the Scriptures !" And this system deems it not enough to brutalize the laity, it also insults them. And hence the conclusion which the priests draw from tiie fact of their degradation, is as curious in point of logic, as it is cruelty in the destitution of benevolence : namely, because they are ignorant, therefore, vre will not allow thena the great means appointed by God to instruct them : the laity shall not 148 have the right to hear what God says to them, without a priests' written lisence. " But God has given the word as a light to our feet, and a lamp to our path." " 1'he man of God is made per- fect by the Scriptures, and is thoroughly furnished by them unto all good works." 2 Tim. iii. 16. &c. "No, my child," says Holy Mother by her priests, •' thai light does not mean light : that lamp is not the lamp : God's law though perfect, is **a falla- cious," and mischievous Rule ; *' perfect," does not mean " suf- ficient !" *' And mark me, my son," says she " we are very watchful, and very benevolent: th(>ugh men have thinking pow- ers, they have no right before me, to think ! Though God has given to each private mnn a judgement, yet none have the rights of private judgement. Tliough there are some things hard to be understood, and only some, yet it is by far the safest way to keep out of the laity's hands all the plain and easy parts too. Though some men, namely, the ^' unlearned and unstable" do wrest the Scriptures, yet it will be an act of pure benevolence to abstract the whole Bible from the hands of all I" " But the Apostle does not say that any of the Scriptures sre beyond the possibility of being understood." They are dusnceta, hard, not impossible to be understood. Would it not be a little more bene\^olent still to make the people " learned and thence" stable, by a solid ed- ucation 9 '*That is wliatyour heretics say;" but says Holy Mother, " there is nothing like a cloud of darkness hovering over the minds of the " low, vulgar, and poor ignorant laity ;" it is highly salutary : our priestly influence would vanish in six weeks, if this cloud were unhappily dispersed. For we know this by our bitter experience, ever since " the squabble between Mr. Martin Luther and Pope Leo X." As certainly as the " poor ignorant people," begin to read, they will think for themselves : then they will reclaim from us the rights "of your accursed private judg- ment:" and the right of going directly to God himself, to get their sins pardoned for nothing ! Then the asses which we have long bridled, and ridden, most joyfully, and peacefully, and pro- fitably, will slip the noose. They farewell to the gains and sweets of priestcraft ; and the silver shrines of the great goddess, the Queen of Heaven ! ! HI. Another prominent feature in your logic, gentlemen, has been the Vicious Circle. When we demand of the Roman Catholics, "How do you prove your rule to be infallible'?" And whence do you establish the marks of the true Church ?" They appeal to Math, xxviii. 19. and to the passage relative to Peter the Rock. In fact they seek proofs of their Church out of the Holy Scriptures : this their fathers have done; and even Bellarraine De. Verb. 1.2. says, *» Sacra Scripiura,&.c." '^Sacred 449 Scripture ia regula credendi certissima, the most certain Rule of Faith." On the other hand, in the whole course of this contro- versy, tlie priests have fiercely maintained that the Scriptures, their inspiration, and tlieir authority depend on the Church ! And thus " Holy Mother," assumes a circular attitude, precisely like I'le following. A certain Estate is in suit in Chancery ; a female of ratlier suspicions character, with a few characteristic attendants, not a whit holier than they should be, appears in Court, with u parchment roll in her hand ; she claims the pro- perty on the evidence of this parchment roll. " Who are you T* says the Court ; " Who I am you can know by the most perfect evidence of this parchment writing." They look into the roll ; there is nothing there but what is unfavorable to her. *' But what, and wlience is this roll '?" says the court. " What that deed is, and whence its evidence, you can know," she says, '* in the most perfect manner from my oral testimony. My lips cer- tify that will ; and that will certifies me!" This is the literal argument of the Romish priests ! ! IV. One objection, Rev gentlemen, I style your stereotype objection ; argument it is not ; and you have copied it from Mumford and Milner ; it is this: — the Protestant Rule is the Bible as explained by each one, by private judgment and his own private interpretation. This has been answered and exposed a hundred times by our writers ; and yet, it is deliberately and con- stantly urged. This [ call as deliberate a slander, as it would be on my part, did I assert that you recite the prayers of Moham- med at Mass ! No Protestant says, the Bible, as it is explain- ed by each one by private interpretation, is the Rule. The reason is plain; it involves in it a contradiction: the Bible manifestly cannot be the Rule, if each man's private sen- timent be the Rule. The priest, therefore, who reiterates this charge, contradicts himself, and moreover, bears false witness against his neii^hl)or. And yet I assure my rea- ders, that they will find our priests recklessly renewing this slanderous charge to the end. The reason is plain : did they take our own doctrine, in our own words, and sense, it is utterly impossible for them, for lack of matter, to advance one rational objection. The Protestant Church unanimously proclaims that her RULE IS the word of God ; and the judge and interpreter IS the Almighty God speaking in it, to us ; plainly and clear- ly ; because God intends it that we should understand him. V. When we urged on you, gentlemen, the fact of your cor- rupting the Word of God by adding to it the Apocrypha, and traditions which the fathers rejected, you turned on us, and re- plied, by charging on us the same sin ! [See their letter No. 2,] As the venerable Jerooie said, on a similar charge, " We 150 cannot refrain from laughter," to hear you say that Calvinists add to the Gospel, and the Epistles; the institutes of Calvin! And the Heidelberg Catechism to the Apocalypse ! ! " And their pro- fessions" (you mean confessions) "of faith to the Bible." According to this unique and irresistible logic, we shall pre- sently hear it asserted, tliat Dr. Power's last sermon in St. Pa- trick's, is an awful and impious addition to the Pope's Bull, Uni- genitus! And my Reverend opponent's sacred tonsurx is an addition to the Pope's tiara, and will make it no more the triple but the quadruple Crown I What miracles will not the myste- rious powers of sacerdotal logic effect? But, after all, can it be possible that our meaning is misunder- stood, when we say, that the Council of Trent has added many books to the sacied Cannon^/ You are aware that the Triden- tine Fathers declared certain books to be as much inspired, as the Holy Scriptures: and tlicnce, enjoined them to be read with the same *' holy and [)i()us veneration," as the rest of the Scrip- tures. Now, surely, you do not mean, gravely, to charge it on us, that we canonize the Catechisms, or confessions; far less the writings of private individuals ! ! VI. "The Hebrews," you say, *' were without the written word of God for fourteen generations; hence the Scriptures could not be their Rule of Faith." Gentlemen, you appear very learned in your letter No. 2. You give us a sort of a dissertation on the Hebrews losing their native tongue after the great captivity ; and the introduction of the Syriac among the Jews : for fourteen generations, you say, the Jews had not the Old Testament in their vernacular; it was read in Hebrew to them, a tongue not understood. All this is borrowed plumage, plucked from your convenient Mumford, the Jesuit. But I deny this utterly, and I call on you for his and your proof, that the Jews were without the Scrip- tures in their vernacular tongue for fourteen generations. Mum- ford's assertion is no proof to you, or to me. I am prepared to prove your and his assertion utterly false. I shall name only one fact. Ezra, after the captivity, read the book of the law to the people ; this shows beyond contradic- tion, that they understood the Hebrew. He read the law, and as a preacher, gave the sense, and made the people understand it. Ezra was not initiated into the edifying practice of praying and preaching in Latin or Cfjinese. to his people! And it is in- teresting to know, that a!l the Jews, except the grossly apostate Jews, like you, keep up this custom of Ezra ; the apostate Jews, like you, continue the Iriily edifying and highly interesting habit of employing in worshif), an unknown tongue ! This, by the way, might do with the Jews, who prayed only to him who knowi 151 all tongues ; but with you it is a fatal and tbolisli work — and I beg you to look well to it ; for you ought to know that the Vir- gin Mary. '' the glorious Mediatrix," to whom the most of your prayers are otfered, being a Jewess knew Hebrew and Syriac — but nothing of the Latin, — never having been at Rome ! ! Hence all your prayers arc thrown away upon her, even supposing you could get near enough to her, lor her to hear you. VH. If the Scriptures had been tlie Rule of Faith, say you, the Church would always have had them in writing; but before Moses there was no writing ; and in Christ's time, they had not the New Testament. We reply that in all periods before the written word was completed, the Church had the same Rule and Judge. They had the word of God, uttered by inspiration, from the lips of the Patriarchs, and Prophets, and from Christ, and his Apostles. And the same Judge, namely, the Holy Ghost, spoke unto them, and determined all controversies ; and all that was necessary to faith, and sound morals. This favorite objection of our priests is supremely silly. VIH. In your industrious zeal against the Holy Scriptures, you object to our Rule, that if Christ had designed them for the Rule, he would have commanded the disciples to write, and to distribute Bibles; on the contrary, he said, "Go and teach all nations :" and by " teachin;^;," you assume, without proof, that instruction by the lips is meant. To this, I again reply, that '* teaching" implies as much the use of writing, as of oral instruction. And our Lord's com- mand to teach, included as much an injunction to write, aa ta speak. Apostolical facts confirm this: they didwrite, as well as preach, they declared that they were enjoined to write. See Revel, i. 19. And their vvrilinir/i/0U5 ladies, and your christian public; you might still, for aught it would affect us, have been the Grand Lama of the Middle Dutch Church, and the interpreter of the " Hebrew and the Greek of the Holy Ghost," for your challenge would not have been honored by our acceptance, we should have referred you to the philosophy conveyed in the words of Scripture, *' though thou shouldst bray a fool in a mortar with a pestle, yet will not his foolishness depart from him ! ! !" Ere we enter on the matter of your last letter, Rev. Preacher, which in any sense, merits attention, the answer in your letter No. 5. to our question, " how do you know the Bible to be the word of God," requires a brief notice. This answer embraced nothing in the form of reasoning, — nothing but a series of asser~ tions. Its assertions were returned to you in the order of six- teen propositions. Why was your answer given under this form? Did you, in truth, suppose it an answer 9 If you did, your logi- cal perception of what should constitute proof is strangely ob- tuse ; — its character cannot be better expressed, than by your own term — " squinting." Did you suppose it would satisfy the Members of the Middle Dutch Church 7 Then they are easily gulled, and cannot appreciate that process of reasoning, which would establish a solid foundation for what Calvinists so fre- quently and fondly name rational religion. Did you suppose it would have been admitted by us as establishing the Bible to be the word of God 9 If you did, the sixteen propositions have furnished another form of testimony. But had this logical answer been permitted to pass unnoticed, you would have claimed the merit of an extraordinary achievement, your admirers would have cheered you with hymns and canticles of victory ; — Saul and his thousands, David and his ten thousands, would have sunk into utter significance, while the name of Preacher Brownlee would have been the exulting theme of every predestined tongue. We wish however, to direct the attention of our readers to th« 160 precise aim of these remarks. Whether the Preacher's answer to our first query had or had not been noticed by us, could not have effected any change in its intrinsic worth — it could not have become either weaker or stronger. — As it exists nothing can be more infirm or puerile. Yet, had it not been noticed, this infirm and puerile answer would hnve been received by the Doctor's "chris- tian public" as an infallible proof that the Bible is the Word of God. This would have been received by those who exult in the proud privileges of private reason, by those who vaunt the glorious liberties of conscience, secured by Preacher Brownlee's "ever blessed Reformation," as a sufficient foundation for an article of faith, — as on unyielded basis for rational religion ! Your answer to our query of *' infinite importance." How do you know the Bible to be the word of God ^ is now, it is pre- sumed in that form which admits of no future amendment. It has, of course, passed through that process termed *' Protestant lesson and logic ;" and is now secure in an invulnerable panoply. It is now solid as the foundations of the Middle Dutch Church, — immovable as a cedar of Lebanon rifled in the rock. It is now a Jixed basis for an article of faith. Mark the import of our wordsj — and mark your logical answers to the sixteen pro- positions. 1st. Question. How do you know the Bible to be the Word of God 1 JJnswer. " I know it from the external evidence o^ prophecy ^ which has been, and is noiu, fulfilling before our eyes; Seethe proof in Bishop Newton on the prophecies !" This, then, Rev. Sir, is the first of those answers, which, in your last letter, you affirm to be the *'/ii// and irresistible moral evidence on which you believe the Bible to be the word of God !" We would, did you respect the sacred station you occupy, did your letters furnish even the slightest proof that you possess the learning and honor this station supposes, we would address you in terms of sincere esteem. Though differing in creed, we would, at once, admit you "claims to be a gentleman'^ and a scholar ; nay if you yearned for the compliment, the ' Writer* of the Middle Dutch church. But, when neither the learning nor the research of the sciiolar is displayed, when the adherence to truth and hatred of misrepresentation characteristic of a minis- ter of religion is not shewn, when the courteousness and urbani- ty bespeaking the gentleman are not exhibited, to be squeamish in the application of pro})er and appropriate terms to designate your merit, would be a test of infirm and misplaced judgment. The '* phrase germane to the matter" is a proper maxim. Scruti- nize your first answer in your last letter^ and tell us in the spirit 11)1 of candor, without the Calvincity of subterfuge of evasion, do you consider it logical '? Is it worthy of your character as a Calvinistic theologue '.' Would it confer merit on a school-boy t*^ We ask you, how do you know the Bible to be the word of God '? And your answer is, " I know it on the external evidence of prophecy, which has been, and is now, fulfilling before our eyes, sec the proof in Bishop Newton on the prophecies " Where is the form of proof in this sapient answer ? There is nothing but assertion, and reference to Bishop Newton, — and, on this, for- sooth, you **/jooA:" your infallible conclusion — the Bible is the word of God ! This is, really, utterly, and disgracefully puerile, contemptible, farcical. Yet, this is a preacher's answer in de- fence of his Rule of Faith ! This is the answer of a judge in Israel, who can when he lists, evoke the interior spirit, and in- terpret the " Hebrew and Greek of the Holy Ghost !" Again you are referred to the geometrical illustration given in our last letter. You wish to ascertain whether a schoolboy is acquaint- ed with the sixth book of Euclid. You select a preposition ; and the boy, to prove his knowledge, merely indicates data of proof from previous propositions, and finally, imitating your own example, tells you to see Euclid I Will you affirm. Rev. and logical preacher, this is the sound from of geometrical de- monstration? Why this, in no sense, is proof. Who will admit it. In a similar manner, your answer to our query is nothing but assertion and reference to Bishop Newton. Yet this is the Q,. E. D. of your interior spirit, and your logical basis for an article of faith. How will John Calvin greet you on the misty side of the River Styx. Your proofs nmo are typical of what your shade will he then. Again your opponents say, — prove your answers logical Doctor. The Preacher's second answer is, I know the Bible to bo the word of God from the " external evidence of miracles lorought by the inspired writers, and which were continued down to the time of St. Austin, who saw some wrought." Here there is no proof, — again nothing but assertion. There is, however, some novel information conveyed in this answer of the Doctor's inte- rior spirit. He says '• the miracles wrought by the inspired wri- ters were continued down to the time of St. Austin, and that he saw some of them wrought .'" Condescend to inform us, critical Preacher, who was the inspired writer living ' at the time of St. Austin,' and what were the miracles performed by him ? Dear Doctor provide for the monopoly of this inspired discovery by securing your right at the patent office. Truly, we live in the age of intellect. Please, also, to inform us what miracles were performed by St. Luke, St. Matthew, St. Judc. Did Solomon perform miracles 9 No. 11.— 21, 16S Sd: Prop. I know it from its external evidence of the gift of tongues. The Preachefs proof. '' 1 know it from the gift of tongues, by which all nations heard the gospel in their own native lan- guage." Here is nothing but a repetition of his first assertions. As yet no proof. 4th. Prop. I know it from its internal evidence, namely, its majesty. The Preacher^ s proof . '^ I know it from its majesty which every christian, and every reasonable man may feel and see contrasted on every page contrasted with every human writer." Nothing here but assertion, — no proof. If you be a "reasonable man," excellent Doctor, inform us how you " feel and see its majesty in every page, contrasted with every human writer." Favor us with glimmer from your interior spirit on this topic. We wish for a spice of your literary criticism. ^th. Prop. I knew it from its purity. The Preachefs proof. " I know it from its purity which no man could have conceived or framed in his writings " Again the same meagre assertion with the addition of another proposi- tion without proof, — or the semblance of proof. To iterate the remaining propositions for which proof was required, and for which proof has not been given in preacher Brownlee's last letter, would be tedious and irksome to our rea- ders. Neither singly nor collectively is there the shadow of proof; and, consequently, the Doctor's Protestant Rule of Faith is yet fettered to a most important and stubborn, nay, an insuper- able difficulty — is the Bible the Word of G^d ? But, mark, the obtuseness of the Preacher's intellect— rthis repetition of proof- less assertions, this ^'crambe repetita," "this crambe his cocta," this abortion of the palsied brain, is honored by its delighted and inspired parent with the compliment — " a full and irresisti- ble moral evidence!" Can any thing more demonstrative of an understanding under a melancholy visitation be adduced. Had Old Lear met the Preacher of the Middle Dutch Church in the forest instead of Mad Tom, he would have dubbed him his philosopher. In a former letter fi-om the "gentlemen" an allusion was made to a visit to the Philadelphia Lunatic Asylum. A second might be productive of some benefit. JVaviget An- ticyram, let him be shipped to Anticyra ivas the consoling advice of Horace to gentlemen laboring under certain mental aberra- tions, and restricted to regimen of hellebore. Even Old Plau- tus sanctions the treatment. "•' helleborum his hominibus opus Cst." Throughout the tedious and sinuous course of your polemic 163 letters, Rev. Sir, you exhibit a strange bias to low joke and vul- gar story. The indulgence in this species ot probation and de- fence is not indicative of cultured or pure mind. Ft is a proof ©f propensities not honourable to your character as a minister of religion ; it cannot confer dignity on your character as a man ; — nor is it a proof of the possession of wisdom. This last quali- fication may, however be excused, for the poet says, — " Gentle dulness ever loves a joke." But while you indulge in vulgar bias and low propensities, where, is your Rule of Faith. This is abandoned to the peltings of your antagonists, — and it now cries aloud for mercy. Mark how this gentle attribute is dispensed, and attend to the forlorn state of your Rule. When asked to prove tlie inspiration of the Bible, you hav@ recourse to authority. " The authors of each of the books," says the Doctor, *' first gave evidence before the church, by working miracles and prophecying and speaking tongues, that they were the accredited messengeis of God." Without this evidence the Doctor would not believe the Scriptures to be in- spired. But this evidence he has from the testimony of the church ; therefore, without the testimony of the church he could not believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures but the inspira- tion of the scriptures is an article of Christian belief; and to this belief the Doctor could not be brought by the Scriptures alone. Therefore, the Scriptures alone, are not a sufficient rule of faith. — Q. E. D. We refer you to your letter No. 2, in which you say, the only rule of faith and final judge of controversy, with every Protestant, is the Holy Spirit speaking to us in the written word of God, the Holy Scrip- tures, containing all the books of the Old Testament and of the. New." Compare this prior definition of your rule with what you have stated in your last, viz: " the Protestant church pro- claims' THAT .E'ER RULE IS THE WORD OF GoD." HcrC yOU liaVC left out the word only, and we unhesitatingly say, that this omis- sion bespeaks a consciousness of defeat. We, Rev. Sir, admit the Scriptures as our rule of faith, but not as our only rule of faith. You have asserted " the only rule of faith and final judge of controversy with every Protestant, is the Holy Spirit speak- ing to us in the written word of the Old Testament and of the New," but finding you could not prove this to be the only rule of faith established by Christ, you tell us with all the confidence *of logical and theological consistency, that the protestant church " proclaims that her rulo'is the word of God." What will th« " christian public" think of the following specimen of your ^' Protestant lesson and logic 9" In your answer to our first ques- tion, ** How do you know the Bible to be the word of God*?" 164 you say, *' we are not so weak and bigoted as to believe it (to be the word of God) merely on the church's tradition;" and in the same breath, the consistent and learned Dr. Brownlee informs us, that we know which books were written by Divine inspiration in the following satisfactory manner. The authors of each of the books of the Holy Scripture first gave evidence before the church, by working- miracles and prophecying and speaking tongues, that they were the accredited messengers of God. — This being settled they wrote those books which bear their names at the command of God. " Thus saith the Lord" was the evidence that they were enjoined to speak and write, (see Hos. viii. 12. — John XX. 31.— Rom. xv. 4— 2. Tim iii. 16.— Rev. i. 11., &c. Also the beginning of each of Paul's epistles.") Now it is self- evident, that the entire force of this reasoning rests on the testi- mony of the church. Without this testimony, will the text from Hosea prove, that the Gospel of St. Luke is divinely inspired ^ The text runs thus " I have written to him the great things of my law, but they were counted as a strange thing." — Hos. viii. 12. Therefore the gospel of St. Luke is inspired ! Can this, Rev. Sir, be ^'Protestant lesson and logic*?" Let us try your next text, John xx. 31. ^' But these are written that ye might believe, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believ- ing ye might have life through his name ;" therefore, the gospel of St. Luke is divinely inspired ! Worse and worse, Rev. Doc- tor. Now for your next satisfactory text. Rom. xv. 4, " For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience, and comfort of the Scrip- tures might have hope." Therefore the gospel according to St. Luke is the word of God ! Your Protestant lesson and logic, may admit these conclusions as legitimate, but will the "christian public" will common sense !■ We think not, Rev. Sir, and we also think, your christian public will readily admit that your extravagant assertions, "argue either sheer knavery or a de- rangement in the moral faculty." Yet you admit the interpretation of St. Luke's gospel. Will you favor us with a text which says this gospel is inspired *? We defy you to produce this text. On what motive is it in- spired ? Your reason for believing the inspiration of this book as well as that of all the others, is thus given by yourself. " The authors of the books of the Holy scriptures first gave evidence before the Church, by working miracles and prophecying and speaking tongues, that they were the accredited messengers of God. This being settled, they wrote the books, which bear their names, at the command of God." But was not Barnabas, " an accredited messenger of God ?" Was not Barnabas full of faith and of the Holy Ghost ^ See the Uth chap, of the Acts. v. 24. See also 14 c. ibid. v. 13. Did not Barnabas wrilo an epistle 9 That he did, you have " full and irresistible moral evidence ;" why not believe the epistle to be tlie word ot'dod '] Who tells you that tliis epistle is not inspired 'I Have the kindness to favor the christian public with an answer to these queries. We admit, Rev. Sir, the autlienticity of St. Luke's gospel. We admit that it is his production. Yet how do we arrive at the fact of its inspi- ration 9 Does St- Luke say that he wrote from inspiration ! To all appearance, ho says the contrary, " It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to ail things from the beginning to write to the, in order, most excellant Theophilus." Luke c. L V. 3. Here St. Luke speaks of his own diligence and not of his inspiration. Has St. Luke performed any miracles to prove his inspiration. Where is it recorded that he has ! How then do we know the fact of the inspiration of this gospel *? We know it from the Catholic Church alone, and we defy you to produce any other authority for your belief. Luther declares himself that if he and his associates had not received the word of God, from the Catholic Church, they should have known nothing about it. See Luth. Com. in Joan, c. 16. We now see that you reject the inspiration of the epistle of St. Barnabas, on the authority of the Catholic Church ; you admit the inspiration of the gospel of St. Luke on the same authority, and you have the assurance to tell us, ^' We are not so weak and bigoted and foolish, as to believe it, merely on the Church's tradition ! ! !" This "mere carrier of the mail bag" as you impiously call the Church of Christ, is authority with you for rejecting as inspired scripture, the writings of one who was not an Apostle, St. Luke : and this authority, which you pretend to revere on this all important point, you re- ject with contempt, when there is question of ascertaining its meaning. We have already told you, on the authority of Calmet and others, that in the first ages of the church, the number of false gospels was great. Those gospels were condemned and proscribed by the church. This the church could not do with- out forming a true estimate of their sense ; neither could she have transmitted to us the genuine gospels without being capable of judging of their meaning. Hence to receive from the hands of the church, the book of the gospel, and to ascribe to it a false meaning which the church reprobates, is a contradiction. If you preach what is contrary to the gospel, you preach a false gospel, and if what you thus preach be. presented to the Catholic Church, she will condemn it as false gospel, and if you do not obey her, she will cut you off as a "heathen and a publican." A fig for the Catholic church says Dr. Brownleo ; — she is nothing but the mere " carrier of the mail bag." I laugh at her as 166 heartily as I would at the Post boy, who should gravely say to the community " it is well known that the general government has committed to me the one line, of carrying the precious con- tents of this mail bag. Tiierefore in virtue of the right of being one carrier, I claim the right of being all the carriers ; and I claim also the right to keep in my power, all the contents of this mail, and all the other mails, and to give my own personal expla- nation of every letter in it." Well said Doctor. So then the au- thority of the church of Christ, on which Preacher Brownlee believes the scriptures to be divinely inspired, is no more than that of the mail boy, who should presume to explain the letters entrusted to him ! ! ! Is this " knavery or is it a derangement of the moral faculty '?" After this can you have the madness, to say that your faith is divine. Credat Judeus. " The Protestant church, says Dr. Brownlee, proclaims that her rule is the word of God." Now, Doctor, tell us where the rule of the*Protestant church informs us that the Bible contains the whole word of God. You say it does. We call for your proof. Your rule tells us in many places, that many books were lost. Quote one text to prove, if you can, that the books al- luded to as lost, were not inspired. On what evidence do you say that they were not inspired ? There is not a text of Scrip- ture that tells you they were not. But you know they were not inspired, and how do you know it, " by the same evidence, which establishes the fact of the inspiration of the books we have. There are no inspired books lost." Where does the Catholic Church tell you, that the books referred to as lost were not in- spired '] Would St. Matthew, think you, refer the Jews to un- inspired prophecies, for proof that Christ was the Messiah fore- told by the prophets '^ It was spoken by the prophets, ^' He shall be called a Nazarene" — Math. v. ii. v. 23. The books of the prophets, wherein Christ was called a Nazarene have perished, for he is not called a Nazarene in all the prophetical books which we have. We believe. Rev. Sir. that St. Chrysostom, was nearer to the truth than you, when in his 9th Homil, in Matth. he says, *' Many of the prophetical monuments have perished." St. Justin against Tryphon, tells us that the Jews destroyed many books of the Old Testament. Theodoret informs us, that the books of Kings as we now have them, were compiled from works written by ancient prophets — Vide.Theod. in lib. 2 Reg. Their works are called in Scripture diure tjajamin. In the Book of Kings, c. xi. v. 41, we read, " the rest of the acts of Solomon, are written in his history." Such reading are frequent in the book of Kings and Chronicles, and intimate that these books are mere abstracts from the more ancient monuments.. You may 167 say that the ancient annals were not inspired. Joscphus will tell you the contrary ; in his second book against Appion, lie says that inspired men alone were allowed to write the monuments to which we allude. Shame then on the cliristian divine who calls such books *' legends," and who asserts that tiiey were re- ferred to in the same way, that St. Paul referred to the heathen poets. You say that none of the inspired writers called them "scripture." Do any of the inspired writers say they are not "scripture? Here then you strut into court with a roll of parchment in your hand. The Judge asks what that roll is. You say it is your only rule of faith. It is examined. Many books are referred to which are not in it. The Judge says it is not complete. You say it is. The Judge says that your only rule of faith tells him it is not. "Oh, but these books are not in- spired." The Judge asks where does your only rule of faith say they are not. The Doctor is silent, and sneaks out of court, fully convinced that the scriptures which he has, can never be proved a full, and sufficient rule of faith, and the judge pro- nounces all Dr. Brownlee's argument a " nihil dicit." How can you prove that the scriptures alone are a sufficient rule? Ans. " By the strongest and purest testimony that can exist: namely, the testimony of Almighty God. And bold and unblushing must the Christian Deist be who shall dare to give the lie to the Almighty." We admit that it would be horrible in the extreme to give "the lie to the Almighty." • But what are we to think of the man, who libels, the Almighty by pertina- ciously asserting in the faceof the public that the Almighty estab- lished as the only rule of faith, that which common sense alone tells us could not be the only rule of faith. The inspiration and ca- noncity of the scriptures are articles of faith. These articles cannot be proved by the scriptures alone ; therefore the scrip- tures alone are not the only rule of faith. Again, God wishes all men to believe, but all men cannot be led to the christian faith by means of the scriptures alone, ^ for all men cannot read the scriptures, and God never commanded all men to learn to read. Therefore, God never gave the scriptures to all men as their only rule of faith. We shall now see how the scriptures alone are proved to be a sufficient rule of faith. You quote Psalm lix : "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul." The whole Psalm cxix, and particularly these r " Through thy precepts I get understanding," ^-c. Now will any man of common sense say that these quotations prove your point, name- ly, that the scriptures alone are a sufficient rule of faith, or that Christ established them as the only rule of faith 9 We must repeat, Rev. Sir, if the scriptures cannot prove their own 168 inspirfltion and canoncity, then it is obvious that they are not and cannot be considered as a sufficient rule of faith. But the scriptures cannot proi'e their own inspiration, their integrity, or veracity. Ergo Dr. Brownlec's Protestant lesson and logic lead him into the grossest absurdity, and exhibit him to the public as a defeated man ! " The priesthood." says Dr. Brownlee. " are an aristocracy of an awful order; they are in fact every thing and nothing." Hence the terms in the Priests letters, " the poor -ignorant peo- ple." " Strange to think that the Redeemer should require such to pick out their religion from the Scriptures I" What answer have you given, sir, to this argument deduced from the " igno- rance" of the great majority of mankind'? The priests told you, that our Saviour knew that the great majority of those, whom he came to call to his faith, would be ignorant of even the very ru- diments of learning, and that, therefore, he could not have given them as their only rule of faith, a book which they could not use. Dr. Brownlee's answer is truly characteristic : " They (the Priests) not only brutalize the laity, but they also insult them." "The laity shall not have the right to hear what God says to them, without a Priests written license." Therefore, the Scrip- tures alone are a sufficient rule of faith, and the only rule of faith instituted by Christ. Another specimen of the Doctor's Protest- ant lesson and logic. We have waited with a'nxiety for what the Doctor deems to be the prominent feature of our logic, the "vicious circle" The circular attitude of " Holy Mother" is precisely like the follow- ing : " A certain estate is in chancery ; a female of rather suspi- cious character, with a kw characteristic attendants, not a whit holier than they should be, appears in court with a parchment roll in her hand, she claims the property on the evidence of this parchment roll. Who are you, says the court? Whence is this rolH Answer : " My lips certify that will^ and that will certifies me ;" and this you say, is the literal argument of the Romish Priests. The Roman Priests, Rev. Preacher tell the whole world, that Christ never gave the Scriptures to man as his only rule of faith, and why? because the >Scriptures alone could not prove their own authenticity of inspiration. They tell you, and you are obliged to admit the fact, to your shame and confusion, that the inspiration, and integrity, and veracity of the Holy Scriptures cannot be proved, but by the testimony of the Christian church. This church, established by miracles, comes into court, without spot or wrinkle, with the Testament of her divine spouse. It is readily admitted to be genuine ; its contents are duly examined, and behold this document, already proved and admitted to be 169 genuine, says : "That Christ promised to be with his church t^ the end of the world." "That he would send her the Ho'y Ghost to teach her all truth ;" she is called " the pillar and t'le ground of truth," and this Dr. Brownlee calls a vicious circle, which in logic is called a sophism, proving the same by the same, in every respect. Here you see the document is proved to be a genuine record, on the respectable testimony of the Catholic church, before the infallibility of the church is proved from the document. This, Rev. Doctor, is not what logicians call pro- ving " idem per idem sub omni respectu." But what is the " prominent feature" in your logic, Rev. Sir, when you undertake to prove that the Bible alone is a sufficient rule of faith. We say it is the vicious circle, in the strictest sense. Your reasoning evidently resolves itself unto this — the Bible is the only rule of faith established by Christ, because the Bible is the word of God ; and the Bible is the word of God be- cause it tells us, that it is the word of God. Thus it is, Rev. Sir, that your spirit, like the spirit of darkness, makes its tour of the circle, "circnit quoerene quern devoret." The judge and interpreter of the word of God, is the Al- mighty God speaking in it to us." Hence you say that you are slandered by the Priests, when they assert that the Protestant rule of faith is the Bible as explained by each one, by private judgement and his own private interpretation. Now, Rev. Sir, if the Almighty be the Judge and Interpreter of his own word, the Holy scriptures, was it this interpreter that taught Luther to affirm the three first gospels to be Apocryphas — Luth. pref ad. nov. Test, et in epist. Petri. Tom. 3. Wittemb. Was it the Al- mighty who taught Calvin to assert, that " St. Matthew abused, distorted, and alleged, unaptly, divers citations," " That St. Luke was an apostate, disloyal, not to be excused." — Calvin in caput. 2 Matth. v 15, cap. 4, v 13, cap, 8, v 17, cap. 21, v 3, cap. 27, V 9. Were your holy ancestors under the guidance of Al- mighty God, when in the Tower disputation they asserted " that the gospel of St. Luke is doubtful." Finally, was it the Almighty who told Calvin, " that the Apostles were over superstitious and subject to vice !" — Vid Calvin, in cap. 21 Act. v 33. Instead of libelling your rule. Rev. Sir, we vindicate the insulted Majesty of the Almighty, from the blasphemies heaped on him by you and the adherents of your rule. What, the God of Holiness teaching Calvin in the scriptures, that he himself is the author of sin! The God of justice and of mercy teaching Calvin that some were created to be damned ; for we read in the third book of his evan- gelical institutes, cap. 23d, sect. 6, the horrible assertion, "God doth ordain, by his council and decree, that among men some 22 are born, destined to eternal damnation from their mother's womb !" Enough, Rev. Sir, to convince us, that the Protestant's interpreter of the Bible is his own private spirit, and not the Al- mighty God. We have said, that the Jews forgot their own language, and learned the Chaldaic, during the Babylonish captivity. Will you be so good as to prove to us, that they had the Holy Scrip- tures in their vernacuclar tongue, after the captivity. Surely, Rev. Sir, you will not presume to tell us, that the Targums or theChaldee paraphrases were looked upon by the Jews as Holy scripture !■ Read the " Critical History of the Old Testament, by the learned Simon — lib. ii. cap. I7th — and you will find that the Jews were obliged to read the Hebrew text in their Synagogues, and that none of their versions were allowed. These they read in their schools. Hence, the scriptures which were authorized by the Jewish church, were those which the people did not un- derstand. Therefore they could not have been their rule of faith. Nor did Christ reprobate the Jewish church on account of this discipline ; but he would have charged them with locking up the word of God from the people, if God had made it their only rule of faith. His silence, therefore, on this point is an argument that God did not give the scriptures of the Old Testament to the Jews as their only rule of faith. "The common people," says Slackhouse in his Apparatus, " by having so long conversed with the Babylonians, learned their language and forgot their own." Accordingly there were several Targums or paraphrases at several times, made by dif- ferent persons. Hence we conclude, that, when Ezra, " after the captivity read the book of the law to the people," he acted both the part of a preacher and interpreter. To have the peo- ple understand the law which he read, he must have translated it for them. The distinction between subjective and objective infallibility, is worthy of the logician, and great magician of the Middle Dutch Church. The Holy scriptures are infallible, because they are tlie Word of God. " But there is no such thing as subjective infallibility." To then Almighty God, who is the interpreter of the Holy scriptures, and not your own private spirit, does not infallibility teach you the truth ! ! ! But Rev. Dr. if God were distinctly to tell you, that he would teach you all truth ; if God were to tell you to "go and teach what he himself taught you, promising to be with you, even to the end of the world !" if you were described by one of Heaven's en- voys as the *' pillar and the ground of truth," we should then hail you as the infallible Dr. Brownlee, and your Bulls would be 171 rcctived with more deference than they are at present. By be- ing united to Dr. Brownlee, we could not err, by departing from Dr. Brownlee we should err. But, finding, that it was not to preacher Brownlee, that Christ made the magnificient and glo- rious promises above alluded to, but to his church, we abandon preacher Brownlee to his raving and attach ourselves to the church, convinced that as long as we are united to her, we can- not err, but if thro' obstinacy and stubbornness, we abandon her, we swerve from the truth, and err vvilh Arius, Nestorius, Mace- donius, Pelagius and Brownlee. The christian rule of faith, Rev. Sir, in the hands of the church, will infallibly lead us to the truth. All the parts of the beautiful edifice of revelation will then be arranged without fear of irregularity, but when put into the hands of every canting fanatic, who audaciously says that the church is not '* the pillar and ground of truth," it will be abused, and out of this abuse, will grow heresies, blasphemy, and all manner of impiety. Read the history of the last two hundred years and you will be convinced of this. In conclusion, we give you the following advice " Great care must be taken lest your debates break in upon your passions, and awaken them to take part in the controversy. When the oppo- nent pushes hard and gives just and mortal wounds to our own opinion, our passions are very apt to feel the strokes, and to rise in resentment and defence. Self is so mingled with the senti- ments, which we have chosen, and has such a tender feeling of opposition which is made to them, that personal brawls are very ready to come in as seconds to succeed and finish the dispute of opinion. Then noise and folly appear in all their shapes, and chase reason and truth out of sight." See Dr. Watts on the improvement of the mind. We need not tell you, that the chris- tian public see you reflected in this mirror. JOHN POWER, THOMAS C. LEVINS. New York, .6lpril 23, 1833. 172 I0r. Brawnlee^s Mjctter, JVo. 7. TO DRS. POWER, VARELA, cV LEVINS. " Strike, but hear me!"— Saying of a Greek General. Rev. Gentlemen — I have gone over your last letter carefully, to ascertain what might claim special attention. You have not advanced one solitary new idea ; far less an observation, or form of reason, bearing against my last arguments. There is not novelty even in the style ; it is the old, usual deep stained ri- baldry, — dyed in the wool ; and sitting at defiance every process to wash it, — or bleach it !" This being the case I decline set- ting down any more, my proof of our Protestant Rule. I beg the reader to peruse, once more, the four answers in the begin- ning of my last letter; and then, let him go over, — if his nerves and delicacy will permit him to wade through, — all the priests' last letter, in reply. Every intelligent Christian, it is believed, will do me the justice to admit that the Protestant rule has been now fully established ; and that, the Roman rule, has been like- wise utterly demolished, by our ten arguments, which have not even been noticed, far less answered, by my Rev. opponents. I shall, therefore, hasten to close my reply to the remaitiing infidel objections, urged with such appalling intemperance of spirit, against the only rule of faith THE WORD OF GOD ; AND THE ONLY JUDGE OF CONTROVERSY THE HO- LY SPIRIT SPEAKING TO US IN IT. And in my next I shall go on to a new and interesting subject, — reserving the li- berty of defence, as well as of making offensive war on the foemen. I shall review your infidel insinuations, drawn from textu- al difficulties. The christian and ingenuous scholar, when he meets with these difficulties in the holy Bible, would seek the solution of them on the pages of those profound Biblical wri- ters, who have spent their time, and exercised their talents, in the illustration of Biblical literature. He would examine Bo- chart, Whitby, Lightfoot, **Lux in Tenebris ;" or your own mo- dern writers the admirable Jahn, and Bug ; and he would soon discover that there is not one textual difliculty, which has not been satisfactorily solved. But " fat contented ignorance," and infidelity strongly conspire to cry out, — "a gross contradiction! And the Bible is false I" It is a part of the unnatural infidel's criticism, to exhibit difficulties, and apparent contradiction in HIS FATHER'S WILL, with an air of triumph ; and feed his soul on them with a greedy appetite ; as, — pardon me, you, gentlemen, have done before the public. And after all, could 173 he convict HIS FATHER'S will of errors, and apparent con- tradictions, what gains he ? Just as much as you do. Unholy must that cause be, which re(|uires, for its ch^fence, a parricidal thrust, however powerless, at the holy scriptures of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And I would here observe that the authority and genuineness of our common law or Declaration of Independence, would not at all be alfected by some slight mistakes of the transcriber or printer. We maintain the same in regard to the Bible. While not one sentence is marred; not one item lost; not one doctrine altered, we may admit that a transcriber, not being inspired, may have mis- spelled words, or even substituted one proper name for another. Would the omission of a name, or the alte- ration of a name, in some copies of the signers of seventy-six, render null and void the whole instrument signed 7 Surely not. Apply this principal to the point before us. In 2 Kings viii. 26, Ahaziah is said to have been twenty-two years old when he began to reign : in 2 Chron. xxii. 2, he is said to have been forty-two. The Hebrews had no arithmetical figures ; they used the letters of the alphabet. And in this case a transcriber had written the letter mem, whose power is 40 ; in- stead of the letter caph, whose power is 20. And the Hebrew- scholar knows that these two letters, with the difference of a slight perpendicular dash, are much alike. Does this change of a letter affect any article of faith 9 Math. i. 17. There are said to be 14 generations between Sa- lathiel and Christ ; yet 13 only are recorded. Whitby has sol- ved it, by showing that, by Jeconias, named in verse 11, is meant Jehoiachim, the eldest son of Josias: and that Jeconias named in the 12th verse was Jehoiakim's son, who was the father of Sa- lathiel. This completes the 14th generation. Dr. Lightfoot advocates the following solution. It was a custom, nay, even an axiom, in the Jewish schools, to reduce things and numbers, to the very same name, when they were nearly alike. This was avowedly to aid the memory. I beg leave to refer to his book HorcB Hebraicce. Now Matthew has observed the three-fold di- vision of Jewish Chronology ; namely, the era before the kings ; the era of their natural declension, down to the time of Mes- siah. And to help the memory, after the manner of the Hebrew school, he has divided each of the three eras into fourteen gene- rations. Now, no scholar can suppose this is to be taken in its strict and literal sense, says the Doctor. For it is just as true that Matthew has designedly left out three kings, in the 8th verse ; in order to make 14 generations, in the first era ; as that he has called the third era 14 generations, while it contains 13 174 «n?y. AU this was strictly in' keeping with the national custom or rule of the Jews, — which Matthew did not invent, — but fol- low : for it was to the Hebrews that he was writing. See Poli Syiiops. in loco. Luke iii. 35, 36. " Salah was the son of Cainan, who was the son of Ai'[)haxad." Genesis records it thus : — '' Arphaxad begat Salah." One solution is thus : — Salah and Cainan were the namics of one person ; the latter being the cognon:yen ; and hence ihey read it thus, — Salah the Cainan, who was the son of Ar- phaxad. Others are of opinion that, as Cainan is found only in the Septuagint, Greek translation, and not in the Hebrew text of Moses, — it was inserted into some copies of the Greek Testament, out o>f those copies of the Septuagint, which had this word. Beza states that in his copy the word Cainan was not found : and lately Or. Hales has shown that this extra name is an inter- polation in the Greek Septuagint. [See his New Analysis, vol. 1. p. 90 — 94.] And frt>m this it had been transferred into some copies of Luke, by a transcriber. It has been observed by an emi- nent Biblrcal scholar that all the variations, and all the various readings which friend or foe can discover, do not alter the aspect t>f one doctrine, or a single article of our creed. Home in vol. 1 appendix iii. has devoted 64 pages to a minute examination of these textual difficulties. To these, for want of room, I beg leave to refer my readers. You have presented an objection from other two texts : I beg leave to notice them. The first is Math, xxvii, 9 : " Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet." And tbe words quoted are not found any where in Jeremiah, — but in Zachariiah. From this you infer that a part of Jeremiah has been icst :and, therefore, his book is mutilated, and the Bible imper- fect. This is uttered in the style of those of whose theological edttcation, an accurate and enlightened Bible criticism, forms no part whatever. The scholar knows that there are solutions without supposing any such outrageous conclusion. First : These wofds may have been first spoken by Jeremiah ; and then recorded, afterwards, by Zachariah. Or, second ; we may con- clude with Bishop Hall and Griesbach, that a transcriber may have, in certain copies, written Jriou for Zriou, that is, the con- tracted form of Jeremiah, instead of the contracted form of Za- chariah. Or, third: — We may say with others, that Zachariah was also called by the name of Jeremiah, as his cognomen. See instances of this in Home, vol. i. p. 528. One apostle was sometimes called Joses ; at other times Barnabas. And he who was nominated but not chosenfto the apostleship, is called Joseph, and Barsabas, and Justin- 17-5 The second text from whicli you raise an nl»jix-li<)ii a^^nirist <' the perfect law" of God, is JNlatthcw ii. 2 J, *' That it min;hl be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, he shall be called a NAZARENE." Now, this is nowhere found in the prophets' writings : and your conclusion is, — that some portion of the Holy scriptures is lost. Here it might be cpiite enough to de- mand, — what is lost'? " Why," say you, — "this phrase or sen- tence, is lost. He shall be called a Nazarene." Then I deny the position: for it stands here in the IJible before your eyes: and if it ever had been omitted, then here it is restored by the inspired penman. And therefore, you the objectors being judges, it is not lost ! I shall give another solution. Matthew refers to no one pro- phet : " it was spoken by the prophets." He refers to no one sentiment, or sentence ; he alludes to some marked characteris- tic of Christ, noticed by the holy prophets generally. And ac- cording to the four Rules laid down by Wolfius and RosenmuUer, in reference to the mode pursued by the New Testament writers, in their quotations out of the Old Testament. — we perceive that they often quoted the meaning, instead of the passage literally: that is they give us the sense, instead of the formal and literal quotation ; and especially so, when they were quoting, not out of one prophet; but from "the prophets;" with a view to give a condensed view of the passage. Surenhusius the learned He- brew Professor in Amsterdam, has observed in his Biblos KataJ- lages, p. 2. that this phrase " to fulfil what was said," was a fami- liar phrase of the Talmudists ; and used by the learned Jews, when they alleged not the very words of Moses, and the pro- phets, but their sense which was deduced, as a certain axiom from them. Now apply this rule of legitimate criticism to the words of Matthew, under discussion. A Nazarene was the epithet used among the Hebrews and Jews, of old, to denote the meanest, and most despised of mankind. This was the character of the men of Nazareth. Now, it was foretold by David, psalm xxii, and psalm Ixix, 9 10; and Isaiah lii. and liii. chapters; and also by Zachariah xi, 12, that our Lord Jesus Christ was to appear on earth, a most humble and despised man of sorrows. And though born in Bethlehem of David's royal line, he was brought up in Nazareth among the Nazarenes ; and was, therefore, by the malignant Jews, called and reproached as a Nazarene. And thus, what was spoken by *^ the Prophets" was literally fulfilled ; and hence, no part of their writings is lost. H. Another all prevailing error in your letters is this : in op- position to the Rule of Faith ordained by God, you constantly 176 make this assumption, that Protestants separate the Bible from the holy ministry, and oral teaching. On this assumption is based every objection, brought forward in your questions in your answer to my letter Let. 4; on this are based all your objections relative to the supposed obscurity of the Bible : and all that steady and unflinching opposition of the Pope and his Priests to the Bible Societies ; and the Catholic distribution of the Scriptures among the laity. While no assurance to the con- trary, and no exposure of the unmanly misrepresentation, will induce the Priests to do justice to truth and tliemselves, as well as to us. We never separate oral instruction from the reading of the scriptures. And we know from experience that, in pro- portion as the Bible is gratuitously distributed, is the call for the ministry urgent from the people where the Scriptures are read. The appointed ministry of Christ, acting and minis- tering in his name, read and expound the word. And as the Bible is read, pastor and people hear God speaking unto them ; and learn the law from the Most High. II [. You object out of the Jesuit Mumford and Milner, that there arc certain things, such as infant baptism., and the change of the Sabbath, which scripture does not settle ; and which tra- dition of the church alone can. There is a two-fold error in my opponents' argument here : — 1st. Even admitting that these are to be established by tradition, it is the consummation of sacerdotal arrogance in the Roman Catholic Priests, to despise the Syriac, and the African, and the ancient Italic churches, and lo claim the absolute and exclusive right of handing down that which all the other churches did hand down by tradition. 2d. These ordinances were established by scripture as well as the faithful testimony of all the churches. In i. Cor. xvi. 1. 2. Here St. Paul gives a Divine injunction as much to observe the Sabbath of the first day of the week, as to make a collection for the poor on that day. And for infant baptism, see Matthew Axviii, 19 : and Acts ii 38. 39. Now, I am not going to dictate to my beloved and honored Baptist Brethren. They have a right to hear God's word and to interpret that word spoken to them and to me; just as you claim the right to interpret what "holy mother" says to you gentlemen. Now availing ourselves of the right of hearing for ourselves, we say God commands us to teach, or disciple, and baptize " all nations." And as infants constitute the third item of nations, as much as men and women do the other two, we humbly infer that we have the command to baptise our infants. A christian brother says — " infants are not expressly named." *' True, dear brother : but neither is man nor 177 woman menlioned : infants are as much mentioned, as adults." And, moreover, in Acts iii. 38, 39, we have another testimony : and we erect our argument thus : When an ordinance and a promise are combined and connected as here, all those mention- ed and named in the promise have a right to the ordinance : but the [)r()mise here connected with baptism, includes infants and parents: Here tiie words literally rendered, " Repent ye," [in the plural,] "and be ba{)tized every one of you ; for the promise is to you and }our cliildren. If dear Protestant brethren differ, — so do Jesuits and Jansenists, and Franciscans and Dominicans. You lay much stress on the traditions, alluded to by Paul in 2 Thess. iii. 6. And you infer from this, that besides the written word, Paul delivered unwritten traditions, " Hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle." IVovv gentlemen, it cannot have escaped you, that the Apos- tle mentions three distinct classes of Traditions ; namely, the Traditions of men, which he reprobates; Col. ii. 8. and which our Lord also condemned ; Mark vii. 9. Then there were the traditions touching things indifferent ; or mere opinions, such as frequency of communion, and so forth ; and finally, traditions by inspiration ; and which regard the same doctrines and ordi- nances exhibited in the New Testament. Thus Paul, first, gave the Corinthians the Lord's Supper, by oral tradition; and then he gave it by writing. "For I have received of the Lord, that which also 1 delivered,^' or gave you, that is, by tradition, from Christ. These traditions from Christ are the same as immedi- ate communications by inspiration — and were, like all revelations from God, established to the satisfaction and faith of the Church, by the evidence i/iierna/ a?ic/ex/ernaZ, so often mentioned already by me. Now if we or an angel from heaven bring any thing by a tra- dition without apostolical and miraculous evidence, " let that tradition, and its fanatical votary be accursed." If your tra- ditions, gentlemen, are of men, we reject them as '' accursed,'* if they came from God, then they are accompanied by the evi- dence of the gift of miracles, prophecy, and tongues. But your traditions have no divine evidence. Therefore they are men's inventions; and are by St. Paul's rule ** accursed." IV. Of the Vulgate. — I request my reader, with your leave, gentlemen, to turn to your letter three near the close, where you make an extraordinary defence of your Vulgate Latin, Bible. — I had called it, after deliberate examination " the worst of the worst translations." You usher in your defence with these words, " It is painful to be obliged to expose your (Dr. B's^ Ignorance, where, you ought to be better informed." This bt- No. 12.— 23 ITS nevolence, in which you are as generously sincere, I dare say as if you had been administering extreme unction to your victim, — is quite out of keeping, and in malignantly bad taste. I in- voke the whole body of the learned, now to judge between us, — both Roman Catholics and Protestants ; and then let them pronounce who is the most profoundly ignorant of translations. In reference to the Vulgate, I beg leave to remark, that Je- rome finished his labors on his translation in A. D. 384. There existed before him the old Italick version from the Greek Vulgate. This version is the oldest in Latin : it was made in the close of the second century. Jerome endeavored to improve on this version : but in too many instances it was corrupted. 1 refer you gentlenjen, to the profound critic Nolan, on the integrity of the Greek Vulgate. In the second chapter of Luke, v. 33, the Greek Vatican and the Vulgate make Joseph the father of the Lord ; " pater illius, et mater." And this eminent critic shows that these two versions, on this text, are '^ grossly corrupt," See Nolan p. 169. note. And Lowth has shown, that, in some instances, the Latin Vulgate is found " to be notoriously deficient in expressing the sense." See his translation of Isaiah, p. Ixxiii. You seem to think, gentlemen, in your letter three, that Jerome possessed a copy of Origen's Hexapla, or Polyglot, as you call it. Jerome had not so many facilities as your exuberant imagi- nation has conceived. He had not the Hexapla : and you ought to have known that. He was compelled to perform a long voy- age, from Rome to Cassarea, in order to consult that book. See Home, vol. ii. p. 198. You have betrayed your ignorance of the subject ; and, I am no hypocrite. — I am not sorry in expo- sins^ your ignorance, pro bono publico ! Yet, severely as we may criticise this old version, I assure you, gentlemen, I did not allude to Jerome's true version, when I cal- led it the worst of translations. I alluded to your Vulgate as it now exists; and as it is spread out before the English reader in the Douay Bible. The Roman Catholics seek to palm it on the public as the genuine version of Jerome. But, this preten- sion ; and all your quotations from approving Protestants, such as Grotius, Walton, and so on, — are not only to no purpose ; but absolutely deceptions, and you, if Greek and Hebrew scho- lars, ought to know all this. I here beg leave to challenge any scholar, in good faith, to produce one of our learned Protestants who applauds the Roman Latin Vulgate as it now is. Of the valuable labors of Jerome, none approve more highly, and none are more able by virtue of their accomplished educa- tion, to approve more highly, than the Protestants. But can you possibly be ignorant of what Nolan has given ample evidence, that St. Augustine himself, though he did indeed approve of the labors of Jerome, did not use tliis version : he used tlie old Ilalick version, to tlic day of his death. [See Nolan p. 15.] And the learned irornc has shown thai, from the days of Cassiodorus, down to Alcum, in tlie Stii century, " the text of the Vulgate fell into great conlusion : and was disfigured by the innumerable mistakes of copyists." But the most curious part of the history of the Vulgate remains to be told. The Council of Trent small, very small in numbers ; and by the best judges, namely the Pro- testant literati, deemed still smaller in literature and theology, [see also P. Sarpi Lib. 2. s. 51.] did actually pronounce the Vul- gate, with all its palpable errors, to be inspired and divine. Like our friend, fiither Levins, whom I have had the honor of intro- ducing so advantageously to the "christian public," — and who seems really not to be conscious in wliai language the Old and New Testaments were written, unless it was the old Irish ; and therefore, he blunders out his taunts, incessantly " against the Greek and Hebrew of the inspired volumes," — these same Tri- dentine fathers, with the exception of the good Hebrew scholar, Cardinal Cajetan, actually preferred the Latin version of the Bi- ble, to the Greek and Hebrew originals ! I ! These fathers appointed a committee to revise and correct this same version, which they had pronounced inspired ! But, in as much as this thing displeased the Pope, it was placed over into his Holiness' care. It passed through no less than three Pope's hands. Sixtus V. had it published as the only pure and perfect Vulgate : he issued a Bull, "enjoining its universal reception ; and threatening with no less than perdition, the man who should make the slightest alterations. And, though issued by the infcil- lible, in the plentitude of his knowledge and power, it had not been long before the public, before it was found to abound in errors! And it was quickly called in. Clement VHI. Pope, not having the fear of the Bull of Sixtus before his eyes, did actually make very many alterations. His new edition he published in A. D. 1592 ; and like a good Pope, he propped and barricaded this new and a second time, perfect edition, by a similar Bull, pronouncing it now to be immaculate, and the only Vulgate: and, moreover, in the plentitude of infallible power, forbidding any alterations to be made in it, by any body, on pains of the most terrible anathemas ! ! But, behold, the very next year, namely, 1593, anew, and corrected, and altered edition was issued ; and more perfect than his former most perfect edition ! ! Now, all these phenomena are easily accounted for. It wag not for want of scholarship to translate Hebrew and Greek into Latin. No, no : the real and insuperable difficulty lay, in get- ting something like a translation, simply with a view to lend 180 et>untenance to the new Roman system of doctrine, and rituals, which had no place, nor name, nor recognition in all the Bible of God I! Now, gentlemen, in your laudatory zeal for the Vulgate, I call on you, publicly, to say, which of these "infallibly accurate," and " contradictory" versions you do adhere to. Dr. James in his book " Bellium papale," has set down two thousand varia- tions between the Sixtine, and the Clementine editions of your Vulgate I I have now before me a large selection, in whicli the first Pope's version leaves out whole verses, which the last Pope's version has ! The Clementine has, again, omitted entire clau- ses which the Sixtine has inserted : besides I have, before me a list of " manifest contradictions," between the two ; besides many other remarkable diiTerences. Now, gentlemen, to which of these '^ only perfect copies," of these equally "infallible," and contradictory Popes, do you yield your conscience and faith 7 The call is made on you to declare this in good faith. We know that you cannot : we know that you have manifested an utter want of information on this subject. In your Letter 3, you say, "You [Dr. B.] ought to know that the Vulgate version was made, when the best and purest copies of the Hebrew, Chal- daic, Greek and Latin, together with the Polyglots of Origen were to be had : and this version has been constantly in the hands of the Western Church, in all its extent, for fifteen centuries." I profess it is impossible to quote even from yourselves, gentle- men, another sentence containing more wilful and wicked mis- representation, or one exhibiting more profound ignorance of the history of your Vulgate ! You actually hold up the idea that your Vulgate is now what Jerome left it! And you keep out of view the endless variati and grey." The "friends" to whom you tendered the excuse of skirmishing in an earlier letter, have come to your aid. The re- veille has been beaten on the drum ecclesiastic. The work, however, is but poorly tesselated; — the hand of the artist is not there ; — the joints are badly set ; — the dove-taihng lacks tenacity. Harmony is wanting— unity is absent— the entire structure is 199 crazy. The dry bones over which you and your Calvlnistic coadjutors have prophesied, wriggle in their sockets — their am- bhng is unsteady, — in the words of Hotspur, "'Tis like the forced gait of a sliufflingnag." Such as it is, we shall greet its leading matter whh a few remarks. We are not Deists, not Infidels ; we respect and obey the Scriptures, — "whosoever shall force thee to go one mile," says St. Matthew, "Go with them other two." Matt. v. 41. We ]n-oved your Rule of Faith to be apparently contradictory, by a reference to the 2d Book of Kings, viii. 2G, and to the 2d Book of Chronicles, xxii. 2. In the Book of Kings, as above quoted, it is said, that Ahasiah was 22 years old when he began to rei"-n ; and in the Book of Chronicles it is said that he was 42 years old when he began to reign. You, Rev. Dr., have argued, as if frenzied with victory, againstour Rule of Faith, from the clashing of Popes, councils, and divines. To bring you to sober thinkino-, we took the liberty to call your attention to the apparent contra- dictions, which are found, in not a few instances, in your Rule of Faith, and concluded, that, if our Rule is to be rejected on the ground of imaginary contradiction, your Rule must inevitably share the same fate. This conclusion. Rev. Sir, no "Protestant lesson or logic" will ever be able to disprove. We had also ano- ther object in view ; mark it, let the members of the Middle Dutch Church mark it. In pointing out some of the apparently contra- dictory texts of the Bible, we were convinced that Dr. Brownlee believed his Rule of Faith to be perfectly consistent, and that his proofs would be given in all the fulness of an erudite in the "He- brew^ and Greek of the Holy Ghost." We have not been disap- pointed. This theologue, whose ''o?ili/ Rule of Faith is the rvriitefi word of God, afid judge of controversy, the Holy Ghost speaki?iir to us in it" tells that this rule is not contradictory, because Bochart Whitby, Lightfoot, Jahn and Bug, tell him there is no contradiction to be found in the passages we have quoted. Dr. Brownlee believes that there are no real contradictory passages in the Scriptures, his Rule of Faith. Is his belief of this point founded on the Scriptures? No, it rests on the authority of Bochart, Lightfoot, and Bug. Therefore, the Doctor's "only Rule of Faith is not the icord ofGod,^^ but the word of men equally fallible as him- self. We now call on the Preacher of the Middle DutcJi ChurcJi, to produce one passage of holy writ, to prove, that there is no contradiction, in the ])laces to which we have referred. This is the radical point. This, solely, the question. The solutions you have given can have no weight with you or with any whose "only Rule of Faith is the w^ord of God." Your Rule of Faith exhibits you as one, who believes nothing in religion, but what is founded on the word of God, and your solutions cxlii- 200 bit you as believing in the consistency of the word of God, on the authority of Bochart, Whitby, Lightfooi, &c. &c. This, Rev« Sir, is reaUzing the fable of the centaur. The monster, it is said, blew hot and cold at the same time: Thus we dispose of the learned labor of yourself and coadjutors, and "put the hook in your nose." In the second part of your .letter, you tell us, that "the appointed Ministry of Christ, acting and ministering in his name, read and expound the word." Does not this concession involve a behef on your part, that the people are bound to hear and receive with docility, what the "appointed Ministry of Christ" teaches in his name ? How, then, in view of this concession, can you say, that the Scriptures are the only Rule of Faith? Oh, but we refer the people to the Scriptures, we tell the people not to believe us, but to believe God, says Dr. Brownlee. But, Rev. Doctor, how can you refer the people to the Scriptures for the belief of those points of Christian Faith, which are not found in the Scriptures, such as the canonicity, the integrity, and inspiration of the Books of Scriptures ? We have also told you, that, in referring the people to the word of God, you substitute your own interpretations of this word, for the word itself, and thereby deceive them. Though you pretend to allow them to think for themselves, it is quite the reverse. We cannot, Rev. Sir, forget the famous Synod of Dort, at which the Divines of almost every Protestant state in Europe assisted. Did not this Synod fully establish the doctrine of a living and speaking tribunal in the Church, in seizing upon and impri- soning for seven months, and at length sending into exile, without permitting them to see their wives or families, fifteen Divines, Remonstrant, or Armenian, who refused to subscribe to their predestinarian decree? See Brandt. Tom. 2. page 172. Will Preacher Brownlee, in the face of this fact, say, that Calvinistic Parsons allow people to think for themselves in matters of reli- gion, and that they do not keep their consciences in their pockets ? In the third divison of your epistle, you rebuke us for despising the traditions of the Old Italic, Greek, Syriac, and African churches. Such contempt, you say, "is the consummation of sacerdotal arrogance." We emphatically deny the charge. Rev. Sir, and time will convince you, that we are not wanting in respect to the traditions of those ancient churches. But is it not the extreme of folly in one, whose only Rule of Faith is the Bible, thus to declaim in favor of tradition ? Can your Protestant lesson and logic lead you so far astray as not to see that the moment you admit, that the change of the Sabbath and infant baptism can be settled but by tradition, you aha7idon the word of God as your ONLY Rule of Faith? To this we respectfully call the attention of the Christian public. 201 To us it appears evident, that you were never tauglit the ele- ments of true logic, or you would not in all your conclusions depart so far from your jiremiscs. From the beginning of this controversy, we Iiave demonstrated the inconclusivcness of your proofs from Scripture. We have another instance before us in your attempt to prove the abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath from the sacred writings. It is truly ridiculous. You quote from the first to the Corinthians xvi. 1, 2. "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order, to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store as God has prospered him, that there be no gathering ruAc7? I come." Your conclusion is, therefore, the Jewish Sabbath has been abrogated, and Sunday has been substi- tuted in its stead ! ! ! Why, Rev. Sir, the veriest old crone among your virtuous ladies will see that this conclusion is not contained in the premises, and that the inveterate habit of drawing such conclusions argues a "derangement of the moral faculty." One thmg is certain, the Holy Ghost must consider you no extraor- dinary genius, when after a course of some thirty or forty years in his school, you betray such ignorance of elementary principles, The Sabbath of the Lord abrogated, because the primitive Chris- tians were in the habit of assembling on the first day of the week! Did not the Apostles themselves observe the Jewish Sabbath ? Read the 2d chapter of the Acts, and you will find in the 4Gth verse, that "they continued daily with one accord in the Temple." It is also true, that the observances of the old seventh day or Saturday, continued in the eastern churches, even after the destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem. See the discourse on the Lord's day, by John Howell, a Presbyter of the Church of England. You believe. Rev. Doctor, that the Jewish Sabbatli has been abrogated. This you cannot prove from Scripture alone. Therefore, Scripture alone is not your Rule of Faith. The Baptist will not listen to your lecture, though given with all the tenderness of a brother in full communion. They will tell you that God is the immediate instructor of the faithful, and that the Holy Spirit directs them in their belief and practice, and that your theology is sinful. They will also run to the authority of the renowned Luther, who will tell them that the practice of infant baptism cannot be proved from the Scripture alone ; attend to his words, — they are found in his letter written to two clergymen on the subject of infant baptism. "I answ^er. On texts of Scripture you cannot validly establish the practice of infant baptism among the early Christians." In the preceding words it is admitted by Luther, that the practice of infant baptism cannot be established on the express words of Scripture ; that the necessity of this prac- tice is sufficiently enforced by received tradition, and, the uninter- 26 ' 202 iupted custom of the church. Receive another great Protestant authority on this subject. Melancthon in Loc. Theol. Tit. de Bap, Parvulorum, says ; "the universal accordance of the Church throughout all ages, is the testimony that this ordinance is Apos- tolical." Universalis consensus Ecclesiee omnium temporum est testimonium quod hsec ordinatio sit ApostoUca. Give attention, now^. Rev. Doctor, to the following "form of reason," — it will "bear on your arguments." If the Church be infallible in transmit- ting one tradition to after ages, why not in all, since the Apostle St. Paul, when he calls the Church "the pillar and ground of truth," 1 Tim. iii. 15, does not speak in a limited sense, but absolutely and without restriction? Will you decline an answer? Strange, Rev. Sir, that your only judge of controversy, the HOLY GHOST SPEAKING TO YOU IN THE SCRIPTURES doCS UOt dccido this controversy between you and the Baptists. But you agree to DIFFER, because there are differences between the Jesuits and Jan- senists. So then, it is nothing to disobey the Apostolic precept of avoiding "sects" "which exclude from the Kingdom of God," of thinking ^^ the same thwg^^ of having "one faith, and one bap- tism," because Jesuits and Jansenists difier ! ! ! But we all "think the same thing, for we agree to difler — w^e are "dear Protes- tant brethren," says Doctor Brownlee, — w^e all learn on the great principle of the Reformation, which tells us that the truth of God is contained in the Bible alone. But what this truth is, what Christianity is, we know not. Believe in the divinity of Christ, in the Trinity, in eternal torments, you are a Christian. Do not be- lieve in any of these points, you are still a Christian. What- ever your individual opinions may be, if you think they are found in the Bible, that is enough. Who can presume to determine what is necessary to be believed? The Catholic Church has done this, and has done it from the beginning ; we have, therefore, flung off her slavish yoke. We then cannot consistently determine what any one is to believe. We confess that it will appear strange, that God has spoken to man, without it being in man's power to know what he said, but we must believe, that this is the case; or Protestantism is false. Remain easy then, in this state of incer- titude and be convinced that you can be good Christians, without knowing what you are to believe, in order to be Christians. We are "dear Protestant brethren, our differences are nothing when compared to those of the Jesuits and Jansenists." Indeed, Rev. Sir, if the Council of Trent or the creed of Pope Pius the 4th taught iisio believe as you believe, we should soon fling them to the winds. You tell us that "the traditions given by the Apostles from Christ, are immediate communications by inspiration." Will you refuse to be governed by such traditions? Will you'prove from the Bible, that the Apostles wrote every thing that Christ taught them? Will you prove, if the Apostles did not write all they were taught by Christ and commanded i6 j»rcach to the world, that what they left unwritten could not be safely handed down to us, by the church, the *'pillar and ground of truth V Could the })illar and the ground ot truth give us tor Christ's doctrine, wh;it Christ's never taught? Here Sir, is a fair op|)ortunity of defending your Rule of Faith; will you 'v/tr/i/R;" it I We repeat, that it is painful to be obliged to expose your ignor- ance where you ought to be better informed. Your attacks on the Vulgate you have borrowed from Pope's fourth speech in the discussion with McGuire. Strange that the castigation he receiv- ed did not terrify you from venturing on the same ground. The Catholic champion earnestly called on the biblical crusader to com- pare the Sixtine and Clementine editions of the Bible, with the Vul- gate of St. Jerome and to point out any substantial dillerence, if any could be found. This he did not do, and l"or a very obvious reason. Yet after this failure on tiic part of Mr. Pope, you have the effrontery to invoke "all the learned to judge between us, and you pronounce our quototions from approving Protestants as de- ceptions and abs-olutely to no purpose." Believe us, Rev. Sir, that neither Mills nor Walton, nor Grotius, will be given up by us, on the ipse dixit of the Preacher of the Middle Dutch Church. They were learned in biblical criticism, and professed the greatest es- teem for the Vulgate. Protestants ought to pause before they institute a comparison between their English translations of the Bible and our Doway translation. They are the children of the Bible and of the most abominably corrupted Bible, that ever appeared. We make no random assertions. Mark our proofs and weigh them well. Read the famous Broughton's advertisement of Corruption to the Lords of the Council in the year U>04, and recollect that he was a Puri- tan. He tells us the public English translation caused millions oi millions to reject the new Testament and to run into eternal flames. That it perverts the text of the Old Testament in more than eight hundred places. That it is inferior to the Alcoran. In the Hampton Court Conference, p. 45, 46, 47, all the Eng- lish Bibles are pronounced infamous translations. For the histo- ry of these translations we refer to Bishop Pretyman's elements of Theology, vol. 2, p. 18, and also to Johnson's Historical account of English translations, and for the corruptions that exist even in all the late editions of the English Protestant Bible, we refer to the pamphlet of Mr. Curtis on this subject. As you profess inti- macy with the " Hebrew and Greek of the Holy Ghost," and, it is presumed, are interested in the Protestant translations of the Bible, you, of course, have seen the pamphletof Dr. Curtis, a dissenting minister, addressed to the prch-cnt Protc.>lant Bishop of London. 204 In this pamphlet the Rev. Mr. Curtis states, as the result of a laborious examination of a great number of Bibles, that, in the modern editions he has detected no less than 2931 intentional de- partures from King James's Bible, in seven books, or only d, fourth part of the canon of the Scriptures ! On the intentional departures from what is termed in England the authorized version of the Scriptures, we refer you to the averments made by several highly respectable witnesses before the select Committee of the House of Commons on King's Printers' Patents. From this examination and the pamphlet of the Rev. Mr. Curtis, you will obtain know- ledge of which you are now ignorant, though you exult in your Protestant education. You will discover not merely faithlessness in rendering the word of God, but studied and intentional depar- ture from the sense. On this subject you are also referred to Fuller's '^ Fye for Shame,'' written about the j^ear 1660. He assigns as one cause of the growth of infidelity in the land, "the late many false and erroneous impressions of the Bible." We shall meet you again on this topic. As to the Doway translation of the Bible, its greatest fault is its too close adherence to the original. This, Sir, is the only objection that Bishop Pretyman urges against it. " It retains," says this learned Divine, " too many Eastern, Greek, and Latin words." Now Sir, this to us, who are fond of antiquity, is a great commendation, as it plainly proves that the authors of this version did not take the same liberties with the sacred text, that were taken by Tindal, Coverdale, the Geneva Divines and others. The learned histotian of Oxford, Anthony Wood, will inform you, that Doctor Gregory Martin, the brightest ornament of that Univer- sity, and the chief translator of the Doway Bible, " was a most excellent linguist, exactly read and versed in the sacred Scriptures, who went before all of his time in human literature." See Athanas Oxon. For the purity and fidelity of this version, we hold our- selves responsible, and would, even in this stage of our controver- sy, though a departure from the point in debate, enter on a critical examination of the passages, which you say are badly rendered, if we were not afraid of extending this letter beyond a reasonable length. Let it suffice for the present, that the Pope is convinced, from the report of the Bishops in the countries where the English language is commonly spoken, that the Doway translation and the different editions of it, are all free from substantial error. This is all that the discipline of our church requires with regard to the different translations from the Vulgate — and it is in virtue of this discipline, that Dr. Power did assert, that Roman Catholics were not prevented by their Pastors from reading the Bible in the vulgar tongue. At No. 5 of your last letter, there is a buttress for your Rule of 205 Faith, to which, it was supposed, you dared not have recourse — THE AUTHORITY OF THE FATHERS ! But any support will bc giaspod at by a sinking man. You arc. Rev. Preacher, a paradoxical compound of strange inconsistencies. Did the most profoundly intimate with modern chemistry, submit your pia mater to analysis he would bc at fault. No skill, no dexterity in the art of manipu- lation could allect it. Return to your letter. No. 1. Feb. 9tli, and you will find the following passage at page 45 of the '' Truth Teller." " As for the fathers of the Greek and Latin Churches, I profess to read them as much as any of my learned antagonists. And Izvill receive their pages with profound veneration and sit at their feet, as the expositors of truth, as soon as the Catholic Church of Rome shall produce di genuine copy of them as the Fathers wrote, and left, their sentiments — namely, an editio expurfrata, free of all the scandalous alterations and corruptions made in them by the monks of the dark ages." The inference from the preceding passage w^ritten by Dr. Brownlec in his first Icttei is, obviously, this, — a correct edition of the works of the Fathers does not exist, for, he says, the monks of the dark ages corrupted them. Yet, in opposition to this posi- tive assertion he quotes from the works of the Fathers corrupted by the monks because he thinks it supports his cause ! He says " produce a ge?iui?ie copy and I will receive their pages with pro- found veneration!" Yet to support his Rule of Faith, and w^ant- ing an editio expurgata, he props his creed on quotations from the Fathers ! Is there in the records of controversial history so striking an example of inconsistency, — such direct contradiction? When Preachers, wdio arrogate to themselves an intimacy with the interior spirit, who w^ould monopolize whatever is profound and good in clerical education, who vaunt their " Protestant lesson and logic," thus rush into inconsistencies and contradictions, what should be the measure of their castigation? The threat of Falstaff would be a mild infliction. " An I have not," says the honest knight, " ballads made on you all, and sung to filthy tunes, let a cup of sack bc my poison." To prove, however, how vain the refuge is of the Preacher in the Middle Dutch Church when he appeals to the authority of the Fathers on his Rule of Faith, we shall meet him on this, subject in a future letter. At present our reference must be limited. Two or three of the most important are selected. As your predilections, most consistent Preacher, lean to Greek, w^e shall first introduce 8t. Chrysostom. You adduce the Fathers as supporting i/our Rule of Faith and hostile to ours. Let this be borne in mind by our readers. VVc refer you to your first quota- tion from ^St. Chrysostom and ask you, does it say the Bible is the 206 only Rule of Faith '^ It does not ; it merely recommends the reading of the Scriptures. Deduce any other inference if you can. But mark the words of St. Chrysostom in his 4th Homily on the second Epistle to the Thessalonians. He does not admit the Bible as the only Rule of Faith, for he says the traditions of the Church must be credited. " Hence," he writes, " St Paul did not include all the things in his Epistle, for many things are unwritten by him; and those are also worthy of belief. Wherefore, we deem the TRADITION of the Church worthy of faith. — There is tradition; therefore ask no more." The passages from St. Austin do not support the conclusion that the Bible is the only Rule of Faith. We refer you to the context connected with your citations. Attend to the import of the entire not to a part. Writing on infant baptism, his words are lib. 18. de Generi ad literam. Cap. 23., — "The custom of our mother the church, in baptizing children, must not, on any account be condemned, neither must it be supposed a superfluous practice — for faith in it is founded on Apostolical tradition." Hence ac- cording to St. Austin, the Bible is not the only Rule of Faith. In his work against the Epistle of Fundamentus he affirms, " I would not believe in the Gospel were it not for the authority of the Church." St. Jerome writing against the Luciferians says, — " though the authority of Scripture were wanting, the accordance of the whole world would here have the force of a precept." We shall again recur to the authority of the Fathers against the Preacher's Pro- testant Rule of Faith. You tell us that " we make Augustine affirm that Pope Marcelli- nus was not an idolater, and that this slander was raised by the Donatists." We did not make St. Augustine affirm, but we said that St. Augustine affirmed, that the idolatry of Marcellinus, was a slander of the Donatists. The authority of Pope Pius the 2d as to an historical fact, is only to be respected, in as much as it is well founded; — and with every respect for his sublime dignity, we must confess that we prefer the authority of St. Augustine, in the present instance, for reasons which must strike every one versed in historical criticism — for example, he was nearer to the time of the occurrence, and possessed understanding to discover the truth and honesty to announce it. In the seventh section of your Hydra Epistle, you politely accuse us of a " reckless disregard of truth," for saying that "no divine of the Church of Rome ever taught that infallibility was lodged in the Pope alone." We do not avoid the weight of this assertion. But how do you convict us of falsehood ? Ey an argument at once the most stupid and absurd. Bellarmine is a son of the Church ; but Bellarmine says that the Pope is above a general council. Therefore, Bellarmine 207 believed that infallibility resides in the Pope alone. Now, Sir, Bellarminc believed that Christ was above the Apostles. There- fore, according to you, Bellarminc believed that iniallibility was confined to Christ alone, and that the Apostles were not infallible. Dear Doctor we despair of ever making a logician of you. The Jesuits, you say, have been in the habit of opposing the Bible Rule of Faith, by an argument taken from the abuse of it by the diflerent sectaries. Attend to truth in your assertions, Rev. Sir. The Jesuits and we say that the Bible as interpreted by every individual according to his own private spirit, was never estab- lished by Christ as the only Rule of Faith. Nor are we singular in this opinion. We have referred to Hook, a Protestant, in his Ecclesiastical Polity, p. 119, where we are told " that this conceit of private interpretation has made thousands so headstrong even in gross and palpable errors; that a man whose capacity will scarce serve him to utter five words in a sensible manner, blush- eth not in any doubt concerning matter of Scripture, to think his own bare yea as good as the nay of all the wise and learned judg- ments that are in the whole world: which insolency must be repressed or it will be the bane of the Christian religion." We argue against your Rule of Faith, the Bible interpreted by private judgment, because it is the "bane of the Christian religion." In answer to your questions against the perpetual visibility of the Church of Christ, allow us to ask you with St. Augustine, " What dost thou mean, O Heretic, by flying into darkness?" Our Saviour has said that the doers of evil love darkness more than the light. Hence, if you ask the heretic, who expounds the Scrip- ture? He will tell you, the Scripture itself: the private spirit. Jf you ask him which are the marks of the true Church ? He an- swers, the true preaching word, more difiicult to be discovered than the Church herself. If you ask, where was the Protestant Church before Luther? He answers, it was in the wilderness, it was in corners, in mountains, and in deserts. These without doubt would be Dr. Brownlee's answer. But let him listen to the famous Dr. Field, Lib. I. Cap. 10. "There is," says he, "and always hath been a visible Church." This idea of an invisible Church, says Melancthon, causes endless confusion, and induceth a commonwealth of unruly ruffians or Atheists. Sec Melanct. in Prefat. Corp. Doci. Christ. Again we call on him to listen to the prophet Isaias, c. GO, 11, who speaks of the Church of Christ in the following manner: — " Therefore thy gates shall be open con- tinually, they shall not be shut day nor night;" mark the reason, Rev. Sir, " that men may bring to thee the forces of the Gentiles." We ask you candidly, if a cont'umal admittance into the Cliurch could exist without continual visibility ? Your remarks on this text are worthy onlv <^f a Sabbath schr)lar. Isaias 2, 2. and Mich. 4. 2. 208 describe the church as " a mountain on the top of mountains/' as "a city whose watchmen shall never hold their peace." If these words be true, an invisible church is no church. When there is only question of the church of Christ on earth, that church which Christ commands us to hear and obey, is it not ridiculous in you to fly from this militant church on earth, to the church triumphant in heaven ? We answer, that the church triumphant in heaven is not visible; but will it, therefore, follow that the militant church on earth is not always visible? Perhaps Protestant lesson and logic may justify this conclusion; ours will not. Was the church visible in the days of King Ahab: "where?" In the kingdom of Ju- dah under the pious king Josaphat. Shame for a Sabbath school scholar to betray so much ignorance of the condition of the old Jewish Church. In conclusion, Rev. Sir, we have to state, that the Scripture makes no mention of the baptism of infants, — no mention of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son; no mention of the Son being consubstantial with the Father ; — no mentionof the change of the Sabbath into the Lord's day. To believe the Scriptures themselves to be the Word of God, is as necessary for salvation, as to believe any thing which the Word of God contains. That the Scriptures are the Word of God cannot be proved from the Scriptures. To know which is a true sense of Scripture, a true translation, which are the can- onical books of Scripture, and which not, are necessary to salva- tion. Will you say that these things are mentioned in Scripture? If they are not mentioned in Scripture will you say that the Scrip- ture is the whole Word of God ? Will you say that it is the only Rule of Faith? Again, if it be your only Ruleof Faith why do you contradict it? The written Word of God commands us to abstain from blood and strangled meats, which all Christians observed for some considerable time. See Exod. 31. 17. Acts 15. 20. You feed on those forbidden meats warranted only by our tradition. Why do you without any precept of Scripture, change the ever- lasting covenant of the Sabbath day ir)to Sunday, warranted by our tradition? If you abandon your cause, Rev. Doctor, without a solution to the above queries, what will the pubKc think of you? Your reputation is at stake, and, in public judgment, will be lost, if you fly from your rule of Faith, without any show of defence. Though we are your opponents, our advice is worth attention. Recollect the old saying "fas est ab at hoste doceri." We are Sir, your obedient servants, JOHN POWER, THOMAS C. LEVINS. Kew York, May Sth, 1833. 209 JDr. Brownlce'^s Ijetier^ JVo, 8. TO DllS. POWER, VARELA, & LEVANS. *'Upon this rock will I build my church!" — Jesxa Christ. "And that rock was Christ"— ^<. Paul. "Other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." — St Paul' Gentlemen:-- Your sevcjith letter I have carefully perused. You would have saved trouble, and been as near your object, had you reprinted the sixth against me, in reply. You have offered, in both, much incense to the spirit of error and heresy. I fear he is the genius loci, the presiding genius over all your nocturnal watch- ings and lucubrations. You have renewed your crusade against the Holy Bible; but without advancing one single new idea ; or even one semblance of a fresh argument on the point. My ten arguments against your Rule, by which the public will do me the justice to say, your Rule has been demolished and annihilated, lo- gically,— and have been passed over, unnoticed by you.--And gen- tlemen, what ever attributes your enemies deny you, I shall main- tain that in this silence, you possess both wisdom and cunning. We have also fully established the evidence of the Holy Scrip- tures, by the usual arguments and proofs, briefly given from inter- nal and from external evidence; from miracles, prophecy, and his- torical evidence or tradition. And, I trust, I have fully exposed your besetting sins touching tradition. It is truly ludicrous to see grave and professedly learned men insisting on it, forever, that tradition alone is all the evidence of the Bible's inspiration ; and that tradition belongs solely and exclusively, and only to *'Holy Mother" of Rome, verily! You repeat here, again, with solemn trifling, all your deism and twaddle in this matter, which had been refuted, and exposed, and logically put to rest. The only thing that seems to be novel is this: you have fallen, hke theological sophomores, into the silly error of confounding the act of faith in the external evidence of the Holy Bible, with the act of faith in our Lord, speaking in the Bible. By the former we are assured that the Bible came from God— by the latter we do be- lieve in Christ, speaking in the Bible, and through that faith, are jus- tified before God. Now my profound opponents cannot compre- hend the distinction ! And what is more, no papist ever can. For he believes in "the church" namely "Holy Mother." And by that faith is he saved. This gravely, is their avowed sense of that sentence in the creed— "I believe in the Cathohc Church"! ! ! My exposure of your Vulgate Bible has taken effect— it has stung the priest's conscience ! And you cannot conceal how much you writhe under it. No wonder : Magna est Veritas, et prevalebit !— But you have not examined, far less refuted one of No. 14.— 27. 210 my statements. And I compliment you again on your wisdom in not touching them. One of the venerable members of the bar lately gave this advice to a young lawyer,--"Whenever your opponent advances an argument which you cannot answer— take special care not to touch it" ! The strongest thing you have said here, in reply to my expo- sure of your Vulgate, is this, — "Your attack on it you have bor- rowed from Pope's discussion with M'Guire &c." My good pa- dres, I did not know it ; for in honest truth, I am sorry to say, that I have not been able to add that book to my list. I have never seen it. But gentlemen, you must have seen that I copied my authorities from the fountain head,— such as Nolan, Home, Willet, father Paul Sarpi, Pallavicini, and the collections of Cramp. And gentlemen, if, as you say, Pope was so ill informed on the sub- ject, as not to be able to silence M'Guire promptly on this point, by an exhibition of the endless errors, variations, and contradictions existing between the Sixtine, and the Clementine editions of the Vulgate, he was very ill qualified for his duty. Every scholar knows that Dr. James, in his Bcllum Papale, has pointed out 2000 variations between these two papal editions. And any one by tak- ing up Hornevol. ii. p. 200-201 can see a specimen of these errors, omissions, additions and contradictions. I mention Home, be- cause he is in every Minister's library. And I again refresh you with Reuchline and Jerome's words,— "the Hebrews drink of the well head ; the Greeks of the stream ; and the Latins of the pud- dle!" And at the same time, I renew my public challenge to you to tell the public, to which of these erroneous and contradictory editions of your Vulgate, from the hands of these two equally infallible and contradictory Popes, you give in the adhesion of your flexible consciences. We beseech you do not omit an hon- est answer to this. It deeply affects your cause. I also beg leave to renew my demand of an answer to the ques- tion in my last; and which you have shunned. You have al- ways averred, and can we doubt your honour, that you do insist, that your laity read the Holy Bible? Now, we demand you to tell us IF THERE BE 0^E ENGLISH VERSION OF THE BIBLE AUTHORIZED BY EITHER THE POPE, OR THE CHURCH ! Wc say thcrO is UOt OUC authorized version in our language. Will you venture out to contradict it ? I possess evidence, namely, the testimony upon oath, of your first men in Ireland — priests, — given in before the British Parliament, to confirm what I say! You are involved in a difficulty, really inextricable, from my quotations from the Greek and Latin fathers. And I am anxious to show how great this difficulty is. There is no contradiction, as you affect to say, between my letter I and VII. You know as . well as I do, that the fathers have been altered, mangled, corrupt- 211 ed, in many parts. But Providence so ordered it, that these kna- vish monks who corrupted many parts of them, did not succeed in corrupting all of them ; or all parts of each of them. Hence the many glaring contradictions on their pages. Now, take it which way you please, gentlemen, the quotations from the fathers are absolutely fatal to your sinking cause. It is an immutable doctrine of your Church that no rite, nor doctrine is from God unless it have the unanimous consent of the said fathers. Hence it is utter folly in you, gentlemen, to do as Padre Levins has done, — namely to quote a sentence or two ; this will never do. You must have their unanimous consent. If I produce, as you know I have done, a sentence from these, contradicting yours it is no matter to our Protestant cause, which of us is right. It is enough for me that I destroy your unanimous consent. I beg my readers to remember this important maxim. It is to administer glorious service to us in our future discussions of the Romish doctrines and ceremonies. Finally — There is one other point in which I lind something, apparently new. In a fresh and most unchristian ebullition against the Holy Scriptures, you quote Dr. Curtis's pamphlet in which he numbers no less than 2931 intentional departures from the received version of our English Bible ; that is, he undertakes to show that, in the printing, all these errors have been introduc- ed. And in this detection, our Reverend Christian priests exult, and leap for joy, as if they, and their Agrarian auxiliaries had ac- tually made a breach in the walls of Zion ! ! ! I have convicted my opponents of Deism ; and I have evidence that every thinking Christian in the community is fully and pain- fully satisfied with the evidence. And to establish this fact, was indeed, my main reason for lingering so long on the Rule. We have succeeded in dragging out this lurking Antichrist from his deceptious den ; and we have branded on his forehead, a mark, and a name, which all his holy water can never wash out — name- ly, " This is the Father and Prince of Deism !" And Deists may well bow the knee to him. And as if they were resolved, unblushingly to wear the mark and the name, my opponents have made this new assault, tbough the aid of Dr. Curtis, against the blessed Scriptures. Now, mark the proofs of their dishonesty in this matter. When we remem- ber the source whence Messrs. Power and Levins got their infor- mation of Dr. Curtis' researches, it was morally iznpossible for them not to know that the profound scholar Dr. Cajdwell, of Oxford University, has entered the lists against him, and has overthrown him, and exposed his errors completely. I shall edify my honest and accurate opponents, by quoting a little specimen of this exposure In the book ol Genesis, Dr. Curtis muitcr* thu 212 formidable array of eight hundred and seven variations, and in the Gospel of Matthew no less than four hundred and sixteen. This, to you and every infidel, is a very refreshing and comforta- ble discovery. But pause a little. Our champion Dr. Cardwell, goes over the same ground, collates the various copies, and shov^^s triumphantly that in Genesis there are only ni7ie variations ; and in Matthew orAy eleven! And these aflfect not the sense; nor trench on one doctrine ! If a Jesuit could be brought, by any power short of divine grace, to blush, my guilty and treacherous opponents ought to blush to their very tonsures ! But, the grace of God only can make a culprit see and feel his crimes ! I have only one remark more, I am prepared to, hear even the ultra deism of the Voltaire school from you, gentlemen, but the indecent sally in your last letter, I was really not prepared to hear. I allude to your revolting blasphemy, in Truth Teller, (p. 151, col. 1.) Will the Christian community pardon me for quoting it ? " One thing is certain, the Holy Ghost must consider you (Dr. B.) no extraordinary genius, when after a course of thirty or forty years in his school, you betray such ignorance, &c." The ignorant and deluded beings who can write, and inflict on the church, such outrageous blasphemy against the most Holy One, cannot be said to believe that " there is any Holy Ghost?' and it were mere mockery to call them Christians ! I appeal to every one of the five hundred thousand Christians in the United States, who read our letters ! Have we not convicted the Priests of Deism, and revolting blasphemy ! Is there one doubt left ? One word to the confederated parties— the Roman Priests, and the deistical gentlemen, before I leave them. Gentleman Priests:— Hark ye, your very natural and anti- christian invectives against God's holy Word, have been devout- ly hailed by all the infidels in the land. I said devoutly, for in the absence of the Agrarian chief, now laboring in the cause of deism in England, they are glad of any little aid to their cause — come it from a Roman Priest, dyed in the wool; or come it from a genuine Frances Wright advocate. And this is no despicable attribute of their system, that they are very thankful for very smah favors ! It is very true; and I only remind you of it, that they have applauded your intellectual industry against God's holy Bible, at the expense of your sincerity, and moral honesty. And it ought not to be concealed that these, your auxiliaries, do gravely pronounce ai\ of you hypocrites. Call for the watch word; there will soon be trouble in the camp ! And, Gentleman Deists, are you aware of the character and pretentions of the Roman Priests with whom you " colleague ! " Are you aware of the consequences which will follow, should you succeed in conducting them into power, in these United States ? 213 Look at Italy, at Austria, Naples, and Spain. You are helping to light up the fires of the Auto da fe. The Roman church cannot exist without persecutions, massacres, and the burning of her foes. For she holds no faith with heretics; and it is a most meritorious deed to extirpate heretics!! In aiding the Roman Priests (who laugh in their sleeves at your credulity and weakness) you are preparing the fire and faggots. You are preparing for yourselves the unenvied distinction of being the last devoured!!! Pause I beseech you, and think. Do not strengthen the tyrant's arm which is raising the blow against our fair and hitherto happy Republic. I now go on to show that the Roman Catholic Church is YOUNGER THAN CHRISTIANITY ; AND THAT PoPERY IS A MERE NOVELTY IN THE RELIGIOUS WORLD. Here I would observe that the Church of God is one great and holy body, of which Christ is the head. The Church has existed from the beginning of the world, it exists now, and will exist till the consummation of all things; its existence has not been afiect- ed by the lapse of time, or the change, and succession of her indi- vidual members. The church has ever held the truth. And truth descended from God, and has ever kept her throne in Zion. Christ, the King of truth, reigns in her for ever. Nothing of human invention is of the truth. Every item of it comes from God, through Jesus Christ. The following are some of these leading truths which never failed in the church ; and which have ever distinguished the Church from all human societies. And wherever these doctrines are wanting, there " Satan has his seat;" and there is "his syna- gogue." 1st. The one living and true God is the only and exclu- sive object of divine worship and veneration. The Church of God never prayed to creatures ; never made supplications to dead men, or dead women. The Pagan, and afterwards the anti- christian apostacy alone, did this. The pagans deified their heroes and heroines, and made supplications to them. The anti-christian apostacy, faithful copyers, have, in like manner, deified or canoni- zed their dead spiritual heroes and heroines ; ofl^er incense to them ; bow down before them ; and make solemn supplications and prayers to them. These systems are twin sisters; begotten by their common father,'the Prince of Darkness, the grand enemy of divine worship, and the originator of all idolatry. 2d. The Church has ever held faith in the one Saviour, Jesus Christ; and his one perfect sacrifice. Pagan and anti-christian apostacy have renounced this. The sacrifices of the former and the Mass sacrifice of the latter, have displaced and rejected, com- pletely, the one only sacrifice of our blessed Lord. Besides, popery has created such a host of Mediators, and Mediatrices, 214 and intercessors, in the deified saints, that the humble faithful cannot get a sight of the one only Mediator Christ, on account of the countless rabble of saints put into the place which he only should occupy ! 3d. The Church of God never used images to aid her worship. She was solemnly prohibited from this iniquity by the second precept. " Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, nor the likeness of any thing, &c. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, &c." This is the literal version of the Hebrew original; every other version is false; and does of design, cover idolatrous practices. As for the cherubim, and the brazen serpent, they were made by an express command from God; and they were not used to worship God, in any sense whatever. It was for the sin of idolatry, or using images and false Gods, that the ancient Jews suffered most severely, by the terrible judgments of God on that heaven-daring sin ! 4th. The circumcision of the heart, or spiritual regeneration was a peculiar doctrine of the Church. "Except a man be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." This doctrine is unknown to pagans> and laughed to scorn by the Pope, and his priesthood. They hold that no "internal grace" is needful in the members of the Church, but only " external profession." And most gravely they assert that wicked men and even repro- bates, remaining in the public profession of the Church, are true members of the body of Christ: See Bella rminc De Eccles. Lib. iii. cap. 2. and 7. And the Rhem Annot on 1 Tim. 2. Sect. ]0. And on John 15. Sect. 1. Willet p. 61. 5th. The church always held that God only and exclusively is THE Lord of the human conscience ; and in no subordinate sense can any mortal claim power over the conscience. Almighty God will not share his throne with any miserable and arrogant human tyrant. All false rehgions lodge power with the priests, to rule over and dictate to, the conscience. This ever has been the characteristic of Paganism and Romanism. The evidence of this lies open to view, on the page of Scripture ; and in the history of Paganism, and the Roman church. 6th. Almighty God alone can, and does pardon sin. He gave the law, prescribed the penalty ; we are his moral subjects ; to him alone we are accountable in the matters of sin, spiritual duty, and pardon. As church members we ought to confess our faults one to another ; and so ought the priest to confess his faults to the people, if this text be quoted by them as authority for this inno- vation. But auricular confession has no warrant from Almighty God. Upon the principles of Pagans, and Roman Catholics, God has transferred over into the hands of immoral and polluted men, the government of his empire. If a priest has a right to receive 215 the confession of sins, and pronounce absolntion /or money, then he has a right to claim the judgment seat of heaven; and judge the dead; and displace Jesus Christ, in order to make gain ! 7th. The spirit of true religion is the unsubduable spirit of lib- erty. Wherever the worship of the true and Holy One has been established by the Gospel, there liberty has reigned: and> just in proportion as the Gospel is left unshackled by the traditions, and interested schemes of men, has liberty had her splendid triumphs! The Jewish church exhibited liberty dillusing happiness over a free and happy people. When religion languished, tyrants bore sway. Let the people cast their eyes over all Roman Catholic ■nations, and contrast their degradation, and tyranny, and priest- craft, and outrageous oppression — with the light, liberty, and hap- piness of Protestant countries I Contrast Spain and Italy, and Austria, with Holland and England ! Contrast the turbulent Mexi- cans, and Southern priest-ridden Republics, with our own glorious Repubhc, and rea(i-#ie truth written with a sunbeam ! Let our sound politicians look well to this, and learn a solemn les- son ! 8th. The true and chaste spouse of Christ is not conjoined, in bondage unto the State. " My Idngdom is not of this world," said Christ. And his servants are not allowed to usurp authority, or "be lords over God's heritage :" far less are they to be luxuri- ous, proud, insolent, and truculent tyrants and princes ! The Pagan and Roman religion ; and those who are only half Reform- ed, have ever permitted the infamous princes of the earth, the " lords spiritual and temporal, to tyrannize over the church : to make a mere tool of her : until they made her a degraded, hack- neyed, vile thing ; and loathsomely impure. The tyrants of the earth converted her into " the Mother of Harlots, and abomina- tions of the earth." On her forehead the finger of the Almighty has written this name and title: and an Atlantic of the priests' holy water can never wash her clean ; nor wipe out the title brand- ed on her forehead by the hand of God. These peculiarities of a false religion, show, that Romanism is not the pure and ancient church of Christ. But this is only my introduction. The grand peculiarities of Popery : — with your good humored leave, I shall class under ten heads or. Gentle- men, te?i horns. First. — The Pope's supremacy. Now, I give notice to you and my readers, that I shall not stop to refute these. I merely esta- blish the origin and date of these, in order to show that Pupcry proper, is a mere novelty in the Christian world. Our refutation shall be offered when we reach these, in " the dependency (A our argument." All Romanists admit the Pope's supremacy; but relative to the i, S16 authority attached to his supremacy, there is the greatest diversi- ty of sentiment. There are four kinds of faith touching it, among them: one class gives him a mere presidency; a second, an un- limited sovereignty ; a third, makes the Pope equal to God ; a fourth, very modestly, makes the Pope actually superior to God ! This I shall discuss again ; I shall wait to see whether my learned priests will venture out to deny this division. Ignorance of their own writers may very probably induce them to deny this. Now according to the doctrines of the Pope's supremacy — Peter was made the first supreme. And having died in A. D. 66, he was succeeded by some obscure beings upon whose names even the Romanists cannot agree. But the Holy Apostle John survived Peter at least forty years ; and so these obscure but absolute su- premos, were placed over this holy and beloved Apostle. This was really outrageous in the Roman church ! And moreover, this Apostle John has never had the gra Qe of G od nor good sense, to acknowledge this supremacy ; nor depAl'L" himself as a dutiful son. On our priests' principles, Drs. Power and Levins must de- nounce the Holy John, as a rebellious son of Holy Mother ! What! live 40 years, and write so much Scripture, yet say not one good word for His HoHness, and his essential supremacy ! Padre Le- vins ought forthwith to excommunicate his memory with bell, book, and candle ; Gentlemen, why has not this been done ? This is not all, the early holy Councils stood out against the same supremacy. About A. D. 450, the Council of Chalcedon resisted Pope Leo in the question of his supremacy. In A. D. 418, the sixth Council of Carthage, resisted three Popes, one after ano- ther. Mighty opposition was directed against this sacerdotal usurpation, by the clergy of France, England, Africa, and Asia, and even Spain, and even Ireland! So late as A. D. 860, the Bishops of Belgia denied that the Pope's decree should bind them: they boldly denied his supremacy, and set his bulls at defiance: — " We assault thee," said they " with thine own weapons, who des- pisest the decree of our Lord God." See Illy r. Catal. Test. Verit. p. 80; Morn. Exer. p. 223. The best and early fathers warmly opposed the Pope's Supre- macy. St. Augustine was the fourth who signed the famous de- cree of the African Milevitan Council. This decree was made against all appeals from the African Church, by Bishops or mem- bers, to the Pope : and it was made in opposition to Popes Zosi- mus, Boniface, and Celestine. See Manse's Collect, Counc. Tom. iv. p. 507; Venet. edit. 1785. Jerome opposes it; Hear his words: " The Church of the Roman city is not to de deemed one thing, and the church of the whole world another. Gaul, Britain, Africa, Persia, India, and all bar- barous nations adore one Christ: and observe one Rule of Faith. 217 If you look for authority, the world is greater than a city (Rome.) Wheresoever a Bishop is, whether at Rome, or Constantinople, or Alexandria, or Tanais, he is of the same worth (or authority) and the same priesthood." "But all are successors of the A])ostles. Why do you produce to me the customs of one city?" To Evagr. Tom. ii. p. 510. Paris edit, of 1602. Again, here is " a stinger" from your St. Jerome. " Bishops should remember that they are greater than Elders (Presbyters,) rather by custom, than by truth of the Lord's appointment: and that they ought to rule the church in common." On Titus Lib. i. cap. i. Hear Theodore's memorable words : — " Christ alone is head of all: but the Church in his body; and the Saints are the members of his body; one is the neck; another the feet;" " By his legs un- derstand St. Peter, the first of the Apostles." On Sol. Song. Par. Lat. edit. 1608. So far from making Peter the head, he is con- sidered the legs, which are supported by the feet, as you well know ! Then there is TertuUian's famous sentence, which your Romish w^riters have mangled so scandalously — supposing that we ignor- ant heretics, had not seen, nor read that honest witness against your supremacy. " Survey the apostolical churches, in which the very chairs of the apostles still preside over their stations ; in which their own epistles are recited, uttering the voice ; and repre- senting the presence of each of them ! Is Achaia 7iearest to theSf thou hast Corinth. If thou art not far from Macedo7iia, thou hast the Philippians and the Thessalo?iians. If thou canst go to Asia, thou hast Ephesus. If thou art near Italy, thou hast Rome, whence to us, also, authority is near at hand," Pras. adv. Her. Cap. 36, p. 215. Paris edit. 1675. Now it is a notable circumstance, that the Romish writers, when they quote out of Tertullian, leave all out that is put here in italics ; namely, all but the last sentence, touch- ing Rome ! ! Mr. Hughes, of Philadelphia, had his scourging lately for doing this ! I shall gratify you, gentleman, with one refreshing quotation more. And if you do not give up your Pope's supremacy as uni- versal Bishop, then on your own principles, are }'ou the most ob- stinate heretics. For I quote from your own infalhble and holy Pope, and one whom you have deified too, and do invoke with in- cense, prayers and holy wrestlings ; I mean Pope St. Gregory. Padre Levins very gravely tells us that he loves antiquities, and all old things — were it even like " Holy Mother," a very old sin- ner! Well, you must know, that a Bishop of the Greek Church, first claimed su^)remacy, and the honor of universal Bishop ; until the Fathers of Rome, pretty honest men at that time, rebuked his iniquitv, and shamed him out of it. Now hear the infallible Pope 28. 218 and Saint Gregory — who wrote this in the close of the 6th century, namely 590. Having shown that Peter, and Paul, and John were all members under one head he says: "No one desired to call him- self the universal, or universal Bishop." See Regist. Epist. Lib. 5, p. 743, Tom. ii. ^ Again, for this is too good to be quitted by me : " I do confi- dently say that whosoever called himself universal Bishop ; or de- sires to be called so, in his pride, is the forerunner of anti-christ. Because in his pride he prefers himself to the rest ; and he is con- ducted to error, by a similar pride. For as the wicked one wishes to appear a God above all men ; so whosoever he is, who desires to be called the only Bishop (solus sacerds) extols himself above all other Bishops." Lib. 7. Indict. Epist. 15. edit, of Paris, 1705. Once more, for this is delectable : In his eulogy to the Bishop of Alexandria he solemnly affirms "that the primacy of Peter de- scended to three Sees ; namely, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome." Tom. ii. p. 887. Paris edit. Once more ; for I am determined that Pope St. Gregory, if possi- ble, shall save you from the mortal sin of holding the Roman Pope's supremacy. Hear the holy saint: " If any one in that church assumes that name," he was speaking of universal Bishop, " which in the opinion of all good men he (his rival in the East) has done ; then the whole church; (may it never happen,) falls from its state, when he, who is called universal, falls. But let that name of blas- phemy be absent from the hearts of Christians ; which, when it is really assumed by one, the honor of all priests is taken away." Regist. Epist. ; Lib. 5 ; Indie. 13 ; Epist. 20. Paris edit. 1705. Thus I have proved by arguments and testimony from your own church, that the supremacy, and infamous usurpation of power by your Pope, is a novelty in the Christian world. It was not fully gained by the "man of sin" until the consumma- tion of truth's overthrow, in the darkest hour of the darkest ages. Second ; The invocation of Saints, is a novelty introduced by the "man of sin" also. This originated in those bold and figu- rative expressions, and the apostrophising of the departed mar^ tyrs, common among declamatory preachers. Invocation of saints began to show itself sometime after the beginning of the third century. It was violently opposed by the truly faithful, until the seventh century : and finally, it was established, in spite of all op- position, only in the 9th century, when the church was driven into the wilderness. We have the testimony of St. Augustine against you on this point. "He is the High Priest who has entered within the veil; 219 and who alone of those who have appeared in the flesh, does intercede for us." On Psalms Ixiv. vol. 2. p. 633. Bened. edit. Paris 1685. Athanasius, in 340, is also against you : "God only is to be wor- shipped; and ann;cls themselves are aware of this; they are all creatures ; and arc not to be worsliippcd ; but are beings who do worship God." Third Orat. against Arians ; Par. edit. 1627, Theodorct, in 451, says: "The council of Laodicea also follow- ing this rule, and desiring to heal that old disease, made a law, that people should not pray to angels ; nor forsake our Lord Jesus Christ." On Colos. 3 chap. Paris edit. Lut. 1608. St. Chrysostom declared [in the beginning of the fifth century,] that, "there was no need for minor intercessors with God."' — "With God it is not thus ; for there is no need of intercessors for the petitioners ; neither is he so ready to give a gracious an- swer, when entreated by others ; as by ourselves praying to him." On Math, cited by Theod. Eclog. &c. More full is this saint on that passage of "sending away the woman of Canaan." "Marl\ the philosophy of the woman ; she entreats not James, nor John, nor comes she to Peter ; she breaks through the whole company of them; and saying, I have no need of a mediator ; but taking repentance as a spokes woman, I come to the fountain itself. I have no need of a mediator ; have thou mercy on me." See his Disc, on this part of Math. ch. 15. Paris edit, 1621. Gregory Nysen denounces creature invocation: "Moses and the tables, and the law, and the prophets, the gospel, the decrees of all the Apostles forbid equally, our looking to the creature." "The word of God has ordained that none of those things which have their being by creation, shall be worshipped by men ; (Se- basmion) that is venerated by prayers or prayed to." See his 4 Orat. in Eunom. Tom. 11. p. 144. Paris edit. cic. iccxv. I shall only add Epiphanius of A. D. 336. He is a strong wit- ness against the atheism of saint worship, or invocation. "Neith- er is Elias to be worshipped, although he were alive, nor is John to be worshipped, [proskunetos] bowed down before and prayed to — Nor is Theela, or any of the saints to be worshipped, [bowed down before, or prayed to.] For that ancient error shall not prevail ov^er us of forsaking the living god ; and of worshipping creatures. For they worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, and became fools. For if an angel will not be worshipped, how much more will not she (the Virgin Mary) who was born of Anna?" See his book against the heretics 79. p. 443. Now, will you permit me to refresh your consciences, gentle- men, with the contrast of Romanism with this primitive Christian- 220 ity of the Fathers? In face of the Holy Bible in which the Holy Ghost commands us not to pray to, or worship creatures, in the face of testimony of Councils, by the sainted fathers, you thus pray ; — "O Holy Mary ! — obtain for us by thy intercession, light to know the great benefit which Christ has bestowed on us. " "O Holy Virgin, obtain for us by thy intercession, that our hearts maybe so, visited by thy Holy Son, &c." "O most pure Mother of God!" — What revolting blasphemy! God's Mother ! ! Mother of God! ! Paganism never breathed such Atheism. God has NO MOTHER 1 The infinite and invisible being, God, has no MOTHER What a most brutish mind conceived this idea ! What a bru- talizing prayer this is, to teach men ! Christ our mediator, as man had mother ; but as God, he had no mother. But I go on. — "O Mother of God, we beseech thee, obtain for us, by thy inter- cession, grace to lead pure and holy lives, &c." Again: "O most blessed Virgin, graciously vouchsafe to help ustoaccom- phsh the work of our salvation, by thy powerful intercession ! — Amen." See Dr. John Power's Catholic Manual ; Rosary of the B. Virgin. The following I copy from "the Roman Cathohc prayer book, or devout Christian's Vade Mecum.'" It will be seen how Dr. Power, and the Philadelphia book differ in translating the same passage. Will the Bishops not take care, and look after such Pope-daring innovations ! — "O most blessed Virgin, graciously vouchsafe to negociate for, and with us, the work of our salvation, by thy powerful intercession ! Amen." Again ; "Confiding in thy goodness and mercy, I cast myself at thy sacred feet, and do most humbly supplicate thee, O Mother of the eternal Word, to adopt me as thy child ; and take upon thee, the care of my salvation." "O God, grant, we beseech thee, by the Virgin Mary, his mother, that we may receive the joys of eternal life, by the same Christ our Lord." I copy the following from the Litany of our Lady of Lorretto. — The Litany means a solemn supplicatory prayer. "Holy Mo- ther of God, pray for us !— Mother of our Creator, pray for us !— Mother of our Redeemer pray for us !— Mirror of Justice ! pray for us !— Seat of wisdom, pray for us ! Ark of the covenant, pray for us— Gate of heaven, pray for us ! Refuge of sinners, pray for us 1 &c. &c." But this is not the worst; one thing I am prepared to show that the various Roman works which appear in English, are de- signed to impose on Protestants, and to conceal the real doctrines of Rome. Only look into their Latin books,— there you behold their frightful idolatry, in its full growth, and perfection. Here IS a sj^ecimen : Holy Mother,— Ora patrem, jube filio,— pray to 221 the father for us, and command thy son, &c." Again :— ''0 feHx puerpera, nostra plans scelera, jure matris impera Rcdemptori! O happy Mother, atoning for our crinics, lay thy commands on the Redeemer, in right of thy being his Mother." And to consum- mate what all heathenism never conceived, in their comparative piety, a Roman saint, namely, Bonaventura, whom the pious and faithful do worship on July 14 annually,— has gone over the Psalms of David ; has stricken out Lord, God, &c. and has in- serted Holy Mother, our Lady, &c. Thus : "In thee, O Lady, do I put my trust, &c." — "Let our 'Lady arise : let her enemies be ' scattered, &:c." "O come let us sing unto our Lady : and make a joyful noise unto the queen of our salvation!!" Psalm 110. "Tiie Lord said unto my Lady, sit thou on my right hand, &c. &c. ! ! ! [Sec. Bonav. psalt. of the B. Virgin ; his works, Tom. vii. Rom. edit, of 1588. And Ilist. Sec. Char. August, de Comer. B. M. Virg. And Morn. Ex. p. 523 And, lest these may be deemed too antiquated, I shall show that, in all that is idolatrous and wicked, the Romish Church is immutable. The present Pope, Gregory XVI. in the Circular sent forth on his entering upon his office, solemly rendered his adorations to the Holy Virgin ; and calls upon all the Clergy to implore, — "that she who has been in every calamity, our Patron and Protectress may watch over us, — and lead our minds, by her heavenly influence, to those counsels which may prove most salutary to Christ's ftock." "That all may have a happy and suc- cessful issue, let us raise our eyes to the Most Blessed Virgin Mary; who alone destroys heresies ! Who is our greatest HOPE ! Yea the entire ground of our hope !" See Laity's Directory, 1833. Third :— The use of images in the churches is a novelty. Here I must be brief The best of the fathers condemn the use of images: one Council in A. D. 300 condemn the use of pictures in churches. In 700 the Council of Constantinople solemnly condemned them: and ordered their expulsion from the churches. In 754 the seventh Greek General Council solemnly condemned image use and worship. About the ninth century this idolatry seems to have been established. Fourth: — the doctrite of Purgatory is a mere novelty. I shall, in due time, if requisite, produce nine of the best fathers against it, with »St. Augustine at their head. It is most manifestly borrowed from the pagan fire purification of souls. And it has been a terri- fic screw in sacerdotal hands to extract from trembling mortals, more money, than, perhaps, all the African slave trade ever has accumulated ! These two evils, namely, slavery and the Priests' fiction of purgatory, have been permitted by the wrath of Heaven to be let in upon a guilty world ! The one dealt in human 222 bones, and sinews, and blood ; the other, as St. John saw in vision, traded in human souls ! ! The lust of gold is the object of both ! This golden doctrine of Popery, is only some four hundred years old. It was ultimately established in Rome by the Council of Florence, A. D. 1430. Fifth: — Priests' Cfxtbacy — that capital "old bachelor's joke,'' which vexes padre, yes father Levins, so much. This is a diaboli- cal usurpation of freemen's rights, to which none but the most heartless of the species—men, I can scarcely call them — have yielded a wicked and slavish submission. Every priest knows that it is not only uncommanded in the Bible ; but it is set down as a striking characteristic mark of anti-christ. The great apostacy from Christianity, was to be known by "forbidding to marry! !" And every one knows, who has looked into history, that the Pope Gregory VII. in the year 1674, made this infamous usurpation on the rights of man ; and took away marriage from the priests. So that this same celibacy of priests is only some 763 years old. Before that, every priest, Hke other honest men, had his own wife. Since that, they have been "holy fathers" without wives ! Sixth and Seventh: — Transubstantiation and the Mass. This grand peculiarity of Popery is a mere novelty also, in the religious world, not only, but even in the rational w^orld. A doctrine which represents the priest's creating his Creator ; and making a wafer to be really the human flesh of Christ; and which, there- fore, by their own confession, makes men cannibals ! ! I am per- fectly grave, gentlemen. I ask you, what it is, in the wafer, w^hen you put it, with awful solemnity, on the tongue of the hum- ble faithful? You reply that it is "the flesh and blood really and truly of Christ's human nature." Then does not every one see that they eat, and swallow down human flesh? If that makes them not cannibals, then words have lost their meaning, and you have lost your senses, reason, and all ! ! Against this monstrous and most disgusting doctrine of the Mass, I can produce seventeen of your early and best fathers, namely from Ireneus to St. Augustine. It began about the middle of the fifth century; ripened by degrees unto the ninth; and along with Auricular Confession, with all the mischief, and wick- edness, transubstantiation and the mass were established into a doc- trine of the church by the decree of Pope Innocent III. in the fourth Council of the Lateran, in the year 1215. See Mosh. iii. p. 143. Glas. Edit. And hence, they maybe said to be 618 years old ! Eighth : The taking away the wine or holy cup in the sacra- ment of the Holy Supper is a novelty. Pope Gelasius in the year 223 iOS^ pronounced this abstraction of the cup ''an impious sacri- lege." See Corp. Juris Can. Pars 3, Dist. 3. Ninth: The adoratiox of Relics was introduced about the same time \vitli the invocation of saints; and arose from the y)er- version of mementos, or keepsakes left by martyrs., and those dear to the church. To adore rehcs, or venerate them rehgiously is to adore dust and ashes ! So says St. Augustine : "Timeo adorare terram, &c. I fear to adore earth lest He (God) condemn me." The Council ofCarth., 5, Can. 14, says:— "Placuit, &c. It has pleased us to request the most renowned emperor that relics may be taken away, not only such as are kept in shrines, and images ; but in w^hat place soever, woods, or trees." Willet p. 391. So late as the year 730 the Synod, or Council, summoned by the Emperor Leo III. did, with only one dissenting voice decree that "the worship of images and relics was mere idolatry." This decree was fully enforced by Leo ; and the churches w^ere purified effect- ually of them. See Morn. Exer. p. 257 Lon. edit. Tenth and last: — The keeping the bible in a dead language, AND REFUSING THE FREE AND UNLIMITED PERUSAL OF God's HoLY Word, is a mere novelty in the church. This usurpation, so cha- racteristic of ghostly tyranny, which denies to the laity the holy Bible is condemned by the uniform tenor of Scriptures. And I can produce thirteen of the most eminent Greek and Latin fa- thers, who maintain Scriptures to be the sufficient Rule of Faith; and who insist on all men pei using and studying them. Of these the most prominent, and eloquently persuasive, are St. Augistine and Chrysostom. These shall be produced, if the priests gainsay this. Thus, I trust, I have succeeded in establishing my position that Popery characterised by these peculiarities, is a mere novelty in the Christian world. Where was your religion before Luther?" This hackneyed question put by Roman Catholics, has been answered thus : — 1st. By a counter question, — " Where was your face this morning, be- fore it was washed." 2d. " It is found, where your religion never can be found ; namely, in the holy Bible." 8d. " It has been found- in that unbroken line of faithful and holy men, descended from the Italic Church ; and perpetrated, in the line of the Waldenses, Albigenses, and Lollards ; not omitting the faithful in the Greek, the African, and old Syriac Churches. I shall conclude this letter in the bold words of Voctius, to which all sound and intelligent Christians will subscribe : "In THE FIRST SIX HUNDRED YEARS OF OUR ERA, THERE WAS NO CHURCH, NO ONE DOCTOR, NO ONE MARTYR, NO CONFESSOR, NO ONE FAMILY, NO ONE MEMBER OF THE CHURCH ; NEITHER IN THE WeST, NOR IN ANY 224 OTHER PART OF THE WORLD, THAT WAS PROPERLY, AND FORMERLY A Papist. I am, gentlemen, yours truly, &c. W. C. BROWNLEE, A3Iinister of the Collegiate Middle and North Dutch Church, New York, May 14, 1833. Reply of JDrSm Power and l^evinSj TO DR. BROWNLEE. No. 8. A corrupt man loveth not one that reproveth him: nor will he goto the wise. Prov.—lS. 12. Rev. Sir, — In your peregrinations over the uphills and downhills of life, your philosophic mind has not, probably, been idly inatten- tive to the effects often produced by officious ifriendship. If vigi- lant it must have discovered that the interference of an officious friend is seldom directed by prudence ; and, hence, in place of conferring benefit, inflicts real injury on the object of its zeal. It must have ascertained, that, often it were better to encounter the open and avowed hostility of an enemy than submit to the inter- posing protection of a good nalured andvery kind friend. "Save me from my friends" is registered among the philosophic sayings vulgarly named proverbs — of a grave and wise people. Whether you. Rev. Preacher of the Middle Dutch Church, have ever been afflicted w^ith the evils arising out of officious friendship, is a knowledge not very interesting to us, but it is our opinion, and will, we are sure, be seconded by the judgment of your "Christian public," — your " Protestant Rule of Faith," may fitly address you in the words of the proverb, " save me from my friends." Eight long and tedious letters have been spun by the patent machinery of "Protestant lesson and logic" from your cranial cobwebs — you have written de omni scibile, tilted with every weapon in the rusted armory of polemics from proofless assertion to gross abuse, from the dogmatic ipse dixit to the ob- scene insinuation, from the faithless quotation to the more faithless and ribald tale, from the affected lisping of the sleek Religionist to the shout and growl of the pitch and brimstone Puritan,' — yet your unfortunate Rule of Faith is still unproven, still as infirm in the strength of argument as the imbecility of an infant's mind. Had you not, in an evil hour, though chivalously, proclaimed your "challenge," your Rule might have rested in obscurity, and enjoyed the respect which obscurity, at times, secures; it might have excited no misgivings in the minds of the members of the 225 Middle Dutch Church and your "Christian public." Even you, mighty Erudite in the "Hebrew and Greek of the Holy Ghost," might have stricken deep root in the hotbed oi^ literary and bibli- cal lame, had not you set your lance in rest for polemic tourna- ment. Had you, in place of ambitioning theological renown, pondered on the words of the inspired sage, — "even a/oo/, if he will hold his peace shall be counted ic'ise; and if he close his lips a man of understanding. '' Pro v. xvii. 28, you might, pos- sibly, have secured the reputation to which they allude. Had the limits of intellect fixed by nature been respected, you might have risen to planetary distinction among your ''virtuous ladies;" while they, like faithful satellites, obedient to the great law of at- traction, would have performed their cycles and epicycles around the orb of their adoration, and illustrated what ancient poets had sung of the music of the spheres. But sad to tell, the limits prescribed by nature were disregarded; its voice was un- heeded. Ambition whispered it fascinations and distinctions — and like a brighter star, in a purer firmament, the Preacher in the Middle Dutch Church fell. Here, however, the contrast ends. The lost archangel fell, and was, in the subhme language of Milton, "Majestic though in ruin;" the polemical athlete of the Calvinistic cause fell, and # * * Will the members of the Middle Dutch Church fill up the hiatus in the way of epitaph on their Preacher, ''Writer^'' and '' Ge?itlema?i V We are aware. Rev. Gentleman, of the sorrows and afflictions of soul which now haunt you,— of your regrets for disregard of the monitions of your interior spirit when you provoked your antagonists to engage in controversial conflict. We pity — for we have pity for you — the reputation you have lost by the con- test; and, to enhance your estimate of the worth of this pity, we blend it with the consolation offered by the classical Junius to Sir Wm. Draper, "if you rest on a bed of tortures, you have made it for yourself." An inordinate selfishness for the bubble of distinction, a de- ranged or vitiated appetite for polemical notoriety, and the bra- ves of the few ignorant and fanatical bigots, who cheered your misrepresentations of the Catholic creed at the meetings of the Protestant Association, have been, as FalstafT says, "the ruin of you." Borne from conventicle to prayer meeting on the dis- eased fame of their report, you surrendered your saner judg- ment to the captivity of flattery, and despite of a severe experi- ence, not only imagined yourself the Sampson Agonistes of the Calvinistic theology, but, really familiar with the "Hebrew and Greek of the Holy Ghost"!!! Estimating the prowess of the No. 15—29 226 Calvinistic Sampson by his feats performed in the present con- troversy, his praises may be a theme worthy of the inspired howl of a camp meeting, but they cannot aspire to the monopoly of a canticle in the Middle Dutch Churchi—it is feared his ''virtu- ous ladies" have applied their scissors to his love locks. His familiarity with the ''Greek of the Holy Ghost" we must doubt until he proves a discrepancy between it and the Greek of Homer and Demosthenes, — at least between it and the Greek of the "gr^ca majora." This hint will not be mystery one hundred leagues from New Brunswick. Since we are in the vein of imparting kindly monition and council to you, Rev. Preacher, allow us the liberty of indulging in it a little longer; and, though, like Brutus, you "are sick of many griefs," hear with patience and civihty becoming the "Gen- tleman" and "Writer" of the Middle Dutch Church. Receive our best assurances that we are solicitous for your welfare as well on earth as in a future world. It is zeal, not zealotry, for your happiness, which urges us to this task, — and the task is, to point out the errors of your former letters that they may be avoided by your interior spirit while inditing those which yet are to be presented to your "Christian public." Had your last letter contained any matter relevant to the subject at issue — your Rule of faith — this recurrence to your past letters would not have been made, — but finding it a mere register, crude and false, of things not bearing on the topic under immediate discussion, it is consign- ed to the disregard it merits. It suits your purpose, because you cannot prove, on the principles of your Protestant Rule of Faith, the Bible to be the word of God, to wander into irrelevant matter, and divert the attention of the members of the Middle Dutch Church from the real point under discussion. But you have already been informed we are of the Old School ; — we will not follow in a false train. Your Protestant Rule of Faith shall first be canvassed. You are the ch'allenger. Let this be borne in mind by your "Christian public." If you neglect the "speciaHty of rule," your example shall not influence us. A decision has already been passed on your form of procedure in the present controversy by every instructed mind, by those of your own flock, by the enlightened and unprejudiced among your own clerical brethren. We recur to your past letters to again exhibit your illogical inferences, proofless assertions, and reck- lessness of truth, to again "insert the hook in your nose." In your first letter you stated your Rule of Faith; it is, accor- ding to your definition, "the Holy Spirit speaking to us in the written Word of God, the Holy Scriptures." Conscious of the difficulty, imbecility, and infirmity inherent in your Rule, for by it the Scripture is submitted to the judgment of every indivi- 227 dual, learned and ignorant, enlightened and stupid, you boldly assert there is no obscurity in the Scripture; and to* deter the timid and ignorant from susj^icion of the infalHbilily of your asser- tion, you proclaim it ''a cliarge (urainst the Iluly Ghost to charge the Scriptures with obscurity and deficiency !" We seriously and designedly call the attention of the mem- bers of the Middle Dutch Church to the import of the words now cited from the logical Preacher's first letter. They, and all Cal- vinists, are requested to observe the contradictory collision be- tween it and the words describing his Rule. In stating his Rule he thus writes— "if there beany thing 7iot so plai?i, at'first view as /rr/.<;A, 1 compare parallel passages, and evoke the mea?ii?ig by all proper means." Is there not a direct and express ad- mission oiohscuriiij in the Scripture stated in the preceding words? He ^'compares parallel passages." Why? Because there is some- thing '^7iot so plain as he wishes," in other words, because there is obscurity. But farther ; Why does he compare parallel pas- sages? To "evolve the meaning," that is, the meainng could not be discovered without the comparison of parallel passages, which is a plain admission of obscurity in the Scripture! Here then is direct proof from the Preacher's own words stating his own Rule of Faith, that there is obscurity in the Scripture, and, yet, within three lines of where this is admitted, he writes, "to charge the Holy Scriptures with obscurity or deficiency, would be to bring a charge against the Holy Ghost." Would not this con- tradiction be derided were it affirmed by a child? and yet its au- thor is Preacher Brownlee the "Writer and Gentleman" of the Middle Dutch Church— the Erudite in the "Hebrew and Greek of the Holy Ghost;" the Sampson Agonistes of the ''virtuous la- dies" who sanctioned the obscene fiction, Lorette, — the invinci- ble Pound Text of the Protestant Association ! He compares parallel passages to evolve the meaning, and yet, in the teeth of his own prescribed and defined procedure, he affirms there is no obscurity in the Scripture! If there were no obscurity why should the passages be compared? If there were 710 obscurity, one passage w^ould be as clear and evident in its meaning, as the other; and, hence, a comparison of parallel passages equally clear and evident would be an absurd process to evolve a meaning which was already known without the aid of comparison. Had Spurzheim lived, an examination of the Preacher's cranial out-works and facial redoubt might have been the basis of a new craniological system, — sed non voluere Parcae. Since, then, by the very terms of your Protestant Rule of Faith, most logical " Writer,''^ tiie Bible is solely, the foundation of the Calvinistic reliiiion, and since tliis Bible, bv the terms of 228 your Rule, is obscure, will you condescend to inform us and the " Christian public," how an ignorant Calvinist can glean the arti- cles of his creed from the Bible ? This Calvinist maybe unable to read. How is he to " compare parallel passages ?" He cannot prove the Bible to be the Word of God ! You have not proved it, though you desired us to " see Bishop JVewtoUi^ and asserted, " you knew the Bible to he the Word of God from the external evidence of miracles wrought by the inspired writers, and which were continu- ed down to the time of St. Austin, who saw some wrought !" Do inform us, most critical Preacher, who was the inspired writer living and performing miracles down to the time of St. Austin. This is the third iteration of this query ! It strictly bears on your Rule of Faith, — and, like your interrogatories, is not foreign to the subject under discussion. We hope the members of the Mid- dle Dutch Church will second our request. Having shown from the terms stating your Rule of Faith, that there is obscurity in the Bible, it is unnecessary to quote those Scriptural passages, in which obscurity is expressly affirmed. At present we shall restrict ourselves to a mere reference ; — for example, to the vision of the four living creatures in the first chap- ter of the prophet Ezekiel, — the weeks of Daniel, — the Apoca- lypse, — the Epistles of St. Paul — the Acts of the Apostles, 8 chap. 30, 31 verses, — the 2d Epistle of St Peter, 3d chap. 16 verse, — 1 Cor. 15 chap 29 verse, — the two parallel passages in St. Paul's epistle to the Romans, 2d. chap. 13 verse, and 3d chap. 28 verse. Let any individual, learned or ignorant, reflect on the passages to which reference has just been made, and it is not possible the assertion of Preacher Brownlee can be admitted— the Scriptures are not obscure. The contradictions involved in your Rule of Faith, Rev. " Gew- tleman,^'' have, in the series of our letters received the attentions they appeared to merit, at times serious, and, again, in the tone of a lighter mood. As they are of grave importance to those who build their creed on the basis of your Protestant Rule, as they blend with consequences having an eternal duration, it can- not be out of place to again allude to them, since, as has already been observed, your last letter is guiltless of containing any mat- ter bearing on the subject in dispute — our Rule of Faith. The Bible being your Rule of Faith, you, by your principles, derive all your articles of creed from the Bible, that is, if consis- tent, if logical, you will admit nothing into your creed but what is deduced legitimately and expressly from the Bible. Is this sta- ted fairly? If not, we shall be pleased to have the error noted. You write in your first letter, and immediately after stating your Rule, " THE BIBLE CONTAINS THE WHOLE RELIGION OF THE PROTES- 229 tANT.^' Now, // is an article of your creed, or in other terms, of your religion, to believe the Bible to be the Word of God, yet, this article of your creed you cannot deduce from the Bible, for it cannot prove its own authenticity, inspiration, or canonicity. Your failure in proof is notorious to all who have read your let- ters. The intrinsic evidence contained in the Bible itself is not sufiicient; and this you have admitted by recurring to the testi- mony of certain churches, or, in other words, to tradition. You admit, then, as an article of your creed, that, which is not derived from your Rule of Faith, therefore, your Protestant Rule is defec- tive ; it does not determine all the articles of religion necessary to salvation, and consequently, is not a safe guide to a future world; it is folly, it is rashness, it is madness, to trust to it. If this conclusion be false, prove its defects. Again, if consistent and LOGICAL in the strict adoption of your Protestant Rule of Faith, you really, truly exclude the divine character of the Scripture, since this divine character cannot be established from its intrinsic evidence ; therefore, if you strictly adhere to your Rule of Faith, you Rev. Preacher, and all who adopt this rule, are deists and INFIDELS. This inference is fairly legitimate, fairly deduced from your principles. We recommend it to the members of the Middle Dutch Church, and your " Christian public." If you can, exhibit its defects, but not as you, hitherto, have done, by assertion, and appeal to the prejudice and passions of Calvinistic bigotry. Let there be some form of argument not degrading to a tutored mind, something worthy of a preacher in the Middle Dutch Church, something widely differing from the " Protestant lesson and logic" of your eight crude and abortive letters. While concocting your next epistle, we would counsel you to discard the whisperings of your interior spirit, it may not be a spirit of light, and when there, is no light, there can be no logic, no consistency, no argument. Seek the critical advice of some of your more instructed brethren. Their experience and sager judgment may profit you ; they may lessen the number of your contradictions, and aid you in discrimi- nating between assertion and argument. This will not diminish the profound polemical reputation you have so meritoriously earned. We also would recommend a sligld bias to truth, it can- not injure ; and gently would we hint a more familiar intimacy with modest suspicion of your mental excellencies. In short, since you have now been schooled, study wisdom and abandon folly. The inspired sage says, "It is better to meet a bear robbed ofher whelps, than a/ooZ trusting in his own/o//?/." Pro v. xvii. 12. But there are, yet, other contradictions connected with your Rule of Faith that demands our attention. In your abortive efforts to prove the Bible to be the word of God, you are forced to sock the aid of tradition ! Were you 230 guilty of no inconsistency in seeking this aid ? You are referred to your first letter, where you and the members of the Middle Dutch Church may read the following, not very gentlemanly pas- sage. It is an illustrative specimen of your dogmatic intemper- ance. " As for TRADITIONS and oral laws," writes the "gentleman," "we will treat them with the same respect as we do the Koran of Mahommed, until the evidence of their divinity be pronounced and established by prophecy, tongues, and miracles ; and the fact be confirmed that God gave them to the Church of Christ for a Rule." Tradition is used by the Preacher in the Middle Dutch Church to establish the Divine character of the Bible, and, yet, he stigmatizes tradition in terms of insolent contempt ! He " treats tradition with the same respect as the Koran of Mahommed," and, yet, this insulted and despised tradition is used in a cause the most interesting to a Christian ! He salutes his opponents with the most opprobrious terms when they allude to his interior spirit and his intimacy with the " Hebrew and Greek of the Holy Ghost," and, yet, he props his Rule of Faith, the Bible, by an evidence which he mocks and condemns! Has Deism, in its most envenomed hatred to the Bible, done any thing more base, dishonorable, and revolting ? Truly did the poet sing, " Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." We ask Preacher Brownlee and the members of the Middle Dutch Church, we ask his ^^ virtuous ladies," does it indicate san- ity of mind to adopt an evidence denounced as worthless, by him who uses this evidence, an evidence degraded to the level of the Koran ? Can contradiction and truth, inconsistency and the form of sound words, abide together? If they do, then Dr. Brownlee is a gifted and distinguished ^^ Gentleman, ^^ a rich tabernacle for the domicile of the interior spirit. Tradition is worthless, as infa- mous as the Koran of Mahommed, and yet is sufliciently ortho- dox to prove the Bible to be the word of God ! This is what Shakspeare's Sir Nathaniel would name — "very reverend sport truly, and done on the testimony of a good conscience !" In our last letter. Rev. Preacher, your inconsistency relatively to the authority of the Fathers was noted. You demanded "an editio purgata, a genuine copy," else you would not admit them "as the expositors of truth." The genuine copy has not been dis- covered, yet you seek refuge, under their authority, — you admit them as expositors of truth! Does not this recurrence to the authority of the Fathers involve you in a contradiction? You affirm in your last letter that it does not, but affirmation is not proof. Mark our form of sound words. You require a genuine copy of the Father's works, ere you admit them " as expositors of truth ;" a genuine copy is not had, and yet you admit them as ex- 231 positorsof truth, for you cite passages from llieir works as they exist. They arc, tlicrefore, exi)ositors of truth, and they are ?iot expositors of truth. Is not this a contradiction? But you say in the true spirit of your "Protestant lesson and logic," which, when interpreted without the aid of your interior spirit, means false and reckless assertion, — you say, "Providence so ordered it, that these knavish monks who corrupted many parts of them (the works of the Fathers) did not succeed in corrupting all of them ; or all TART of each of them" ! ! Here, gentle and logical writer of the Middle Dutch Church, a crabbed question must be asked. Do not recoil from it. By what critical canon do you segregate the con upted from the genuine pas- sages in the works of the Fathers, and how do you lop off the "all PART of each of them," as you elegantly phrase it, which is sound, from the all part of each of them which is unsound? Solve this query, and you will be ranked as high in intellect as Hamlef, who "knew a hawk from a hand-saw when the wind was south- erly." In the course of your illogical and vituperative letters, you have frequently awakened the prejudices and darkest passions of your Calvinistic brethren, by a false and slanderous charge against your polemic antagonists; at least, if their prejudices and passions have not been aroused to enmity, you are not innocent. Far as mean and dishonorable insinuation, far as base and false accusation could operate, you have not been an indolent promulgator, an inactive exciter. Over the good and discriminating sense of the enlightened portion of your flock, your false charges have not prevailed ; they rest on the same level with our proofs of the Bible being the word of God. You call us Deists and Infidels ! We pity the degradation and malignancy of the will from which these terms emanate; w^e sorrow for the Minister of the Calvinistic religion who could utter them. In your last letter, and alluding to our letter No 7, you thus write, — "you have renewed your cru- sade against the Holy Bible." This ridiculous, but malicious charge we repel. Our crusade is not directed against the Bible, it is di- rected against your Protesta?it Rule of Faith. Your Protestant Rule is as remote from being the cause of the Bible, as the interior im- pulse directing you in the manufacture of your ribald epistles is re- mote from the impulse of the Holy Ghost. Let it be observed by your "Christian public," against your Rule of Faith, not against the Sacred Bible, we write; it would be blasphemy to confound them. " Non bene convenint, rec in una sedc morantur." Our sincere respect is evinced for the Bible, since, by our creed, we will not submit it to the indiscriminate judgment of every igno- 232 rant and fanatical mind. We would rescue it from the torture of every interested and designing Pharisee. Its abuses will, at a future period of our polemic strife, be a fruitful theme to prove the seraphic influences, social advantages, and political blessings, produced by your religion. They will illustrate the wisdom of the Catholic Church ; they will illustrate the motives which governed the Apostles of your"erer glorious Reformation; they will show how the sacred volume was profaned and applied by them to the basest purposes, and,,how, in the words of our countryman Moore, "They wrested from its page sublime, Their creed of lust, and hate, and crime.'* You, in truth, are he who insults and degrades the Sacred Writ- ings by your eflxjrt to found the divinity of their character, on an evidence — tradition— which you brand with the same infamy as the Koran of Mahommed. But, to gull the ignorant among your flock, you aflfect to designate us Deists, because we use your ex- pression "the Hebrew and Greek of the Holy Ghost !" Why should it be Deism or blasphemy to use this expression? Is it because the Scriptures were written in Hebrew and Greek? Were Hebrew and Greek applied to no other purposes but the writing of the Bible ? Where is this said in the Scriptures ? Had those lan- guages been employed in no other use but the literary composition of the Bible, there might be some shadow of a plea for your mali- cious charge of Deism : but since Hebrew was the common and the only language of the children of Abraham, it must have been, adopted in the expression of every idea, gross or refined. It was spoken by the Israelites when they murmured against God in the desert, equally as by Moses when he commanded the waters of the Red Sea to whelm the Egyptian host. It was spoken by them when they adored the Golden Calf; it was their language while adoring the Almighty when he gave the Decalogue to Moses in the midst of thunder and lightning on the summit of Mount Sinai. Is Greek the language of the Holy Ghost ? Was it not the lan- guage of Homer and Pindar, of Anacreon, Sappho, and Aristo- phanes ? If your English version of the Scriptures be correct,, if faithful, we may, with the same right that you monopolize Hebrew and Greek, designate English the language of the Holy Ghost. Would not this. Rev. Doctor, be a farcical assumption of right, a ludicrous plea for orthodox monopoly? It is hoped the members of the Middle Dutch Church will make the. proper application of these remarks. We solicit them also, to interrogate their Preacher, Gentleman and Writer, why he never solved the difliculty bearing on his Protestant Rule of Faith, relatively to Luther's rejection of the epistle of St. James. Preacher Brownlee and the Calvinists ad- 233 mil the epistle of St. James, — Luther rejects it. Is Luther ric^ht 1 Is the Preacher in error ( Is the Preaclier right? Is Luther in error ? Does your Protestant Rule decide this (juestion, Dr. Brownlee ? If it do, fiivor us with the decision. We have long looked for it. We recommend the ditHculty to the Doctor's flock at their next class meeting. They, possibly, may dicii a solution ; — it is hoped it will not be assertiofi. Along with the solution of the preceding difficulty, we, and vour " Christian public," would willingly receive answers and so- lutions to the many difficulties and questions })roposed by us dur- ing the present controversy. We have waited in patience ; and, in truth, it may be affirmed, that one of our arguments against your Rule of Faith has not yet been answered. We have proved that the Scriptures cannot establish their own authenticity, integ- rity, and inspiration; and our conclusion is, that, since you admit these characters as articles of faith, and admit them without any Scriptural authority, the Scriptures are not your o?ili/ Rule of Faith. Again we say, since all Christians are obliged to believe the canonicity and inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, and since the canonicity and inspiration of the Scriptures cannot be proved from the Scriptures, the divine author of the Christian religion never gave the Holy Scriptures as man's only Rule of Faith. We farther assert, that, as your "only Rule of Faith, is the writ- ten Word of God, contained in the Old Testament and the New," and, as the books of the old testament or of the new cannot prove their own authenticity and inspiration, — you cannot, con- sistently, believe they are authentic and inspired. H the Scrip- tures, and this has already been remarked, — if the Scriptures be your only Rule of Faith then, you as a consistent Christian, can believe no article of faith, that cannot be proved from Scripture. But the authenticity and inspiration of the Bible cannot be proved from Scripture alo?ie, therefore the authenticity and inspiration of the Bible, cannot be articles of your faith ! ! ! The " Christian pubHc" will now see what " Protestant lesson and logic" have done for you, and will condemn the temerity that thus exposes the creed of the Christian to the sneer of the Deist, who, on your principle or Rule of Faith, can hold it forth as a mere chimera resting on no rational motive of credibility ! What! the creed of the Christian, according to Preacher Brownlee, is to be derived from the Scriptures alone, and those Scriptures not able to prove their own inspiration, which is an article of faith every Christian must hold, in order to believe the religion divine, which he derives from the Scriptures. If this be not absurdity or fatuity in its last stage, we know not the import of ideas. " It startles the philosopher," says Dr. Israeli, in the retirement of his study, when he discovers how writers who, we may pre- 30 2S4 sume are searchers after truth, should, in fact, turn out to be searchers after the grossest fictions. It proves that the personal is too apt to predominate over the Hterary character." Without making any invidious apphcation of this very just observation., we must say, that either Dr. Brownlee has not been serious w^hen he proclaimed his extravagant defence of his Rule of Eaith, or, that his credulity is most extraordinary where his prejudices are con- cerned. " My exposure of your vulgate Bible has taken effect, and you cannot conceal how much you v^rithe under it." Really, Rev. Sir, your attack on the Vulgate, instead of " stinging the priest's conscience," tended to confirm them in the mean opinion they were compelled to form of the abilities of him who could confidently tell the Christian public that the Bible is his only Rule of Faith; that he beheves the Bible to be an inspired book, and yet cannot prove this article of his faith, by his Rule of Faith. The priests care but little for your approbation, or censure of the Latin Vulgate. Your vituperation is of no consequence when such profound scholars as Grotius, Walton, and Mills pronounce judgment ; and you know they have spoken of the Vulgate in terms of exalted praise. Tliough we were to admit your rash assertion, that the Vulgate is the worst of all possible translations, will it thence follow, that the Bible alone is the only Rule of Faith and judge of controversy established by Christ ? We call for " an honest answer" to this question. It will enable the Christian pub- he to judge of your " Protestant lesson and logic." Dr. Brownlee tells the virtuous ladies of the Middle Dutch Church, that he does not keep their consciences in his pocket, be- cause he gives them the Word of God, as it is written in the books of the Old Testament and of the New, for their sole and full Rule of Faith. Now, we ask the pious ladies of the Middle Dutch Church, if their writer does not tell them, and if all Christians do not acknowledge, that all copies and translations of Scripture are only so far God's true word as they agree with the true original copy written by the sacred penman? But most pious and virtuous ladies, your writer tells you, that the original languages of the Scriptures were, " the Hebrew and Greek of the Holy Ghost." You then must know Hebrew and Greek in order to judge of your English translations. You must be deeply versed in those languages, in order to know that the version you use is truly rendered from the original. Is this the fact ? Have you studied Hebrew and Greek ? We have our serious doubts on this subject, and, in expressing these doubts, we disclaim everything like insult or disrespect: all we mean to prove is, Preacher Brownlee has your consciences in his pocket ; and we respectfully suggest, would it not be more prudent to entrust your consciences to the keeping of Christ's holy spouse, the "pillar and the ground of truth," than to confide them S35 to any man's pocket ? Preacher Brownlec (ells you to believe the Word of God alone, your English Bible, and this English Bible cannot tell you it is a correct translation from the " Hebrew and Greek of the Holy Gliost." Of this you yourselves cannot possibly form an opinion, for you are utterly ignorant of Hebrew and of Greek. How then do you know that it is the Word of God ? We will suc^gest an answer. You know your English Bible is the Word of God, on the authority of Preacher Brownlee, or some such person, as ignorant of the Hebrew and Greek as you are yourseh^es; and thus they put your consciences in their pockets and deride your credulity ! ! ! Will Dr. Brownlee pjrove to us by his rule of Faith, that the copy from which the English Bible has been translated accorded with the original? The Doctor, it is presumed, believes this. We call on him to prove this point of his belief by his Rule of Faith. We beseech him not to omit an answer to this — " it deeply afiects his cause." Is Doctor Brownlee certain, that the translators of his English Bible did not take liberties with the text in order to favor their own peculiar opinions ? Is the learned Doctor ijifallihly certain that the per- sons who undertook the translation of his " blessed Scriptures" the English Bible, were fully equal to do so arduous and impor- tant an undertaking ? His Rule of Faith must give him satisfac- tory information on these points, or it cannot be relied on. Now, where, or in what chapter or verse, does the English Bible tell preacher Brownlee's hearers, that its translators took no liberties with the copies from which they translated? In what chapter or verse does it inform them, that* the persons who undertook that translation, were capable of executing their task with fidelity, honesty, and accuracy ? They find no such chapter or verse in the Bible, nor, are they capable of making the necessary investi- gation so as to be certain of the true rendering o( their Bible; therefore, their Rule of Faith must be, as regards them, utterly uncertain, for they rely on the authority of a translator or trans- lators, of whose orthodoxy, fidelity, and capability, they are not able to judge. Hence, it is impossible for Doctor Brownlee's virtuous ladies and Christian public" to have a rational, much less, a divine faith. That the well meaning Protestants may be warned not to place too great a reliance on the various translations of holy writ by the Reformers, we will briefly show them, that those Apostles of truth, have laid sacrilegious hands on the Holy Scriptures, and have converted the bread of life into the poison of death. We shall begin with Luther's translation. Of this translation Zuing- lius writes as follows: Lib. de Sacra, "Luther," says he, " was a foul corrupter, and horrible falsifier of God's word. One who followed the Marcionists and Arians that rased out such places 23G of Holy Writ as were against him. Thou dost corrupt the Word of God, O I.uther, thou art seen to be a manifest and common corrupter of the Holy Scriptures ; how much are we ashamed of thee, who have hitherto esteemed thee." After Luther comes Zuinglius himself: he and his disciples translated the Bible, which was printed at Zurich. A copy was sent to Luther, which he re- jected with disdain, and called those ZuingKan translations, " Fools, A^ses, anti-Christ, Deceivers, and of an Ass-like understanding.'' See Protestant Apol. Tract. L s. 10. ^ CEcolampodius gave a translation, which was printed at Basil. Of this Beza says, " that the Basilian translation is in many pla- ces wicked, and altogether differing from the mind of the Holy Ghost. Beza also says, that the translation by Castalio is " sacri- LEoious, WICKED AND PAGAN." Castalio iu his turn, censured Beza's own translation. He wrote a book against it, and says, " to note all Beza's errors in translating would require a large volume." We shall now glance at your English Bible. The first English translation was given by Tindal in the reign of Henry the Eighth. In this translation, and in the New Testament alone, Bishop Tunstal discovered no less than ^Hwo thousand corruptions.''^ Two thousand corruptions in the New Testament alone ! A pretty Rule of Faith ! In the reign of Queen Elizabeth many ministers wrote to her as follows; — "Our translation of the Psalms, as formed in our book of common prayer, differs from the Hebrew in two hundred places at least." And Carlisle in his book of Christ's decent into Hell, says, " that the translators of the Enghsh Bible have depraved the sense and deceived the ignorant. In many places they wrest the Scriptures from the right sense, and show themselves to love darkness more than light, falsehood more than truth." In the reign of King James, it was resolved, at the Conference of Hamp- ton Court, that a new translation should be given, on account of the manifold and daring corruptions of the preceding ones. Now, the preceding translations -were the Protestant Rule of Faith, and this Rule of Faith, was discovered at the Hampton Court Confer- ence, and even before it, not to be the Word of God. Now, if the Reformers on the Continent of Europe and in Great Britain, could have thus remorselessly polluted the pure fountain of eternal truth, and caused the people to drink of this poisoned source, how is it possible for thinking Protestants to repose with security on the translations given them by their ministers ? The first transla- tions were made with a view to justify by Holy Writ, the separa- tion from the Mother Church, by disproving her doctrines. The same rancorous hostility to her still exists. We cannot, therefore, hope to find the pure Scripture, or the Word of God, in those places, which have a bearing on, or a reference to^ the new fan- gled doctrines. To be candid, we would as soon, and with as 237 much confidence receive a translation from the hands of Julian, the apostate, as receive one from any of the Protestant Societies, especially as regards the controverted passages. The fact is before us, and to this fact we call the attention of all Protestants. The first Protestant translators have impiously corrupted the sacred records, and, though many of their corruptions, have been cor- rected, many, as yet, remain uncorrected in obedience to the malignant feeling that first introduced them. Now, Rev. Sir, if the Bible be the only Rule of Faith, let it tell us, which of the translators of the Word of God is the true one. In order to decide this question, you and your old and ^^ virtuous ladies," will have to take satchels and trudge to school, in order to learn the " Hebrew and Greek of the Holy Ghost." Thus, and only thus, can you and they, " by the grace of God," ascertain and detect the crime of those impostors, who have given you, in the shape of an Enghsh translation, what is ?wt the Bible. The ladies of the Middle Dutch Church may be told that their English Bible is the true Word of God. But this they cannot believe unless the Bible tells them so, for the Bible is their only Rule of Faith. To your high toned demand, " tell us if there be one English version of the Bible au- thorized by either the Pope or the Church," we return the very brief answer — Transeat. If you know the meaning of this term, you know what use to make of it. You, Rev. Sir, have profited by the advice of the " venerable member of the bar," to the young lawyer. " Whenever your op- ponent advances an argument, which you cannot answer — take special care not to touch it." We have advanced the most posi- tive and convincing arguments to prove to you, that the Saviour of the world did not establish the Holy Scriptures as our only Rule of Faith, and these arguments you have not touched, you have not even as much as " squinted'''' at them. You fear to grap- ple with them. You have groped your way through eight long and ill digested letters, which, instead of proving your point in any one sense, only convince the public, that you are prepared to hazard the grossest absurdity, when it leans towards your preju- dice. Permit us to call to your recollection, that you have under- taken to prove, that the Holy Scriptures alone are the only Rule of Faith, and only judge of controversy established by Christ. You have, to use your own term, " squinted" at the first ; you have made an effort to prove that Christ established the Scriptures as the Christian's only Rule of Faith, but not a word have you said, to prove that the Scriptures have been given to us as our only JUDGE OF controversy. Why have you abandoned this part of your ground 1 Have your " Protestant lesson and logic" made no distinction between the rule and the judge who decides accor- ding to the rule ? We strongly suspect that the advice of the ^' venerable member^of the bar" has suggested to you the following wise rule, " When you advance a proposition which you cannot prove, take special care not to attempt the proof where you can avoid it." " Now, Rev. Sir, we have many arguments to prove that the Scriptures were not established by Christ as the Judge of all Controversies in religion between Christians. Our first argu- ment is taken from the nature of the judicial office. The Judge between two individuals at variance, is bound to express himself in such a manner as that both parties shall see what his sentence is. One party must see that it is for him, the other must see that it is against him. But the Scriptures do not decide in this way. Therefore, the Scriptures are not the Judge of Controversies. The major proposition is evident. The minor we prove. Have not many points of belief been controverted for many years be- tween the Lutherans and the Calvinists 1 Have not both parties appealed to the Holy Scriptures, and have the Holy Scriptures pronounced sentence in the manner common sense tells us they ought'? Have they, for instance, in the controversy concerning the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, decided in such a way, as to tell the Lutherans that Christ is ic edAYy present in the Eucharist, or to tell the Calvinists that he is really absent 1 They have not. Rev. Sir. If they had, it is to be presumed the contro- versy would not still exist. That our readers may see the full force of this argument, we beg of them to notice two things. First, the Lutherans and Calvinists openly confess that they acknowledge no other Judge of controversies than the sacred Scriptures, which they say are plain and manifest, and evident, and fully sufficient of themselves to decide all controversies in matters of faith and religion. Secondly. Though they have this judge, and though they have appealed to this judge, their controversies have not ended. Now, we say, that one of two things must be admitted, either the Scriptures have no tniTHERTo pronounced sentence, clearly, evidently, and sufficiently, or, if they have, that either the Lu- therans or the Calvinists are very stubborn or obstinate, for not having obeyed the sentence of the Holy Ghost. Dr. Brownlee may take his choice. * * * * This, Rev. Sir, is our first argu- ment against your Judge of Controversy, we have five or six more which shall be given in regular order. Our second argu- ment will be deduced from the Scriptures themselves. This we shall not enter upon at present, as it would require more space, than we wish to claim, or have a right to, in the Truth Teller. Your letter No. 8 is, to express it gravely, a rare production. It verifies the saying of the old philosopher, that an ass can propose more questions in a minute than a wise man could solve in a year. You have glanced at many subjects entirely foreign to the point 239 at issue. You cannot expect us to follow you. We told you that we are of the Old School, and that our " lesson and logic" will not allow us to stray from the matter in dispute. Now, Sir, the subject ^t present under consideration is too important to be only ** squinted" at. If we prove, that your Rule of Faith and Judge of Controversy have never been established by the divide author of the Christian Religion, then it will follow that you have been practicing a most awful delusion; that you have been leading the people astray from the path of truth, and that you are in open re- bellion against the order established by heaven. We have been too often under the very painful necessity of ex- posing your gross ignorance both of theology and of Ecclesiastical history; as for your logic, all who read your productions say it is puerile in the extreme. Your ignorance as a divine and historian, will be seen in the following, we may say Gothic passage. *' In face of the Holy Bible, in which the Holy Ghost commands us not to pray to, or worship creatures, in the face of the testimony of councils by the sainted fathers, you thus pray, O Holy Mary ! obtain for us by thy intercession, light to know the great benefits which Christ has bestowed on us. " O most pure mother of God." Paganism never breathed such Atheism. " God has no mother," says the Preacher. " What a brutalising prayer this is to teach men !" We give this passage in order to let your pious ladies and Middle Dutch Church congregation see, that their preacher and pastor is a Nestorian heretic. The hereiarch Nestorius denied that the Blessed Virgin was the mother of God. He maintained that there were two persons in Christ, that of God, and that of man — he denied the Incarnation, or that God was made man, and said, the Blessed Virgin ought not to be styled the mother of god, BUT only of the MAN, wlio was Christ, For these errors, Nesto- rius WAS CONDEMNED by thc third General Council held at Ephesus in the year 431, and at which two hundred Bishops assisted. The Catholic doctrine is, that in Jesus Christ there are two natures, the divine and human ; but only one person. That Christ's human nature does not subsist by itself but by the person of the word to which it is substantially united. If this were not true, it would not be true to say, the word was made flesh, died, and Redeem- ed us with his blood. Truly Preacher Brownlce's Rule must be extremely fallacious when it thus brings him into the company of Nestorius, and under the anathema of the primitive church ! The Rev. Preacher will pardon us for the lesson we are about to give him on this point. It is the same which all our children are taught, in order to guard them against the' awful blasphemy of the East- ern arch heretic. Q. Why do you pray with such devotion to the Virgin Mary? A. Because she is the Mother of Jesus our Redeemer. Q. Why do you give her such extraordinary honor ? 240 A. Because she is the Mother of God. Q. For what other reason do you honor her. A. She was honored by God, by men, and by angels. Q. How w^as she honored by God? A. When he made choice of her, to be Mother of his son. Q. How was she honored by Angels 7 A. When Gabriel the Archangel saluted her with " hail mary full of Grace." Luke, 1. 28. Q. How W' as she honored by men ? A. She was honored by St. Elizabeth saying, " Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. (Luke 1, 42.) and, until '-the dregs of our times," she has been honored fey "all generations." Q. Why does the Church call her the Mother of God ? A. Because she is the Mother of Christ, true God, and true man, and truly born of her. Yet when we call her Mother of God, we do not say that she is the Mother of the Divinity, but of the WORD MADE FLESH GOD AND MAN IN THE SAME PERSON. This is what Preacher Brownlee calls, " revolting blasphemy !" Pity this APT and inspired pupil of the Holy Ghost, did not live in the year 43 L The Fathers of the Council of Ephesus, under his guidance, would never have defined that the Virgin Mary is the Mother of God, and St. Cyril of Alexandria would not have written his Ana- thematism. We suspect that the Rev. Preacher, is a member of the board of missions. If so, his Nestorianism will be of service to those who are sent to Persia. It is a fact, that since the conquest of the Persian Monarchy by the Mahometans in the 7th century, the Nestorians were better treated than the Catholics, for the Nesto- rians spoke of Jesus Christ in the same way that the Alcoran does of Mahomet. Assemani Biblioth Orient. T. 34. * * * * When we are told that the Lutherans have resuscitated damned heresies out of hell " See Smidelin Epist. Col. Montisbel Anno. 1358; — and w^hen Stancarus in lib. de Trint. Crac. 1562, says, that " the Calvimsts allow for their CathoHc faith, the heresies of the Arians, Entrictarians, Appollonarists Timotheans, Acephahsts, Theodosians, and Macarines;" and when the Doctor's "honest John Wesley" writes in the minutes ol Conver-sations between the Rev. Messrs. John and Charles Wesley, 6z:c. June 25th, 1771, that, " when satan could no othcTiwise hinder this, (the raising up of a holy people,) he threw calvinism in thtir way ;" and when we ourselves see Preacher Bwvnlee renewing the blasphemies of Nestorius, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, we shudder, and turn with affectionate reverence, to that Holy Mother, who has never sported with divine truth, and who stands like an Appenine, firm, and sublime in the light of Heaven. We are. Yours, &c JOHN POWER. May 2Sth, 1833. THOMAS C. LEVINS. !241 Hr. Brownlce^s JLetter, .^Vi, 9. To DRS. POWER, VARELA, & LEVINS. "There is nwhingbut roguery in villainous men.''— Shakspeare. Gentlemen: — Your last letter clearly reveals what the religious public had long suspected, — and what you have been all along, anxious to conceal: namely, the deep conviction en the part of the Romish Priests, that the peculiar dogmas and ceremonies of their Church, cannot sustain the bold inspection of the American community. And hence every thing is to be hazarded, — every thing, even truth itself sacrificed, to prevent your antagonist from going forward into "the Chambers of imagery" of Holy Mother ! I did conjecture, gentlemen, that you would not dare to follow me in the fnvestigation of your christiano-pagan system of Popery. But, now% in your last letter, you have settled the question. You will not follow me; you will not leave the Rule ; it is more easy to retail the scandal of infidels and Priests against God's holy word, than to enter into the arena and defend the new edition of Roman paganism ! You have not the moral courage to standby and assist at the stripping of the apocalyptic ^'jMotfier of Harlots.^^ You dare not stand forward and defend her nameless abomina- tions, before the enlightened American public ! For me, — I mean to go forward: five hundred thousand American Christians have condescended to cheer me on. And ''so may God do to me and more also," if, by the grace of God, I do not tear that veil oflf from her haggard face; and show her abominations to the whole house of God in this land! In yoiu' last letter, you have played off wdth increasing malig- nity, and more fullness of purpose, than usual, your infidel opposi- tion to the holy Word of God. You repeat, as if new, that which you know to be refuted logically, again and again. You repeat, for the twelfth time, your malignant opposition to the Word of the Most High, which is the Protestant's ojily Rule of Faith. You repeat that the Bible is not the Rule, and the Spirit of God is not the Judge, because the Bible and the Spirit cannot prove them- selves! And this you assert in the face of the full and manifest evidence to the contrary which we set before you : from external evidence, which establishes the authenticity and genuineness of the Bible; and from internal evidence, namely, their divine sublimity, divine purity, divine harmony, and divine powder and efficacy in convincing and converting sinners : — all which proves its divine origin. Those who disbelieve this Holy word of God are worse than the devils. For, saith St. James, ''the devils also believe and tremble:' James ii. 19. It is a fearful distinction to be worse than the worst of spiritual beings! ! No. 16—31 242 There is nothing in all your renewed crusade against God^s Word which requires me to pause to refute. Your last idea has long ago been exhausted ! The virulence and vituperation only, are put forth with new force. As if determined that nothing shall, on your part, be wanting to consummate the evidence set before the public, in proof of your unblushing Deism, you are zealously filling it up, even to overflowing! And you seem now even to glory in wearing the name stampt and branded on your fore- head, as the representatives of Popery, — "xms is the father and PRINCE OF DEISM !" It is truc, you affect, sincerely to believe in the Scriptures, even while you assail them fiercely. I do not doubt it: this is intended merely for effect. Can you, or any one be so ignorant as not to know that even David Hume always spoke respectfully of — to use his own words — ''Our Holy Religion,'' even while uttering his bitter hostility to it? And even Lord Herbert, the father of "the English Deists," and also Lord Bolingbroke always professed as sincerely as you, to reverence the Scriptures! Herbert even received a revelation from heaven to pubHsh his book against divine Revelation! Great enemies of God's cause have always been greatly inconsistent ! If you, gentlemen, choose to continue your Deistical career, I shall beg leave, through you, to say to the public, that they will find all that the Roman Priests say, already printed in Mumford and Milner: and on the other side, they can find a full refutation of every one of their Hume and Voltaire objections in Home's Introduction to the New Testament. He has refuted every single objection that Deism has hitherto conceived ; and the intellect of our Priests, which hates to leave the beaten path of old ''Mumford and Milner,''' is not keen enough to devise any thing new against the Holy Scriptures ! Your defence of atrocious blasphemy, of calHng "Mary the Mother of God," is unique. Mother of the infinite God! dust and ashes, Mother of the eternal and almighty God! Siji?iite woman Mother of the infinite Deity! According to this, then, when God was born 1800 years ago, then there was no God before that! This is a phrase which — I speak it gravely — none but the Devil, the great enemy of God, could ever have invented! Besides, do you not see that you confound the two natures in the one person of Christ? If God was born of Mary, then is the Deity a human nature; and the human nature of Christ is nothing else than the essence of the Deity ! You know what monstrous heresy this was ! But this shall come in my way, when I reach the Idolatry of the Romish Church. I now go on. In my last Letter, I showed that Catholicity is YOUNGER THAN CHRISTIANITY; AND THAT PoPERY IS A NOVELTY IN THE Christian world. The evidence I adduced, rests on historical 243 documents, which furnish us the dates of your pecuhar doctrinesf and rites, beyond Roman gain-saying. We have, by these his- torical documents, and quotations from the Fathers, fixed the birth-day of the existence of ten of the Roman CathoHc peculi- arities. And we call on the Priests, in the face of the American community, to point out one single error in these dates; and re- fute, if they can, the quotations of the fathers, which we have given. Let them follow us, if they have courage to defend their sinking cause ; and no longer make themselves ridiculous in lin- gering on the Rule, — after we have exhausted the defence of the true and only Rule : — and reduce to ruins their Roman rule, by ten arguments which they have not, to this hour ventured to touch. I now go on to show some few of the fatal results of the Roman Catholics"' apostatizing from the only Rule of Faith ; and the only Judge of Controversy. And the point which I have selected for discussion in this Letter, is this : — The peculiar doctrines, rites, and monkish institutions of Romanism, were originated m sheer FANATICISM, AND SUSTAINED BY IMPOSTURE. My sclections of Speci- mens and evidence, shall be rather miscellaneous in this Letter. 1st. Notwithstanding the command of the Deity to take good heed and make no manner of similitude, " for he saw," says the Almighty, " no similitude in the day that the Lord spake unto 3^ou in Horeb," the Roman Church declares in her Catechism, p. 360, that "to represent the persons of the Holy Trinity, by certain forms, under which, as we read in the Old and New Testaments, they designed to appear, is not to be deemed contrary to religion, or the law of God." Hence, in the engravings found in sonie editions of the Breviary, and in pictures on the stained glass in Cathedrals, God the father is figured out as an old venerable maw; on his right stands Christ, as a pretty young man; above is the Holy Ghost in the shape of a dove ! Near by, stands " the Mother of God !" 2. In the distribution of work and offices assigned to the vast host of saints, much fanaticism is displayed. They have at least two St. Anthonies. He of Padua delivers his votaries from wa- ter:— He who is surnamed the Abbot, delivers from fire ! St. Nicholas is invoked by young persons who wished to be married. St. Rumon protects good ladies who are "in that condition in which all wish to be who love their lords." And the saint Lazaro assists them in labour ! Si. Domingo cures fevers : St. Apollonia takes care of the teeth ; and she must be invoked with prayer and incense, by those who have tooth-ache! Then St. Lucia heals all diseases of the eyes ; St. Petronilla cures the ague; St. Liberius the stone : and St. Blass all the diseases of the throat! St. Barbara is invoked as the refuge in war, and in thunder storms: and St. Roque shields the humble faithful against the plague. Each 244 kingdom of Europe has its own Saint ; other Saints are more menial : — One Saint presides over hogs ; another over geese ! See Cramp, p. 332 ; and Townsend's Trav. in Spain, p. 215 vol. iii. 3d. In the canonizing of Saints, and thence adding to the ob- jects of divine worship, and veneration, we perceive a fruitful dis- play of fanaticism. This, like the usual peculiarities of Catholic Rome, is borrowed from Pagan Rome. The Pagan Priests to sustain their credit, now and then proclaimed that certain great characters, great in war, vice, and sensuaUty, had been honored in heaven and placed among the gods ; and the pagan canoniza- tion took place accordingly. Even the modest and virtuous Vir- gil deified Augustus ; and gravely asked him, while yet ahve, in what part of heaven, he chose after death, to shine ! The case of King Romulus is an apt illustration of modern Roman canon- ization. There must be a miracle, or a vision at least. Well, Proculus appeared before the Roman Senate, and declared that Romulus had revealed himself to him, in a vision, and told him that he was received up among the gods ! See Plutarch, Vit. Rom. Halicar, Lib. 2. p. 124.^ In modern Rome, miracles are required in evidence of Saint- ship ; and there is actually an office m Rome, where the congrega- tion of Rites sit; and receive the accounts of new miracles, judge, and decide daily. Even the Goliath Dr. Milner, in Letter 24, p. 92, gives us some precious morsels on this. On these miracles being established, a new Saint, and object of worship, is set up be- fore the simple faithful. 'Almost every Pope has added some. Ben- edict VII. added eight in one summer. Clement XII. four more ; Others one, others four. But, like all the other "golde?i^* rites of Holy Mother, it costs an immense sum to get into the ghostly calendar, and be a god! This is one way by which St. Peter's purse is replenished, when it gets low! I shall adduce a specimen of a miracle confirming the ghostly honor. The idol of Pazzi, Italy,— namely, St. Mary Magdalene, received canonization for this among many other marvellous things. When the Virgin's body after death was exposed in church, a young man of profligate inorals came among others to see it, touch it, and venerate it. On his approach, the dead body grave- ly, and in disgust, turned round its hfiad from him, as from "a hor- ror of that dunghill!" ^ This was witnessed and testified to, by no less than one Jesuit Priest! Another evidence of an infalHble na- ture, and which is sure to gain the ghostly honor, is this ;— the bones and dust of Saints, in their graves emit a sweet and deli- cious odour ! This is " the odour of sanctity." I find in this same bull of the Pope which canonized this idol of Pazzi, that this is affirmed of this "Virgin Magdalene." It begins, "not without 245 good reason with that incorruption and good odour of her body which continues to this day, &c." At Blois, in France, when the chest of relics, kept in thejxirish of St. Victor, was opened, the monk of St. Lomer, cried out that ho felt a very surct odour ; and others seized with the exemplary infection, said they felt the sweet smell of roses and the jessamine from the dead Saint's bones ! See vol. i. p. 8. 10, Frauds of Roman monks and priests : Prot i. 373 Glasg. edit. In the absence of these Saints, — Holy Mother Church lias care- fully collected innumerable specimens of their relics; which are venerated and bowed down to. Indeed a Roman chapel is not considered duly consecrated without relics. The followino- are a few of the holy and venerated relics to St. Peter's, Rome : name- ly: — The cross of the good thief : St. Joseph's ax and saw: St. Anthony's Mill sto?ie, on which he sailed into Muscovy. In other churches in Europe, they have a little specimen of the manna of the wilderness ; a comb of the Virgin Mary ; an arm of St. Laza- rus; a finger and an arm of St. Ann, the Virgin's Mother; St. Patrick's staff, by which he expelled the toads from Ireland : and what is very appropriate, — a piece of the rope with w^hich Judas hanged himself j a vial of the Virgin's Milk ; a vial of the breath of St. Joseph, caught by an angel, as he was blowing hard, when cleaving wood ! This rare relic was long adored in France piously carried to Venice, and lastly, deposited in Rome ! And', finally, the head of St Dennis, which he caught up and carried two miles under his arm, after it had been cutofi'I See Phil. Lib June 1818. Prot. vol. 2. p. 12. Glasg. edit. In furnishing the relIcs of Saint's bones, whole church yards and cemeteries have been ransacked ; and sold to the simple faith- ful, for objects of adoration and idols ! Chips of the cross are in all monasteries, and chapels. Could these fragments be collected they would prove that the cross must have been large enough to build our United States Navy ! in many churches there is a head of John the Baptist. " How thankful I am," said a dio-nita- ry of the Roman Church, on being shown a Baptist head ; "This is the fourth head of John, which I have seen in France !" And Dr. McCulloch tells us, that some years ago, five pilgrims arrived in Rome with relics from the Holy Land: and it was discovered that each of them had a foot of the Ass which carried our Lord into Jerusalem ! 4th. In the grave pretensions of the Romish Church to miracu- lous powers, there is a singular exhibition of fanaticism. You are aware, gentlemen, that you lay unblushing claims to miracles. " The Catholic Church," — says Dr. Milner, Let. 23, p. 87 &c,* " being always the chaste spouse of Christ"— Mirabile dictu .'—and "continuing to bring forth children of heroical sanctity, God fails 246 not in this, any more than in past ages, to illustrate her and them, hy unquestionable miracles !" And he proceeds to give rare spe- cimens. A nun foretold the catastrophe of Louis XVI. A certain Benedict Labre prophesied, and wrought miracles ; and convert- ed an American clergyman called Thayer. In 1814, a man who had got his back bone actually broken, was made whole by mak- ing a pilgrimage to Garswood, near Wigan, Old England ; and there getting the sign of the Cross made on his back, by the holy relic of Arrowsmith's hand — a holy priest who was killed in the days of Charles I. This is a small affair compared to more an- cient ones. St. Patrick is said to have sailed over to Ireland on a millstone; a feat as clever as that of St. Anthony's! St. Dennis, we have seen, carried his own head two miles after it was cut off! " St. Francis of Salens," says Butler in his lives of the saints [i. 168 &c.] "raised the dead; cured the palsy, and the blind." St. Francis of Paula, raised from the dead a young man and restor- ed him to his mother. [Butler i. 361.] St. Francis, the founder of the Franciscans, was favored with visions, and revelations of an apostoHc grandeur. He predicted nothing less than his own death: and did many miracles by his intercession, after his death. Butler and St. Bonaventure affirm this, but give no evidence ; and toil us not how they knew his miracles after his death ! Moreo- ver, he had a vision of a seraph with six wdngs : this presented to his view the visible crucified body of Christ. And the effect oC this was, that the said seraph " caused the soul of St. Francis to be interiorly inflamed with seraphic ardor : and his body to have and to retain the similar wounds of Christ." " His hands and feet were pierced through; and the holes seemed to retain the round black headed nails of hard flesh in his palms and in his feet ! And their long points on the other side, were turned back, as if clenched with a hammer ! And in his left side there was a red wound as if made by a lance. Pope Alexander IV. had the felicity of wit- nessing all these ; and to give currency and stability to these miraculous and ingenious scratchings, his Holiness preached a serm.on on the solemn occasion ! And the simple faithful believe this in preference to the only rule of faith ; and worship St. Francis of Assissium, as another Saviour! St. Wenefride was a noble lady of Wales. Being a nun, she could not yield to the suit of Caradoc the young prince. Being enraged at this, he pursued her, and wdth a cruel blow cut off her head. Tliis originated three splendid miracles, which taken to- gether, are greater than any recorded in the Holy Bible ! In the 1st place, St. Beuno interfered and settled the career of the young villain ! He made the earth open under his feet, and, Korah-like, he was sunk down into the bowels of the earth ! Then 2d, on the spot where the dead nun's head fell, a well opened, and pour- 247 ed its salutary streams; and that '' Holy well'* works niiracles, it is supposed, until this day ! Then 3d, St Beuno took up the nun's head, kissed it ; placed it on the bleeding stump ; covered it with his mantle: said mass: prayed to the Virgin Mary ! And, behold, St. WenelVide jumped up, j)crrcctly well; her head being on exact- ly as usual: and the evidence of the cure was perpetuated by the appearance of a tine circle like a thread, around her neck; — that being the place where the head and neck were nicely cemented together ! Apostles and pro})hets ! did ye ever any thing to match this ! ! ! See Butler's Lives, &c. St. David, I presume the king of Scotland, who builded so many chapels and cathedrals, once ordered St. Kired to come to a Synod on weighty business. The saint excused himself on account of his being latne and crooked. St. David immediately prayed him straight. But the old saint still lingering, the choleric St. David forthwith prayed him crooked and lame again, to teach him pro- per manners. St. Patrick in the Romish legends, receives credit and saintly homage for raising a boy from the dead, after he had been near- ly devoured by hogs I And on another occasion, he fed 14,000 people, with the flesh of one cow, two wild boars, and two stags ! And to crown the miracle, the simple faithful assure us that the cow was seen alive next day, in the pasture field! St. Xavier had a valuable consecrated crucifix. On a certain day, he dropped it overboard, into the sea. He was quite incon- solable. But, it came to pass that as he was walking on the shore in the land whither he had gone, to his astonishment and indis- cribable joy, he saw the very crucifix he had lost, moving towards him, on the waves! As he hastened down to the water's edge, behold! it was very reverently and devoutly laid down at his feet, by a crab, who had borne it through the deep, miraculously, to the feet of the holy Saint ! Dr. Milner, speakiilg of St. Xa- vier's miracles in general, says, that "they were verified soon after the saint's death, by virtue of a commission from John III. King of Portugal." See Letter 24, 6z:c. But as a writer has justly observed, it was no miracle of St. Xavier: the crab has the whole merit: and he recommends him to his Holiness' notice, to give him due honors, at his next diet of canonization! Palmam qui meruit, ferat ! The Roman Saints were particularly successful in their wrest- lings, and coups du mai?i with the devil and his demons. On one occasion, vSt. Phillip Ncrius, in 1555, saw a person near the baths of Diocletian; and as he seemed at one moment young, and the next moment old, the Saint, suspected it to be Satan at some trick. Whereupon he summoned him, "in the name of Christ to discover himself." And instantly the devil fled in great precipitation, 248 leaving a loathsome scent in the place ; the very reverse of the bones of the Saints. And hence he knew, says he, that it was Satan! See the Acta Sanct, Tom. 6. Antwerp edit, of 1688. Maii. 26. This is a famous Roman work. St. Francis was once sorely tempted by a devil in the form of a lovely young female — an appalHng object to a Priest! But, one evening, as he again assailed the Saint, "he spit in the devil's face." The Roman historians gravely add, — ^^being "confounded and disgracefully defeated, the devil fled !" Acta Sa?icL Supra, St. Andrew of Salus was once assailed by the devil, armed with an ax, and aided by several demons with clubs and lances. In their assault, the Saint invoked St. John the Apostle. Upon this John instantly appeared, in the form of an old man, and putting his back to the door, to prevent all egress, he ordered the holy ones who accompanied him, to chain down each of the devils, and with the chain taken from St. Andrew's neck, to scourge them thoroughly. This was done to so effectual a purpose, that the devils cried out "Mercy! mercy! mercy!" And the holy St* Andrew, it is added, by our Roman historians, could not restrain himself from bursting into laughter, — "risu correptus est," — at the complete belabouring given to these unruly fiends; and at their wild screams! See Acta Sancta Tom. 6. Maii. 28. St. Dominic, while sitting in his dormitory writing by candle light, was assailed by the devil in the form of a monkey, strutting, and making grimaces before him I On this, the Saint ordered him to come forthwith, and hold his candle, which, without a candleslick, the crafty Saint put it into the demon's hand. Pre- sently the candle being burned out, the devil's fingers began to be burned: and he wailed and howled ! Nothing moved by this, the Saint ordered^him to hold on! And the devil was compelled to hold the burning flame, until his forefinger was actually consumed unto the joint; "usque ad juncturam manus, totus crematus est!" And to complete the victory, this holy founder of the Dominicans, gave the devil a smart blow with his walking cane, and said, "De- part, thou wicked one!" The blow sounded as if he had struck a dry bladder full of wind. "Upon this the devil fled, leaving a stench behind, which plainly discovered who this creature was!" See Acta Amplior. St Dom. Augusti 14. Finch p. 419. This, you know, gentlemen, is a morselof your own sober history, here detailed. The fanaticism of the Roman writers is further displayed in the object for which they hold up these monstrous figments and dia- bolical rencontres. Hear their own words. "Truly this man (St. Dominic) is to be extolled among the angelic powers, who so powerfully confounds and reproves diabolical wickedness.'* Finally, not only have men but even staxxjes and images wrought 249 miraculous wonders. So late as 1796, ''official memoirs," relative to "miraculous events," were published and signed, and authenti- cated by Dr. Bray, Archbishop of Cashel, and Dr. Troy, Arch- bishop of Dublin, and twelve other dignitaries of the Romish Church of Ireland. In these ''Memoirs" it is stated that in May, 1790, at Toriccllo, a torrent of tears ran down from the eyes of a icoodcn llrgin Mary ! And such a perspiration flowed from her as to wet the clothes, ^^applied hi/ thefaithfiiiy Mem. p. 217. On July 9, 1790, a picture called jDe//c Muratlc, was observed to move its eyes in a miraculous manner. The circular move- ment of the eyes continued for many months ! The result of this was the procuring of many gifts, large sums of money, &c. for the Virgin; and a marvellous excitement took place ; and nothing but prayers and vows to holy Mary was heard ! Immense crowds of devotees were constantly before the painting; and altars were everywhere erected to the Virgin; and a prodigious impulse given by this lying wonder, to the Romish devotion! See Off. Memoirs, p. 35, and Finch p. 280, 281. 5th. Doctrinal sentiments and rites have been defined and set- tled by visions and revelations, in the Roman Church. The ori- ginal followers of St. Francis were frightful fanatics. The holy mission of this Saint being estabHshed by his miracles, his three holy wounds, canonization, and the miracles achieved, after death, by his intercession, his followers were prepared to receive him, as a second Jesus. In a book called The Jlozcers of St. Francis, it is written, "that those only were saved by the blood of Christ, who lived before St. Francis ; but all that followed, were redeemed by the blood of St. Francis T (See Eymericus, and Wolfii il. Lect. Memor. cent. 13. See also Bishop Stillingfleet, on the Idol and Fanat. of the Rom. Church, p. 286.) And the votaries of this man, the Franciscans, in the words of Petrus Johannes, made the Rule of St. Francis equal, — nay to be the very same as that of the gospel of Christ ! The doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin, long distracted the Holy Mother Church. The Franciscans held that she was born as pure as an angel ; and I find that father Dr. Power holds this, and teaches it in his manual. On the contrary, the Dominicans utterly denied it. Who was to settle this? Deo dig- nus vindice nodus ! The Holy Bible says nothing of her immacu- late purity. Besides, the "Holy Mother Church" denies the Word of God to be her only Rule. Anselm produces the evidence of an apparition in a storm (a very fit season!) to some Abbot; this vision announced the Virgin's purity, and admonished all good men to keep the feast of the conception. One Nerbertus had another vision, — no less than the Holy Virgin herself enforcing the same thing. St. Gertrude also had revelations to the same purport: 32 250 then St. Bridget brings not a few, but many revelations to the same purport ; and lastly Johanna a Cruce. These were solemnly declared by the Doctors to be such "that no man can reject them unless they intend to be as, great heretics as Erasmus!" the Ca- thoHc Erasmus ! Eheu ! But unfortunately, fanaticism stops not always on the right side ; that is to say — your side, gentlemen, who believe in "the immacu- late conception." For, while Baronius gives us the above details, Antonius and Cajetan assure us that St. Catharine had a holy vision and revelation ; and it was told her from high and holy heaven, that the Virgin was conceived in original sin like other people ! Great names condemned St. Bridget's visions. Cajetan, for instance, calls them old wives's fables and dreams. — Sit fas loqui! — But she was approved by doctors, and cardinals; and her holy visions and revelations declared to be divine, by Pope Boni- face IX., who accordingly, enrolled her among the saints, and other idols worshipped in your Church ! But after all, "Holy Mother Church" gives each of them fair play, as Bishop Stilling- fleet justly observes. She approves the revelations of both ! Pronounces the authors of the contradictory revelations both equally inspired by God ! And in the R. Breviary, 8th of October, you worship St. Bridget; and in your prayers to her, "confess these revelations to have come immediately from God to her." And in one of the lessons for that day, you devoutly "magnify the multitude of her divine revelations." And in the R. Breviary, April 30, you magnify the saintess who opposed the immaculate conception, as much as its heroine. St. Catharine's "holy ex- tacies" are glorified in the Lesson for the day; and you adore piously "the five rays coming from the five wounds of Christ, making five miraculous marks on the correspondent parts of her sacred body, namely, hands, feet, and side ! Dr. Power yields his solemn faith to St. Bridget: Pray to whom do Mr. Levins and Dr. Varela yield the simple faith of their pious souls? 6th. The great Monkish Orders have been founded by fanatics ; in their raving fanaticism. First, the Carthusians were founded by St. Bruno : he was guided to the spot where he found his mo- nastery, by a vision of seven stars vouchsafed to his coadjutor, St. Hugo. "Many miracles after his death," says Butler,— "attested his sanctity, and favor with God." Lives of the Saints iL 459, &c. The manner ot St. Bruno's conversion, as narrated by no less than sixty Catholic writers, indicates that he commenc- ed his career in fanaticism. He was standing by when the fune- ral service was being said over a Priest; when the dead man started up, and said, "by the just judgment of God I am damned!" Having said this he instantly died again. By this was St. Bruno converted! — Launoy, c. 5, 251 Second. The Benedictines were founded by St. Benedict. This Roman worthy was favored with an incredible variety of visions and revelations. He predicted marvellous events and wrought many miracles. The thorns and brambles on which he rolled, in order to expel lusts, — grew up, and had the honor of having St. Francis to engraft roses on them ; which always bloomed in win- ter. When a boy lell into the river, he foresaw it, while in his cave; sent his servant, who walked on the water some distance, and juillcd the boy out ' When some wicked persons brought him poisoned drink, he made the sign of the cross over it ; and the vessel burst into a thousand pieces! He was so sharp-sighted that he could see spirits ! He saw "the little black devil which led away a monk from prayers." I am soberly quoting your writer's own words, gentlemen. He saw his sister's soul enter heaven in the shape of a dove ! And that of the good bishop of Capua, in a fiery circle ! And finally, "he was rapt up into heaven, and saw God face to face!!!" See Butler, Bollandi Acta Sanct. Vit. Be- ned. Stilling, p. 263, &c. Third. The Dominicans were founded by St. Dominick, whose character, as an extravagant fanatic, we have already noticed. He had his first meeting with St. Francis at Rome ; and there he made known his modest and spiritual vision which he saw ; namely, '"that Christ was just coming to destroy the wicked world ; but his mother, the Virgin, stopped him; and informed him that she had two famous servants who were to reform the world; he himself was one whom the Lord approved as one who would do his work," &c. See Rainald, A. D. 1216. n. 48. Stilling, p. 273. Wolfius in his Lect. Memor. cent. 13, p. 509, tells us of two statues set up in St. Mark's Church of Venice; one of St. Paul, with this inscription, — "By him we go to Christ;" the other, a statue of St. Dominick, with this modest Catholic inscription, "By him we go easier to Christ!" This order was, in all respects, worthy of such a found- er; they were, as bishop Stillingfleet says, "the most blasphemous enthusiasts the world ever saw." Fourth. The Franciscans were founded by the companion of this fanatic; and was personally xnoYe of a fanatic than St. Domi- nick. St. Bonaventure declared on oath that Christ revealed it to him that by "the Angel's ascending out of the east, having the seal of the living God," St. John meant no other than St. Fraticis! And this is the motto under his picture; and is applied the same way by Pope Leo X. St. Francis "had no teacher but Christ; and learned all by an immediate revelation." He also heard an instinctive voice issuing from a crucifix! Even the Pope had a revelation approving him, after he had been disposed to reject good St. Francis. This revelation satisfied his Holiness's mind; and he approved of the order of the Franciscans. See Bonavent, 252 Life of St. Francis, cap. 3, sect. 1—7. Stilling, p. 272. St. Brid- get had a holy vision of him -: namely, that the "Franciscan Rule was not composed by the wisdom of men, but by God himself; nay, that every word in it, was inspired by the Holy Ghost" "And this," says this holy Roman prophetess, "is the case with all the religious orders." See Bridgittas Revel. L. 7, Cap. 20, p. 559, col. 1 ; Still, p. 273. Fifth. The Carmelites Launoy in his book "De Vis. Sim. Stockii, cap. 1," declares that Simon Stockius had a holy vision of the Virgin Mary, in which she imparts to him what was befitting respecting the branch of Mendicants called Carmelites. And such was the marvellous condescension of the Virgin Mary, that upon Simon's devout prayers to her, she appeared to him with the very habit and fashion of dress which she would have them wear. And what crowns the whole with a peculiar glory, she gave, says Launoy, a promise greater than any that her son Christ had ever given; namely, "that whosoever died in that HABIT SHOULD NOT PERISH IN HELL !" Prccious garment! Sixth. Even Jansenists had recourse to an attempt at the mira- culous: but they only met with a prompt exposure, and a sad overthrow. See Mosheim, V. 209, 10. Glasg. Ed. Sixth ; Jesuitism was founded and organized by a fanatic not surpassed by Mahomed or St. Francis. This was Ignatius Loyola. He had been a soldier, and was lamed in battle. He was most illiterate. But this did not stand in the way of visions and revelations. I shall copy a few specimens from the Roman Catho- lic authors Maffeius, Ribadeneira, and Orlandinus. St. Peter, says these writers, " appeared unto him before he was so far re- covered as to be able to read." In a fit of zeal he made a solemn vow to himself to be a knight of the Virgin. He made this vow on his knees before her image. At that moment the room shook; the window glasses were broken ; and a dreadful noise took place. " An argument," says Orlandino, " that the devil then took leave of him." A point ol very questionable uncertainty. It is more likely that the said personage was making an ingress, rather than an egress at this moment; if we may judge from the future horrid convulsions of all Europe, by his pious followers the Jesuits ! Some time after this, the Virgin appeared with great glory about hei', and her babe in her lap ! What Virgin — by the way, — could this be ? And what babe ? Could the man, insane as he was, mean the glorified Redeemer, Jesus Christ ? Ignatius was now fully clothed on a model given by a divine trance. He had a long coat of hair cloth, a bag of water in the one hand, a crab tree staflf in the other ; he was girded with an iron girdle, bare headed, with a wicker shoe on the one foot, the other bare. He had a vision of Jesus Christ, and wonderful communications. At another time he had " a vision of the blessed Trinitv, under a 253 corporeal representation." In one trance he continued eight days ; during which, — blessed vision for the benefit of mankind! he saw the frame and model of the society of Jesus, — says Orland. L. i. 28.^ In another trance he saw God the father commending St." Ignati- us, (that is himself,) to his Son Jesus Christ ; who very kindly re- ceived him and said with a smile, " I will be favorable to thee at Rome !" Ribadencira was present at Rome when this was told in a domestic conterence of the grave fathers of Rome ; and he records it, with all suitable gravitv! See Butler's Lives of the Saints Art, St. Ignat. vol. ii. p. 262 Dubl. edit. Seventh : The leading ceremonies and rites of Romanism are founded in sheer fanaticism. That is to say, these gradually crept in by designing men, as we showed in Letter VIII; but they were finally established in the faith of the " simple believers," by visions and miraculous displays. For instance : 1st. The making the sign of the Cross is a grand characteristic of Popery. Miracles have followed this making the sign of the CROSS. We have seen already that a saint discovered poisoned drink by making the mystic sign over the vessel ; and the poison- ed cup flew into a thousand fragments! " St. Walthen was haunted at prayers by the devil, first, in the shape of a mouse," — I am quoting gravely, gentlemen, from your Acta Sanct. 3. Aug. Tom. i. — " then in the form of a pig, a barking dog, then a wolf, and lastly, of a roaring long horned bull !" But upon his making the sign of the cross, all comfortably vanished in a trice ! See Finch p. 415. 2dly. Purgatory was a doctrine hard to be established; it cost many a vision, and dream, and fanatical reve- lation. Witness St. Gregory's revelation, deUvering the soul of Trajan from the fires thereof! St. Benedict saw the soul of Ger- manus, escape out of it, and reach heaven ! St. Ignatius saw the soul of Hosias one of the Jesuits, escape and get to glory ! See Maff: Lib. 1. cap. 12. Still, p. 323. St. Bridget had a revelation to the same purport with that of St. Gregory : as certified by Sal- mer, Disp. 27, and Baron. Annal. 604. N 59. St. Mathildis also was successful this way. See Bellarm. De Purgat. 1. 2, cap. 8. Stilling. 251. 3rdly. Bellarmine in a very gallant manner proves Auricular Confession, by a certain vision of a tall and terribly fierce man, with a book in his hand, who blotted out, instantly, all the sins which the humble thief confessed to the Priest, upon his knees. Bell. De Poenit. 1. 3. cap. 12. Stilling, p. 252. 4thly. It will puzzle any of our Priests to name one saint, or saintess who has been beatified and canonized without the evidence of an ap- propriation, or a vision, or a revelation, or a miracle, suflicient to satisfy his Holiness's conscience, in conferring the ghostly honor ! In proof of this, just let any one turn up Butler's Lives of the Saints; and he will see on almost every page, the rank evidence of what we now^ assert. 5th. The feast of the apparition of the 254 ArcHan-gel Michael is constantly observed at Rome with extra- ordinary Roman devotion. This was originated and established to the " simple faithful" by a revelation vouchsafed to the Bishop of Siponto, and a vision seen at the same time, by a few drovers, on the mountain Garganus. See Legat. De Concep. V. Mar. sect 3. p. 371. Still, p. 353; 256, Rom. Brev. May 8. 6th. The long and troublesome controversy touching Easter Day was conveni- ently and quietly settled, in the Roman Church, by a revelation kindljr granted by some invisible agent, or other, to Hermes. See Legat De concept. &c. ut supra. 7th. The festival of Corpus Christi, was instituted by Pope Urban IV. in order to confound all gainsayers against Transubstantiation and the Mass, This famous festival was originated by a revelation granted by some being, or other, to Mother JuHana of immortal memory with you, gentlemen. This same Mother Juliana was no common crone. I shall quote from your writer Bzovius Annal. Tom. 13. Anno. 1230. No. 16. and Still, p. 254. " She had raptures, extacies, and prophecies." She was so sharp at discerning things invisible, that she knew people's thoughts: " She wrestled with devils, dis- coursed with Apostles, and wrought many miracles." In all her visions she always saw the full moon, " with a snip taken from her roundness." For twenty years she wrested with the invisible powers, with all the characteristic curiosity of a female, to discov- er what this same " snip" could possibly typify I This vision she revealed to De Lausanna, who told it to De Trecis, who was afterwards Pope Urban IV. All could not discover what this " snip" on the moon's circular edge indicated. It was something involving the interests of " Holy Mother Church." Of this Mother Juliana was most sure : but still what that was, she could not read from her mystic lore. But two prophetesses can make marvel- lous discoveries. Mother Isabella came, apropos, to her aid. She had a vision. And say Diestemius, and Binius, " this Isabella was so much intoxicated by her vision, that, out of the abundance of her spiritual drunkenness" (these are the Roman writer's own words,) " she declared that she would promote the Holy Feast, although the whole world should oppose her." This same feast of Corpus Christi, and solemn procession of the " Bread made God," through the streets with " devout ruffians" in front, with carbines, to knock down all who refused to worship the new breaden God, — the Creator, created by the Priest, in the Mass, — this same feast was Mother Juhana's •' snip," in the edge of the moon ! This holy festival being instituted, the moon was hence- forth round as a perfect circle, and all is complete. Such is the edifying origin of Corpus Christi ! How much you owe to Mother Juhana, and to the simple devotion of Urban IV ! ! ! In addition 255 to Bzovius, see Diestemius, Arnoldus Boslius, Petr. Proemonstra- tensis, Vignier, and Molanus. Also Still, p. 256, 257. Lastly ; indulge me in one instance more. Your sanctum sanctorum, and unmatched peculiarity of the Mass was established on fanatical revelations! This precious morsel of fanaticism, shall claim our attention in due time. At present 1 allude to the wild lanaticism by which it was established, gradually, in the be- lief of the *' simple faithful." This corner stone of Popery had a prodigious variety of revelations and miracles to establish it. I shall select an instance or two. Bellarmine (De Sacr. Euchar. Lib. 3. Chap. 8,) narrates sev-er- al miracles: in one instance, says he, instead of bread, real flesh was seen ! that is to say, the loaf, or wafers, were converted not invisibly, as now a days, by half a miracle with you, but visibly, and really, and solidly, and truly, — into llesh! He does not say whether human or bestial flesh ! In another instance, now a day, says he, instead of the wafer, Christ was seen, bona fide, " in the form of a child !" But why a child, it is impossible for us heretics even to conjecture. Roman priests only can tell ! But all these are comparatively trivial aflairs to'the devotion and faith of a heretic's horse ! Miserable heretics are all Protes- tants, when even a horse bows down and adores the breaden God! I quote this from no less a man than your own Bellarmine, who solemnly relates it as sober history in his book De Sac. Euchar. Lib. 3 cap. 8. St. Anthony of Padua had once an encoun- ter with a heretic, an Albigensian, touching the change of the wafer into Christ's flesh. '• I have a horse," says the heretic, — " to whom I shall give nothing for three days. On the third day do you come with the Host ; and I shall come with the horse. I shall pour out some corn to him; but if he forsake his corn, and go and venerate the Host, then shall I believe! On the day ap- pointed all the parties came; and St. Anthony in a truly saint-like manner, addressed a suitable and eloquent word of exhortation to the horse. " In the virtue, and in the name of thy Creator, whom I truly hold in my hand," says he, — "I command and enjoin thee, O horse, to come, and with humility revere him !" " No sooner were the words uttered," says the grave Bellarmine, — " than the horse un- mindful of his corn, hastens towards the Host, in the [)riest's hand ; inclining his head, and devoutly kneeling on his forefeet, he adored his Lord in the best manner he could, and confuted the lieretic!" [See also Finch p. 343.] This assuredly crowns the loftiest climax of all fan^^ticism ! A priest creating his Creator out of bread ! A horse sensibly and devoutly bowing down and worshipping his Creator ! And what is more amazing than all, — a priest, — a rational beino:, believing all this ! ! I am. Gentleman, yours, &c. W. C. BROWNLEE, Colleg. Min.of the Middle andN. Dutch Churches, June 4, 1833. 256 Reply of 13r, l^ower and Jfir, Mjevins^ TO DR. BROWNLEE. No. 9. As clouds and wind when no rain foUoweth, so is a man that, boasteth, and does not fufii his promises. Prov. xxv. — 14. 't»^:, * Rev. Sir, — In this world of cares and anxieties, collisions and strifes, there are incidents and occurrences to be encountered, in which the temper of poor humanity will be severely tried, — there are happenings in which the stability of earthly philosophy will be proved, — there are trials where courage, like gold in the cruci- ble, will be assayed. To escape every encounter and shock which test human disposition is not the privilege of mortals, — under some form or other they must be met. But, while some sink in the struggle, and betray those infirmities which are never visited by compassion, others will rise superior to the most ill omened diffi- culties, and ascend to victory, even under circumstances, where the best cast judgment had prophecied defeat. On flood and in field, there are so many fortuitous accidents, that the chances of ultimate success are seldom within the pow- er of positive calculation; and, hence, defeat does not bring in its train those corroding reflections which eat into the mind and dis- temper its feelings. Ingenuity will devise its excuses, — it will fight its battles over again, and trace the causes of failure to some extraneous or hidden cross purpose that should not have interfer- ed with the final accomplishment of the undertaking ; — and repos- ing on this consoling plea, the mortifications of temper arising out of non-success are mitigated, their bitterness daily mellowed, and finally forgotten. Not thus, however, in the matters of mental collision. Here defeat is followed by the worm that never dies. Here the mind is embittered, — the venom of hatred is blended with every thought against him who has been victor. The heart-blood darkens and curdles, — it mantles in the face or recoils on the heart ; but, the controling power to which its ebbs and flows are obedient, is not of earth or above the earth. In intellectual overthrow no excuse to steal the anguish from disgrace or the pang from dishonor can be sought. Every torture works in the fulness of its pain. It is mind against mind. The mind alone is the combatant, and to the mind, solely, is committed the guidance of the strife. The object of attack, open and unguised, is before its vision ; — it is expressed in plain words and sentences. There are no zig-zag ways of ap- proach, no trous de loup, no masked batteries, no subterranean mines to be sprung. If failure, if rout, be the result, the mind 257 alone, is in fault ; — and, hence, the bitterness and corrosive sul- lenness of temper generally displayed after discomfiture. The precedin^^ remarks, Rev. Preacher and *' Gcntlenum'' of the Middle Dutch Church, are not idle,— they are not im])roperly in- troduced. If pondered, if ajiplied to you, they will explain the acerbity of temper and recklessness of truth exhibited by you since the commencement of the present polemic discussion on your Rule of Faith. The application of these remarks we entrust to your '' Chistiuji public," to the members of the Middle Dutch Church, and to your "highly intelligent and virtuous ladies." As the rights of ''judge or jury" are denied to us, we commit what- ever is delicate in insinuation to the trust of your ''friends,^^ con- tenting ourselves with the plain and stubborn assertion — your de- feat is obvious,— it is now admitted by the most prejudiced among the elite of your fiock. It cannot be concealed. Your chagrin, therefore, is no mystery. It is read in every letter from your pen ; it is proclaimed in your invincible last to the Calvinistic community throughout this commonwealth, in words and asser- tions that need no interpreter. This motley, disjointed and chaotic letter, this farrago of spectral hobgoblins, how lucidly it illustrates the pecuUarities of your mind ! Raked from the old and moth eaten records of Calvinistic bigotry and slander, it revisits, hke the Ghost in Hamlet, " the glimpses of the moon ;" to frighten the children of the " five hundred thousand who cheer you on" and if you question it, -•' it starts like a guilty thing Upon di fearful summons." Yet you, its author, are a Doctor of Theology, a Ruler in Israel, a Preacher in the Middle Dutch Church ! You cannot prove your Protestant Rule of Faith, you cannot prove the Bible to be the Word of God ; but you can plunge into the dark abysses of hatred and calumny against Catholic creed, and return with the false tale, the obscene fiction, and the ribald jest, to strengthen hate and prejudice, where hate and prejudice are already unhal- lowed and gnarled. Truth, you pretend in your " challenge," was the object of your search, yet truth is never on your lips! You were supposed to be a theologian and logician, but the form of sound words is not found in your letters ! You write, but, then, like Richard, the bantling of your brain is " scarce half made up And that so lamely'and unfashionably, That dogs bark at it." Surely, Rev. Gentleman ^nd. Writer, the days of your ability have come before their time. But, still, charitable supposing that a ray of some intellect yet lingers in the twilight recesses of your mind, No. 17-1-33 258 xve ask you one question in seriousness, and await your answer. Do you believe the tales of which your last letter is formed, to be any portion of Catholic creed 1 Do you imagine Catholics will admit your malignant fictions, while they mock and reject the dreamy legends of the visionary among their own silly writers ? If you do, you are requested to translate for your " virtuous ladies" the following words from Cicero, — " Au tu censes ullam anum tam deliram futuram fuisse, ut illis somniis crederet ?" Cicer de Divin. Take away faith from the Bible, and are there not many narrations that reason will reject ? Our conviction of your discomfiture in the present polemic con- test, has already been expressed. The victory achieved excites no stirrings of vanity, for it has been too easily won. At an early period of the discussion, you were informed, after the manner of honest and intelligible compliment, such is our mode, that, had we CHALLENGED, you would uot liavc bccn the logician, theologian, and " Writer'^ selected. To every impartial and reflecting reader of our respective letters, it is evident, that, from the commence- ment, to use your own Scriptural metaphor, we "inserted the hook in your nose." This is not written in the way of boast. If your *' Christian public" could, for an instant, hesitate, the completion of evidence is had in your last letter. Your Rule of Faith, your " matter of infinite importance," is abandoned. Your theme now is farcical caricature of Catholic doctrine. Is this procedure worthy of a Preacher to the respectable congregation of the Middle Dutch Church 1 Is it worthy of a theologian who pro- fesses intimacy with the Institutes of the shrewd and subtle Calvin? Does it honor your card in defence of your " virtuoiis^^ Dulcinea& del Toboso ? All who have read your last will concede, without insulting their judgment, that from your high station — a Calvinis- tic Theologian — you have fallen. As a logician your name will be sacred as a pass-word to the realms of Bosetia, — and as a Preacher — the tear of pity flows, "Othello's occupation's gone!" Though some concession must be made to the irritability of a mind writhing under the torturing vexation of defeat, still, it could not have been imagined, that bitterness of spirit could so far ascend to mastery over discretion, as to cause forgetfulness of the station you occupy as a minister of religion, as a Ruler in Israel, as an interpreter of the " Hebrew and Greek of the Holy Ghost." Though unable to meet our arguments or prove your Rule of Faith, if reckless of your own character, you should have respected that of your "friends" and the community of the Middle Dutch Church to whom your services arc owing. The state of mind in which you wrote yoiu last letter is not easily imagined; it may, perhaps, though remotely, be conceived from the poetic language of Virgil 259 describing the unfortunate Dido when Eneas and his companions intended to leave Carthage, •* Ilia doloa dinimque nefas in pcctorc vcrsat ' Certii mori, varioque iraruin fluctuat ajstu.''- As comniisscration to tiie unfortunate, even to those who have been the authors of tlicir own mishaps, is natural to the human breast, there may be those among your "/WcW^," who deem our remarks on tlic general tenor of your letters severe. But this ten- der solicitude for your fallen state will be found to be misjilaced, if impartialitii will but consider your unprovoked " Challenge," your gross allusiops, foul insinuations, and ribald abuse of doc- trines, rites and ceremonies held sacred by Catholics. The pre- cepts of Christianity are never violated when strict justice is dis- pensed. In the distribution of justice we might have been more severe, more stern, and still, far within the limits of the Cliristian law. Must not the negro be painted black? When your " Chal- lenge' was accepted by us, you were advised to attend the "form of sound words." Has this been done ? No. Your interminal)le theme has been abuse and ribaldry against our creed,— not argu- ment. Were w^e directed by the rigid laws of justice, our remarks might have been extended from your writings to your character. Tlie induction is not difficult. An analysis of the one would easily guide to a detection of the other. With this, however, there shall be no critical interference. It is surrendered to your "Christian public" and your "rirfwoi^^ ladies." You have ambitioned the high elevation of" Writer'' to the Members of the Middle Dutch Church,™you have constituted yourself the guardian and defend- er oi their Rule of Faith, you impugn the Catholic religion, not by argument, but by dogmatic assertion, idle and foul declamation, and it is in the character of this professionship you are met by your opponents. If our observations on your letters do not, at all times, secure the approval of your friends, we shelter ourselves under the philosophic truth— it is not possible to please all. While there is diversity of taste, there will be discrepancy in judgment. If at times we are serious, there are moments when a lighter tone is indulged. For this indulgence we claim the protection of a great name— Dr. Johnson. Mark his words, Rev. Preacher, "The diversion of baiting an author has the sanction ot all ages and na- tions, and is more lawful than the sport of teasing other animals, because for the most part, he comes voluntary to the stake." You came voluntary to the stake. You proclaimed your " Challenge'' against the Catholic Bishop and Priests. Around this stake you may display your gambols : but should you attempt escape, there is a check string attached to the "hook in your nose," which will always warn you to keep within the legitimate circuit. Should 260 your demeanour, while restricted to this legitimate circuit, indi- cate attention to the " form of sound words," we shall respect you ; but should you incline to ribald abuse, gross insinuation, or exhi- bit a propensity for obscene actions and " virtuous ladies," the in- fliction of certain corrections must be administered. Then the " form of sound words" may be eUcited, and argument obtained.. Then possibly, you may utter a better defence of your Rule of Faith. Be this, however, as it may, there is authority for this cor- rectional process ; and the process you must revere, if guided by your Rule of Faith ; — Balaam's ass did not speak until he was well ' cudgelled. Again, Rev. Preacher, we must call the attention of your " Christian public" and the Members of the Middle Dutch Church to the palpable and serious deficiencies evident in your nine crude and chaotic letters. Your contradictions must also be briefly re- gistered. This done, we proceed to what was promised in our last letter — your " final judge of Controversies." To aid facility for future reference, they are registered under the following head- ing: — DEFICIENCIES, INCONSISTENCIES, and CONTRADICTIONS CONTAINED IN PREACHER BrOWNLEE's FIRST NINE LETTERS. He asserted that to "charge the Sciiptures with obscurity or deficiency, would be to bring a charge against the Holy Ghost." This obscurity is proved from his own words defining his own Rule of Faith. See our last letter, 2d column. Therefore, the Preacher contradicts himself; and, therefore, his Protestant Rule, because obscure, is an unsafe guide to a future world. This ob- scurity was also proved from texts of Scripture. Our argument has not been, and cannot be, refuted, "The Bible, alone" the Preacher says, "is the Rule of Faith of every Protestant." He believes, as an article of faith, the inspira^ tion of the Bible, but this inspiration cannot be proved from the Bible, therefore, he admits an article of faith not derived from the Bible ;— therefore, the Bible alone is not his only Rule of Faith; therefore, he contradicts himself; and, therefore, the Bible alone is not a sufficient guide to a future world. This has not been re- futed. Luther, directed by the "Holy Spirit speaking to us in the writ- ten Word of God, the Holy Scriptures," rejected the Epistle of St. James. Preacher Brownlee admits it. Is Luther right 1 Is the Preacher in error? Is Luther in error? Is the Preacher right ? No answer has yet been given to these queries. Why not ? The canonidty of the Epistle of St. James is an article of faith with Preacher Brownlee, it is not an article of faith with Luther, therefore, the " speaking" of the Preacher's Holy Spirit does not infallibly select all the articles of faith ; therefore, the 261 Preacher's Protestant Rule is deficient ; and, therefore, it is an unsafe guide to a future world. We "challenge" refutation. The Preacher says, " the Bihle contains the lohole religion ot the Protestant." But a divine religion cannot be derived from the Bible until the divine character of the Bible be established. This divine character cannot be established by the Preacher's Rule of Faith, for the Bible itself cannot establish its own inspiration. Thereto re, the Preacher, by his 0217? Rule of Faith, possesses no c?/r/;R' religion ; — therefore, having no divine religion, the Preach er is not a Christian, he is a deist or an infidel. Therefore, the Preachers Protestant Rule is an unsafe guide to a future world. We " challenge" refutation. The Preacher asserted that " not one sentence of inspired Scrip- ture is known to be lost." See his letter I\o. 3. St. Paul's epistle from Laodicea is lost: — see Colos. 4. c. 16 v. St. Paul wrote an epistle to ihe Corinthians which is lost, — see 1 Cor. 5. c. 9. v Who is the more veracious authority for the loss of Scripture, — St. Paul or Preacher Brow^nlee? Why has not the " Writer'^ to the Middle Dutch Church refuted St. Paul ? The Preacher asserted that Luther did not reject the epistle of St. James, — see his letter No. 3. His words were " / solemnly dejiy.''- He was referred to the original edition of Luther's works printed at Jene, to his work De cap Babylonica. Why has not the Preacher proved our reference false ? He cannot. The Preacher asserted we " misquoted honest John Wesley," see his letter No. 3. He was referred to honest John's works, 5th vol. printed by the Hai-pers in New York, year 1826. Why has not the Preacher proved our reference false ? He cannot. The Preacher insulted tradition by "treating it with the same respect as the koran of Mahommed!" see his letter No. 1. Yet he used tradition, and in hostilit)^ to the principles of his Rule of Faith, to prove the Bible to be the Word of God? Is this incon- sistency? Why will not the Preacher answer? The Preacher's expressed condition to admit the authority of the Fathers was founded on the production of a " genui?ie copy." see his letter No. 1. Yet, in the absence of this genuine copy, the authority of the fathers has been used by him to assist his views ! Is this inconsistency! Why will not the Preacher answer? The Preacher asserted while laboring to paliate the inconsisten- cy incurred by quoting the Fathers as " expositors of truth," that the " knavish monks, who corrupted many parts of them, did not succeed in corrupting all of them, or all parts of each of them," see his letter No. 8. He was asked " by what critical canon were the corrupted segregated from the genuine passages in the works of the fathers." Why does the Preacher's interior spirit mono- 262 polize this important secret ? Why will he not answer ? Is not this a serious deficiency ? The Preacher endeavored to prove the abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath from Scripture, see his letter No. 7. His inferences were shown to be false. Why has he not refuted our arguments T He ca7i7iot. Is not this — deficiency 1 The Preacher essayed to prove the Bible to be the Word of God, see his letter No. 5. His proof consisted of a series of assertions, no form of argument. His assertions were exhibited by us in the form of sixteen propositions, see our letter No. 5. One of those propositions has not yet been proved! Why not? Is not this a serious deficiency ? The Preacher in his vain efforts to prove the Bible to be the word of God asserted, — see his letter No. 6, that " he knew the Bi- ble to be the word of God from the external evidence of miracles wrought by the inspired Writers, and which were continued down to the time of St. Austin, who saw some wrought?" He was asked who was the inspired writer living and performing miracles down to the time of St. Austin? Why does he not answer? Is not this a deficiency in establishing his assertions ? The Preacher in his letter No. 8, thus writes, " again this mon- strous doctrine of the Mass, I can produce seventeen of your early and best fathers, from Ireneus to St. Augustine. It bega?i about the middle of the fifth century," &c. Ireneus lived in the seco7id century ; the Mass, writes the Erudite in the Hebrew and Greek of the Holy Ghost," began about the Middle of the fifth. How, then, could Ireneus be " againsC^ the Mass which had no existence during his life ? Will the Preacher solve this riddle ? It is a fe- licitous illustration of his '^ squi?iti?ig" vision. The Preacher has reaped the fruit of his irreligious invective against the Blessed Virgin, see our letter No. 8. The meed of merit has been conferred ; he has been convicted of Nestorian- ism. To his title of Preacher in the Middle Dutch Church, he says now append, professor of Nestorian heresy to the " virtuous ladies." Having registered a few — not all — of your inconsistencies, contradictions, and deficiencies, Rev. Preacher; having placed you on an eminence from which you cannot descend without peril, — having watched over the progress of your four months* toil, your nine letters, including the mighty last of deathless renown, — a production on which you may inscribe the words of Horace, — *'exegi MONUMENTUM sere perennius," — we proceed to your Judge of Controversies. From the Scriptures themselves it is not difficult to prove that they cannot be the Judge of Controversy. Common sense tells us, we must distinguish between the letter of the Scriptures, and 2G'3 the sense of the Scriptures. St. Paul, i^ Cor. iii. (>, marks this dis- tinction. " The letter," says the Apostle, "killeth, but the Spirit quickeneth," as though he had said, if you follow the true meaning and sense of Scripture, which is its soul and spirit, it will help you to salvation; but if you negle(^.t the true meaning and adhere only to the letter, and strive to make that the meaning, which the bare letter seems to import, you will fall certainly into error. That St. Austin understood the Apostle to have spoken in this sense, we know from Ser. 7 dc Temp. " Dearly beloved," says he, " I have often admonished you in charity, that, in the lessons which on these days are read in the Church, we ought not to attend only to that whicii w^e are taught by the bare letter, but that we must seek faitJifully (by taking away the veil of the letter) a true quick- ening spirit, for the Apostle says, 'the letter killeth but the Spirit quickeneth.' " Now% Rev. Sir, we say, that the Scriptures, if we regard the bare letter, cannot possibly be the Judge of Controver- sies. We also say, the Scriptures even if we regard its meaning, cannot be the Judge of Controversy ; and we call on the Christian public to mark our proofs of these assertions, and the delusion you labor under, in holding the Scrii)tures to be " your only Rule of Faith, and Judge of Controversy." That the Scriptures can- not be oui Judge of Controversy, if we regard the bare letter is thus proved. That which leads men into heresy and error cannot be the infallible Judge of all Controversies ; but the Scriptures, if we respect its bare letter, leads men into error and heresy, there- fore, it cannot be the infallible Judge of Controversies. Tlie ma- jor propositions of this syllogism is self-evident. The minor is proved by the words of St. Paul "the letter killeth," as much as to say it leadcth us into error. The letter of the Scriptures killed the Jews, who understood all the things that were foretold of Christ, according to the hare letter and did not understand its spirit. St. Paul, 2 Cor. iii. 15. says of them "for even unto this day where Moses is read, a veil is upon their hearts'?" that is, the Jews do not understand Moses, whom they read daily, for they do not acknowledge Christ, who is hid- den in Moses from their sight, under the external ceremonies and sacrifices, as under a veil, for even yet they adhere to the veil, not considering what is hid under it. The letter of the Scriptures kills not only the Jews, but also the heretics. The Sabellians held that there were not three divine persons in the blessed Trinity, but only one. They called the same person the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but in a di fie rent sense. The Father, because he was the creator of all things; — the Son, because he assumed human nature; — the Holy Ghost, because he sanctified us. From this opinion it necessarily followed, that God tiie Father died and «uflcred— for this they were called by St, ^64 Augustine, Lib. de Hceres cap. 41, Patropassians. But how did they fall into this error ? Because they understood, according to the letter, the words of St. John, 10. c. 30. v. '* I and the Father are one," and inferred that Christ and his Father were one in per- son, contrary to the understanding of the Catholic Church, which says, the Father and the Son are one in nature, and two in per- son. The Arians said that Christ was not God, but inferior to himi How did they fall into this error ? They expounded the words of Christ, according to the bare letter, John 24. v. 28. " The Fa- ther is greater than I," as if he had meant, that the Father is ab- solutely and in every respect greater than he, being contrary to the sense of the Church, which is, that Christ, according to his human nature is less than God the Father, but equal to him ac- cording to his divine nature. The Macedonians, out of the killing letter denied the Holy Ghost to be God, viz. from these words of St. Paul, 1 Cor. 2. v. 10, " the Spirit searcheth all things, yea even the deep thoughts of God." They thus argued, '• He that searcheth seeketh ; he that seeketh doubteth ; he that doubteth is ignorant; he that is ignorant is not God ; therefore the Holy Ghost is not God." The meaning of the words in the Catholic sense is, " the Spirit search- eth all things," that is, the Spirit comprehends all things, knows all things. In this sense, the Father is said to search all things. « God doth search the hearts of all." 1 Parral. 28. v. 9. " God searcheth the hearts and reins." Psalm. 7. 10. "I, the Lord, search- ing hearts." Jer. xvii. 10. The Manicheans affirmed that the Old Testament was contra- ry to the New, because they adhered to the outward letter. The Old Testament says. Genesis 1, "God created all things." The New Testament says, John 1, "the Word created all things." Again, the Old Testament says. Genesis i. 27. " God made man according to his own image." The New Testament says, John viii. V. 44. " Man is of the devil." The Pelagians denied Original sin, and affirmed that the sin of Adam could hurt only himself How did they fall into this here- sy 1 By adhering to the "letter that killeth." They read in Eze- kiel, 18 c. 20 v. " that the child shall not carry the iniquity of his father," Some ancient heretics denied the resurrection of the flesh, because they found it written, John vi. 63, " it is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing ;" and Doctor Brown- lee adduces the same text against another Catholic tenet, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist ; but the Doctor and his com- peers are deceived by the " letter which killeth." In order to wean the Doctor from adherence to the bare letter of this text, we shall merely ask his interior spirit, the following questions. If 265 the " flesh profit nothing," why did Christ take flesh to redeem man? Why was the Word made flesh? Why did Christ sufl^er in the flesh on tlie Cross? Did he do this to no purpose? The Doctor it is hoped, will pardon this httle digression, we have been led to it b}' a wish to bring him to a right understanding. Enough has been said to prove that the Holy Scriptures cannot be our Judge of Controversies, if we rei^ard the mere letter; we shall, theretbrc, hasten to show the "Christian public" that they can- not be our Judge of Controversy, even if their meaning be con- sidered. The Scriptures are often obscure, and hard to be understood. Out of this obscurity many controversies arise as to their true meaning. There must be some judge to determine their true meaning. But common sense tells us, this judge must be distinct from the Scriptures, for the Scripture itself, which is obscure, :annot determine its own meaning. To deny that the Scriptures are obscure and hard to be understood, would. Rev. Sir, "argue a derangement in the moral faculty;" in truth, it would argue •nore, it would savor of infidelity. It would certainly be unscrip- tural, after Saint Peter telling us, that in the epistles of Saint Paul there were " many things hard to be understood." Now, Rev. Doctor, we humbly submit, that, whatever is "hard to be understood" is obscure. Allow us to assign the causes of the ob- scurity of the Scriptures. This w^e are desirous to do, in order to let the " Christian public" see the wide difl!erence there is be- tween the lessons we have been taught and your " Protestant les- son and logic." The Scriptures are obscure for two reasons. The things treated of in the Scriptures and the manner of treating them, render the Scriptures obscure. The Scripture treats of his- tories. Prophesies, Mysteries, and moral precepts. There is great obscurity in the Prophesies and mysteries. These are above man's capacity and understanding. We can perceive them, but alter a dark manner, as St. Paul says, 1 Cor. xiii. 12. The manner in which these things are treated of in the Scripture is obscure. Are not the Scriptures full of figures, allegories, and parallels, which cover many things which the reader cannot immediately see? Is not the same word often used in the Holy Scriptures in ditferent senses ? He who is not ignorant of the philosophy of human language, will admit, that this circumstance alone, must heighten its obscurity. In the 4th chap, of St. John, 13, w^e read, " every one that drinketh of this water shall thirst again, but he that shall drink of the water that I shall give him, shall not thirst for ever" Here we find that to "drink of water and to thirst," are taken literally in the former part of the sentence, Sindjigurative' ly in the latter. Again, in the very same chapter, v. 35, we read, "do not you say, that yet there are four months, and harvest 34 266 Cometh 1 Behold, I say to you, lift your eyes, and see the coun- tries that they are white already to harvest." In this sentence, the word harvest is taken in its proper signification in the first place, but in the latter, figuratively. In St. Paul, 2 Cor, v. 21, we read, " Him who new no sin, for us, he hath made sin." Sin, in one place, is taken properly, but, in the other place, figuratively, that is, in sacrifice oflTered for sin. We discover figures, not only in the language of the Scriptures, but in the very things themselves, which are treated of — the Pas- chal Lamb was a figure of Christ — the Red Sea of Baptism ; Manna was a figure of the Eucharist, and Mount Sion of the Church. This, Rev. Sir, causes great obscurity in the Scriptures. First, the reader does not immediately see what it is that the ficrure represents. For example, that the four beasts represent four kingdoms and empires. Jer. xix. 10; that the Ram repre- sents the King of the Medes and Persians, and the Goat the King of the Grecians. Danl. vii. v. 3. ibid. viii. v. 20. These and ma- ny others are with difficulty understood by the generality of readers. In the Scriptures one thing is often a figure of things, which are contrary and repugnant, one to another. The deluge was both the figure of the baptism of the faithful, and of the punishment of the unfaithful; and the rock, which is Christ, was the Stone of Scandal and oflfence to those that perish, and to those who believe the Corner Stone. You will acknowledge, that there are in the Scriptures many apparent contradictions, which must create great difficulty in the inind of the reader. Another great cause of the obscurity of the Scriptures is this, that a transition is often suddenly made, from the literal sense to the mystical, — from carnal things to spiritual, — from temporal to eternal, — from the kings of Israel to Christ, and conversely. This you will find exemplified in the Psalms and in the 7th chapter of Isaias, where, from the history of two kings, a sudden transition is made to the B. Virgin. In the 14th chapter, the Prophet passes from the king of Babylon to Lucifer. In the 71st Psalm, the Psalmist passes from Solomon to Christ. In the 6th chap, of St. John the Evangelist, he passes from the barley loaves to the Eucharistic or Sacramental bread. In the histories of Scripture, things are not set down in the order of their happen- ing ; nor is their chronology very clear. Now, Rev. Sir, we have assigned a few of our reasons for thinking the Bible to be a very obscure book, a book hard to be understood : and we appeal to history, to the differences that exist on the most vital points of reUgion among the different Protestant sects, to prove that those differences, about the meaning of the Scriptures, grow out of the obscurity of the Bible itselfl Since the Bible, then, is obscure, 267 how can it be the Judge of the controversies that arise out of this obscurity ? When there is question of its own meaning, how can it possibly decide ? Common sense tells us, that a judge, wliose decisions arc so obscure as to leave room for controversy, is ex- tremely unht for liis oilicc. We are convinced that sucii a judge w^^uld never be appointed or sanctioned by our Divine and All- wise Legislator. Will you have the goodness to tell uswhattlie Scriptures have decided against Calvin, who informed his disci- j)les that Christ spoke in jest, when he said, "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." What have they decided against CEolampadius, who interpreted the words of John xx. 26, *' Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst of them,'* thus, "whilst the doors were shut, Christ crept in through the window." Our next argument to prove that the Scriptures are not the Judge of Controversy w^e reserve for another letter; as our object is to teach the Preacher of the Middle Dutch Church his Cate- chism, WG beg leave to call his attention to the following lesson, which our Catholic httle children are taught, lor the purpose of keeping them in the " unity of the Spirit, and in the bond of peace." Q. Is not Scripture a sufficient Rule of Faith? A. No ; it is not, without a Catholic interpreter. Q. Where shall we find this interpreter? A. In the Pastors that govern the Holy Catholic Church, the Apostles' successors, from whom we received the Scriptures themselves. Q. Can plain Scripture deceive any man? Is it not at least a Rule of Faith when it is plain ? A. Doubtless it is ; but it is not always plain when it is pretend- ed to be plain ; and where it is plain it is not always followed by those who pretend to make it their rule. Q. Is not Scripture the pure word of God ? What need of any other guide ? Men may deceive us, but the word^of God cannot? A. The Scripture is the word of God; but heretics do not fol- low it in the controverted points, until they have, by their private interpretation, made it their own word. Q. Do not at least Protestants, profess to build their faith on Scripture, and not on any thing else? A. They do, indeed, all profess much; but none of them in fact build upon it. Do not all the sects in Christendom appeal to plain Scripture, even while they dissent from one another? The Lu- therans, the Calvinists, the Zuinglians, the Socinians, the Anabap- tists, the Independents, all pretend to build their contradictory tenets upon Scripture. Yet faith tells us as well as reason, that their differences and contradictory systems of opinion and doc- 268 trine are not in the Scriptures, but in the mistaken understandings of those who undertake to be their own interpreters. Q. What do you mean by private judgment? A. To be guided by one's own sense in the interpretation of Scripture. Q. Why may not every one be allowed to follow the Scrip- ture according to the best of his judgment in matters of faith? A. It is a most pernicious maxim ; it destroys all obedience to the church, which w^e are commanded to hear; besides it is the parent of many evils. Q. What are those evils? A. Innumerable sects. No heresy but what took its beginning from it. Q. Why may not I be allowed to follow my teacher, or the congregation or national Church I belong to ? A. No National Church, no private congregation or Teacher, dissenting from the Universal or Catholic Church can be a safe guide to their followers : all Sectarists and Heretics follow such guides. Q. Why may we not at least follow the instmct of the Spirit ? The Spirit of God cannot deceive us. A. Very true, the Spirit of God cannot deceive you, but you may be deceived by those who tell you that you follow the instinct of the Spirit of God, when you do not. Such, Sir, are the answ^ers that you and every Biblomastix will receive from our poor children, and we defy you, with all your " Protestant lesson and logic," — nay, with all the " Hebrew and Greek" you have ever learned, even the gr^ca majora, to refute them. We have shown you that your Rule of Faith and Judge of Con- troversy has been that of all the heretics and heresiarch of the world, that Christianity has been libelled by it, and that it directly leads to infidelity, inasmuch as it involves the rejection of the Ca- nonical books. The Scripture is your only Rule of Faith. There- fore, you can believe only that for which you have Scripture; but you have no Scripture for the caiionity of the Scriptures ; there- fore, you cannot believe the Scriptures to be canonical : there- fore your Rule of Faith leads to doimright Deism. This, Rev. Sir, is a " more fatal result," and demonstrates a greater departure from the true Rule of Faith established by the Redeemer, than any thing that can well be imagined. Do you real- ly think, that any man of education could help pitying you, were he to hear you establishing your oiily Rule of Faith and Judge of Controversy, by vulgar ribaldry and scurrility. Let, even your ''virtuous ladies" compare your last letter with the answers of the Catholic boy on the Rule of Faith, and they will be ashamed of 269 you. Were we to say that the Protestant Religion is 1500 years later than Christianity, and that it is a fatal departure from the true faith, because we find a man of extensive erudition. Dr. Adam Clarke, recording; his belief in a medern miracle, what would the public think of us? Now, Sir, Dr. Adam Clarke, with the Holy Scriptures as his Rule of Faith, gives the following-account of the mIraculols growth of a woman's hair. " JMargaret Home, an in- habitant of St. Peter du Port, in the Isle of Guernsey, came to me to Les Torres, in June 1787, to be electrified, hoping it would cure her of a settled deafness, by which she had been long afflict- ed. I gave her a few^ shocks, through the head and ear, one Sa- turday evening, abou! the end of June. Having combed out her gre}^ hair, and, according to her custom, tied it on the top of lier head, (which it would barely do, ])eing very short) she went to bed, and the next moining was astonished to find on taking off her cap, that her hair had in the night increased eight or ten inches in lenii^th. She immediately called Mrs. Johnson, in whose house she lodged, who, viewing it, was equally astonished, being per- fectly acquainted wqth its former shortness. This miracnlous loch (for so I must term it) is of a color diflerent irom the rest of the hair. The circumstances as above, I have taken from the con- joint testimony of Mrs. Home and Mrs. Johnson, who are both members of one Society in St. Peter's, and who walk in the light love, and lihertij of the Gospel of Christ!" What think you, Rev. Doctor, of the faith of Mrs. Home and Mrs. Johnson, and of the great Doctor Adam Clarke, with their only Rule, the Bible? Whoever takes the trouble of turning over the religious juiblica- tions of Protestants and Dissenters will find some hundred mira- cles recorded not less wonderful than this; yet these are people who laugh at Catholic credulity. Wlio has not heard of the fa- mous Mary Toft, who brought forth rabbits, and of Joanna Scuth- cote, ^vho raised the dead to life ; w^hose pregnancy was proved by Doctor Reece, whose votaries, amounting to many thousands, vouched she was pregnant with the Messiah? Who has not heard of Henry Lee, a follower of t!iis mad w^oman,who killed a child in the act of circumcising it ? (See Ti'mretender, a dolt, and a fool ! Sec Willet's Sy- nopsis, p. G5. And to this day the nairie, and the thing expressed by it, finds no favour, but rather contempt, with the "Vicar of God," and his "godly" court of prelates! I cannot close without ol)serving another material evidence against your claims to "Catholicity." These claims are not only 324 illegal, absurd, and contrary to historical evidence; they are ac- tually contrary to the doctrine of Christ and the sentiments of your best fathers. "Fear not little flock," said our Lord : "Many are called,/ezo are chosen." And St. Jerome writing against the claims to Catholicity, set up by the Pelagians, says in his third book against them ; "The multitude of your fellows doth not, therefore, prove you a Catholic; but rather a heretic !" See also St. Augustine, I)e Pastoribus. And one of the more sensible of your Popes, namely, Nicholas I. in his Letter to the Emperor Michael, says, — "A small company hinders not, where piety aboundeth : neither does a great company further, where impiety abounds: glory not, therefore, in a multitude ;jror not the multitude, hut the CAUSE justifieth, or condemneth" Finally: — From, and after the sixth century, no one of your advocates can establish any true claim of connection, on your part, as a Church, with the church of Jesus Christ. The Eastern Churches cast off, indignantly, your infamous usurpa- tions, over them : so also did the African Church, with your own St. Augustine at their head. You have been continually diverg- ing from the good old Church of God at Rome ; and the good old Italick Church, from whom our pure and holy forefathers, the Waldenses and Albigenses proceeded. You, like Ishmael, are against every Church of Christ : and every Church against you. You are no longer the pure River of God watering the earth ; but the sluggish and muddy bayou, breaking forth from the majestic and crystal River of God; and threading your way, amid the putrid exhalations and swamps of a Dead Sea ; sending forth, to an immeasurable extent, moral pestilence and death, over the nations ! On the whole the Protestant Faith is not only the most ancient, but the MOST TRUE CATHOLIC FAITH. With thc church of God in all ages ; with them on earth ; and with them in heaven, we are perfectly as one, on every doctrine, and each of the Sacraments which have characterised the Church, the chaste spouse of ChristJ; we, therefore are, of the true Catholic church of Christ, — you are the Roman Catholic church of antichrist. We move forward under the pure white flag of the Redeemer's standard ; the true CROSS of our Blessed Redeemer; you move on in darkness and in blood, under the standard of your Prince Abaddon, "your king the angel of the bottomless pit." But I must pause. I am. Gentlemen, Your wellwisher; W. C. BROWNLEE. Collegiate Minister of the Middle and North Dutch Churches. P. S. The priests in their second challenge chose to make it a condition of their continuing the Controversy, that I -should aban^ 325 don the attack on their system, and defend tlie Protestant system, I promptly declined obedience to thisunreasonahle dictation: being determined to ibrce my way into their very citadel; and into the in- terior ol'the "Chambers of imagery." They have declined pnblisli- ingany re})ly to me, last Saturday. Having prepared the preceding letter, I sent a card on Monday morning to Mr. Denman, the Cath- olic Editor, requesting him to say whether I was correct in under- standing the information conveyed to me from his office, through my friend Mr. T.; namely that no more was to be published by him, on either side. In answer to this Card, I received a letter, abusive and insulting; while the writer took care to answer me neither negatively nor affirmat'ivehj. I replied by again soliciting a definite answer, whetlier he would allow me to go on as usual, in his columns. I waited two hours and a half for his reply; none came. I then entered into arrangements to have my letters published simultaneously, in the three papers which have hitherto copied them from the Roman Catholic print; and at the same time sent a copy of my Letter XTI. to the office of the Roman Catho- lic paper. And it is proposed, by God's grace to follow up the retreat of the Priests, by a letter every second week, until the end of August; and then, by a short weekly letter, until the victory shall be complete. W. C, B. Reply of I9r. Power ami Mr. Ijevins TO DR. BROWNLEE. No. 12. ** Hath God any need of your lie, that you should speak deceitfully for him." Job 13 — 7. Rev. Sir, — In your letter No. 4, you " claimed to be a gentle- man and the Writer for the members of the Middle Dutch Church." Your right to the first honorable appellation we must hesitate to concede, until better testimony be given than is contained in your controversial letters on your Rule of Faith. To your assumption of the high distinction of " writer," to the Middle Dutch Church we shall not object, provided your flock and " virtucnis ladies" en- ter no protest against the legitimacy of your logical and theologi- cal conclusions. If they adopt you as their Writer, we say with Cervantes, — "let their own sin be their punishment; let them chew upon it, and there let it rest." Your claims to be ^gentleman, we said, must not be conceded. Why ? Because truth is not on your hps, and truth is the first, the 326 chiefest element in the character of a gentleman. In the com- monest intercourse between man and man, he who offends against truth is marked and shunned as a degraded being, — he is ejected as an outcast from among men, — his name becomes hateful, and infamy claims him as her own. But, if this be the degradation stamped by general opinion on those who fill no exalted station in the public eye, how deeply seared will not the Cain mark be set on his forehead, who, by profession, should inculcate sacred truth, whose very bread is derived from a station in which truth should be taught, yet violates truth in the most sacred cause — the proba- tion and defence of religion. A more abandoned, more lost, exis- tence cannot enter into the thoughts of man, than that of a minis- ter of religion violating that subhme character of religion, truth, which more than any other, constitutes it an emanation from God. To this degraded wretch, whoever he may be, the severe words ol Persius may be applied, " caret culpa; nescit'quid perdat, et alta Demersus, summa rursuni, non buUit in unda," — Pers. Sal. 3. '" guilt cannot now be imputed to him; he has nothing to lose, and is plunged so deep that he cannot rise even to bubble on the sur- face of the stream." If any thing in the preceding remarks bear on your character, in connexion with the present controversy, the application is left to your " Christian pubhc." It is hoped that in forming!the esti- mate of your "claims to be a gentleman,^^ they will not lightly pass over the mysterious theological truths contained in what you arc pleased to term your " twenty-five arguments touching (not refuting) our Rule of Faith:" for example, your "Paddy's kettle," ^nheDukeof Brunswick," "St. Patrick sailing to Ireland on a millstone," " St. Denis carrying his head under his arm," " the feast of the Asses," " the purgatorial crabs," " the Mufti's chair," &c. &c. Here, Rev. Sir, are truths of an invincible order to es- tablish your " claims to be a gentleman, a mere spice of your " twenty-Jive arguments against the Catholic Rule of Faith ! " But there are two of those " twenty-five arguments" to which the " Christian public" should especially attend, as truths of a more eminent order. The first is, your gross, unchristian, and false charge against the poor Catholic servants of this city; — the other, your sanction of the obscene tale, Lorette^ which in the words of Hamlet to his mother, is That blurs the grace and blush of mbdesty." In this last txuth you have partners in your guilt — the notorious 327 " virtuous ladies." What the D has joined, let no man sepa- rate. Consigning the estimate of your character as a " Gentleman" and the Chesteriield of your " virluoifs ladies" to the " Christian pubUc," we enter on the consideration of your last letter, to ascer- tain your worth as a " /fVi/er," on the topic to which you have been invited. As in your former letters, we here trace the same pro- pensity to ribald phrase, recklessness of truth, foul vituperation, and untenable assertion. A brief ((uestion might have been an- swered without betraying the infirmity of your temper; it might have been answered without your customary display of "Protes- tant lesson and logic," without saluting your polemic opponents with the gentlemanly terms, " notorious and publicly convicted Deists; more vulgar than Thomas Paine, and more blasphemous than Mons. Voltaire." But, Rev. Preacher of the Middle Dutch Church, opprobi ious terms and ribald invective, though they indi- cate your earthward biasses and " Protestant lesson and logic," do not establish your Rule of Faith or subvert that of your opponents. You have written you say " twenty-five arguments touching the Cathohc Rule !" Had the number of your arguments been " le- gion," and did they, like your twenty-five, abound in falsehood and farcical tales, the Catholic creed, in place of being subverted, would stand only on a more exalted eminence in the eyes of your " Christian public." You compliment your letters as arguments. \i falsehood and ludicrous narration be argument, your letters merit the honorable title. But we say in the face of your " Christian public" — and, when the matter in the logical order of dependency shall have been discussed, it will be proved, that from your gas- conade " challenge" to the Cathohc Bishop and Priests of New York, to the last paragraphs, the " Purgatorial crabs" and the " Mufti's chair" in your letter No. 11, there are not ten consecu- tive lines in your eleven letters, that do not contain either a DELis- ERATE FALSEHOOD, OR A PROOFLESS ASSERTION. This will be amply proved ere the present controversy be closed. It may, perhaps, be considered by your " virtuous ladies" a harsh application of terms, when we designate your letters a mass of deliberate falsehoods and proofless assertions. This topic was alluded to in a former letter. It was said, that, no Christian law is infringed when justice is dispensed ; — That the negro must be painted black. If the New Zealander be described, the tattoo traces on his face must not be forgotten. When wilful falsehood is used by a preacher in the most sacred cause that can be under- taken by man — Religion; when it is used to subvert the creed of his neighbor and u[>hold his own, then the strict and honest appli- cation for this j)reacher, though he may be a Chesterfield among " virtuous ladies," is — liar ; no other word can designate the real 328 character of the man. But, if this meanness and dishonor, the utterance of deliberate falsehood, he attempt to fortify with the authority of texts from the Sacred Writings, then we would apply to him the words of Antonio in the " Merchant of Venice.'* " The Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. An evil soul, producing Jioly witness, Is like a villain with a smiling cheek." You thus commence your last letter, " You have honored me with a card, containing afresh challenge.''^ We did not express a challenge; this term was not used by us. The gasconade of " challenge" we resign to you, for with you it commenced. We merely asked you a A^ery simple and plain question, — a question immediately derived from the matter under discussion — your Rule of Faith. Your meaning in using the term " challenge," it is not difficult to evolve ; it does not require the aid of " parallel passages." Urged either by a desire to acquire a name by an ultra exhibition of zealotry for your Calvinistic creed, and thus stand a distinguished sentinel on the ramparts oi the Middle Dutch Church above your more modest clerical brethren ; or, possibly, impelled by malignancy of will against Catholics, you chivalrous- ly blew a blast on the trumpet of your Zion, and challenged the Catholic Bishop and Priests to a polemic tournament. You have written eleven letters, and patented " twenty-five arguments" against the Catholic religion, and yet this religion is not yet sub- verted, the rock on which its foundation reposes is not yet cleft ! "Paddy's kettle" has sunk to the lowest depths of the deep; the se- crets of the Pope's exchequer book have been revealed; the " pleas- ant joke" of the Priest's celibacy has been sensitively insinuated; the mysterious allusions in the obscene tale Lorette, have been expounded by a holy preacher to " virtuous ladies ;" the Cathohc servants have been denounced in the s^nrit of St. Paul's charity; the "Purgatorial crabs" have crawled at an " evening mass" and the "Mufti's chair" has been discovered, yet, the foundation of the Catholic Rule of Faith rests as solid in its eternal strength, as on the eve before the redoubtable Preacher Brownlee of the Middle Dutch Church proclaimed his " Challe?ige;'^ the walls oi St. Patrick's Cathedral are as free from fissure as if they had not been pelted by the Preacher's " parallel passages" from kis "He- brew and Greek of the Holy Ghost ! " The mighty secret. Rev. Preacher, involved in your apphcation of the term " challejige" to our plain and concise question is, you seek to avoid the opprobrium you have incurred in the late polem- ic contest. You challenged, — you promised much, — you have failed, you have been defeated ! The term " challenge" is now as hateful to you, an allusion to it as teasing, as a hint about the fulhng mills from Sancho was to Don Quixotte, and, perchance, 329 when an unlucky allusion is made to it, your condition may not widely ditier iVoni tiiat mysteriously indicated by the observation of the worthy knight, when he addressed his scjuire " with a kind of snutlling tone, and said — methinks Sancho, you are in great bodily fear." For the solution of Don Quixote's suspicions of Sancho's bodily fear, we refer you, worthy Preacher, to the inimitable Cervante s the cause o^ your fearw^c state to the" Christian public," it is, the consciousness of the "hook being in your nose." Remove it if you can, and let the following argument be the subject of your first experiment. It has, already, been presented to you, and though often rcj)cated, has not yet been answered. It is not what you would term a " new idea" but, until the crabbed difficulties in- herent in old ideas are removed, the difficulties remain in all their force. As a distinction mark, we shall honor it with a phrase from your own Scripture text, and call it the " Hook in your Nose." In your Letter No. 2, you write, " the only Rule of Faith with every Protestant is — the Bible." From this it follows, that you do not believe any thing with divi?ie faith but what is found in the Bible. But the divine character of the Bible is not found in the Bible, that is, the Bible cannot prove its own divine character. Therefore, you. Preacher Brownlee, or any Protestant adopting your Protestant Rule, do not believe in the divine character of the Bible wqth divine faith. But, since the articles of your creed are taken from a book in which you do not believe with divine faith, you do not believe in your articles of creed with divine faith; therefore, your articles of creed being divested' of all divine char- acter, your religion is not divine ; therefore, your Rule of Faith LEADS directly and ?iecessarily to Deism and Infidelity! Thus, Rev. Preacher and Erudite in the " Hebrew and Greek of the Holy Ghost," is the " hook in your nose^ Disengage it if you can. If this syllogistic reasoning be false, prove it. Until then, you are a Deist or an Infidel by your own Protestant Rule of Faith. In your last Letter you assume a new character. Not content with ambitioning the honored name of " Gentleman,^' and dubbing yourself the " ?^n7er" to the Middle Dutch Church, not satisfied with monopolizing the " Hebrew and Greek of the Holy Ghost/* and, possibly, the Gr^ca Majora, you now exhibit yourself as quack practitioner in the art of healing the dislocations of vvords and sentences. Your first empirical essay has been on our sinless proposition. If it has not been healed by your skill, it lias been tortured. A little patience while we expose the errors of your process. Our proposition was, " What articles of fntith, found in the Scripture in express terms, must be believed '^n order to he f;aved." You assert this is " ungrammatical aiJ^d blundering!*' 42 330 How do you prove it ? By a shameless and dishonest interpola- tion, for you thus stale the proposition, what articles must be be- lieved in order to their beuig saved ! The word be in our proposi- tion you change to — their being. Hence, what is " blundering and ungrammatical" is your own dishonest interpolation. But you are asked, if you know any thing of the merest elements of gram- mar, is it either blundering or ungrammatical to have that under- stood in a sentence, which common sense, without the chance of error or confusion, easily supplies'? Now mark the final member of the proposition: it is this, — " must be believed in order to be saved." Believed by whom ? By men, therefore, the final mem- ber is, when interpreted by the merest schoolboy's grammar and sense, " must be believed by men in order that men be saved." But, by your interpretation, you substitute articles for men^ and then the proposition will stand thus, " what articles must be be- lieved by articles in order to their being saved." Here you invest articles with the rational faculty of forming acts of belief! This transcends even the inventive genius of your countryman McGav- in, who forged the story of the " Purgatorial crabs," and made Priests " perform mass seated 7iear the altar, and this too, " i?i the evening!" Your failure in your new profession — setting the dislocations of words and sentences — is as unfortunate as your probation and defence of your Rule of Faith. You possess eminent qualifica- tions to be admitted in the procession of the next Feast of Asses around St. Patrick's ("athedral. You have claims that cannot be resisted; even Sancho's Dapple would shrink from a rivalry. As a pledge of our intention to admit you into the procession we greet you with one of your own classical and inimitable stanzas. ** The Preacher was born and bred with long ears ; Heigh-ho my Assy, And still the Preacher of Asses appears. Bray, Preacher Ass, and you shall get grass. And straw, and liay too, in plenty." From the daring and blundering interpolation practised by you on our simple and plain proposition, it is no trespass against the precept of charity to suspect, that, very false interpretations oi the " Hebrew and Greek of the Holy Ghost" are given by you from your pulpit in the Middle Dutch Church. We, at least, would not rank them among those whispered by the interior spirit. He who would sacrifice truth in triviaHnstances, will, by easy transi- tion, pass to the violation of truth in important matters. The hint. Rev. and veracious Preacher, is suggested to the members of the Middle Dutch Church; and, if any among them will but exercise their common sense in the art of criticism, illustration of the pre- ceding remark will be found to the amplest extent in your eleven 331 letters and " twenty-five arguments tottckhig the Catholic Rule of Faith." You have failed in proving and defending your Rule of Faith, you have failed in the craft of interpolating our proposition on the express articles of faith contained in the Bible; it is time to ascertain the worth of your answer to our query, wilfully misnam- ed by you "challenge." Our proposition required from you a numeration of your arti- cles of faith found in the Scriptures in express terms. Though un- willingly, you have selected them. With your permission, they shall be designated the profession of faith of Preacher Brownlee found in the Bible in express terms ; and to aid in the extension of your theological and biblical fame, we present it, not -'curtail- ed of its fair proportions," to the "Christian public." It is hoped they will note its Calvinistic orthodoxy. What will the ghost of John Calvin say? You introduce your profession of faith by the following words, — "The articles of faith put forth in express terms in the Scriptures, and necessary to be believed by ns, in order to our salvation are these :" "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." "He that is believeth and is baptised, shall be saved: he that be- lieveth not shall be damned." "Show ye forth the Lord's death, until he come," "Do this (celebrate the Eucharist) "in remem- brance of me." "This is life eternal to know thee the one true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." "God so loved the world, that he sent his only begotten Son into the world, that the world through him might be saved," "If thou shalt believe in thine heart, and confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, thou shalt be saved." "Except a man be born of the water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven." -"Ex- cept ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." "Walking in all the commandments, and ordinances of the Lord blameless," — "thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and thy neighbour, as thyself" "We are justified by the faith of Jesus Christ; and not by the works of the law." "By the works of the law shall no flesh liv- ing be justified," that is, before God, our Heavenly Father: "by works," the fruits of holiness, is a man justified, and "not by faith only," says St. James : that is, before me?i, we give evidence of justification by our piety and holiness. By faith in "Christ's im- puted righteousness alone, without works, are we justified at the bar of God, in our justification, before God. Thus, Paul and James are reconciled; and plainly too, even to an infant scho- lar ! " In the name of common sense, can this be your creed? From your ultra zealotry for Calvinism, we thought the great and fun- damental mystery of the Christian rehgion was believed by you. 332 Does this profession of faith say that you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity ? Does it say that you beheve in the incarnation of the Son of God ? Does it say, that you beheve in the proces- sion of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son 1 Not a word about these all important points ! Why this deep silence, Rev. Sir? Is it that your Rule of Faith has nothing explicit on them ? We expect a reply to this question. Do not misname it a challenge. Believe, says Preacher Brovv^nlee, in Christ, believe in baptism, and celebrate the Eucharist: you will be saved. You tell us to believe in Christ, without teUing us what we are to believe of him. In the Preacher's first text there is nothing definite except to believe in Christ, and this may be interpreted, believe in Christ's divinity you are a Christian and will be saved. Believe in bap- tism, believe as [ do, who baptise infants, and you will be saved ; do not believe in it as I do, but believe in it as the Baptists believe it, and you are still a Christian, for all this is found in the Bible! Such, Sir, is your consistent creed, and if such Theology do not argue a "derangement 'n the moral faculty" we know not the meaning of the phrase. The absurdities are many to which you have been led by your ^'Protestant lesson and logic." The absurdity involved in your profession of faith is the grossest of all. If it were sufficient for salvation, to believe in Christ, in baptism, and the Eucharist, the three points vaguely specified in your act of faith, this great ab- surdity would follow, — viz. that all heretics who have been con- demned by the Catholic Church, were unjustly condemned; — and, that, notwithstanding their heresies and condemnation, they lived and died in the state of salvation. Mark our proof The Arians professed to believe in Christ ; they believed he was the only Son of God the Father, born of the Virgin Mary, and our Lord. They denied his consubstantiality, for the same reason that you deny Transubstantiation, the term not being found in Scripture, and for this they were condemned by the church in the first general Council. The Nestorians said they believed all that the Orthodox Church taught of our Saviour Christ Jesus, and all the other articles of the Apostles Creed, but they erred by saying, that he had two distinct persons. The Appollinarists said they professed all the articles of Cath- olic faith, yet swerved from it by maintaining, that our Saviour had no human soul. Eutyches and his followers professed to believe the Apostles Creed, but they erred by saying that the flesh of Christ was turn- ed into his divine nature. The Macedonians declared they held the Orthodox faith but 333 erred in believing the Holy Ghost to be less than the Son. The Pelagians did not deny Christ or any articles of the Apostles Creed. From the examples thus given, we frame this argumentj — mark it well. If it were sufficient for salvation to believe in God our Creator, and in Jesus our Redeemer, with other articles expressed in your creed : then were the Arians, Macedonians, Pelagians, and all those already mentioned, notwithstanding their obstinate adherence to their condemned heresies in a state of sal- vation. But to hold that any of those heretics, dying in their her- esies, died in a state of salvation, is to condemn all pure antiquity, is to condemn the church of Christ, who cast out those erring men as heretics and the professed enemies of her holy Spouse* Is it not, therefore clear, that men may be most wicked and damnable heretics, though they profess to believe in Christ, and in the other articles of your creed, if they walfully defend any other erroneous doctrine contrary to the trutli revealed by God and so declared to us by the Catholic Church. "No person says St. Au- gustine is a member of the Catholic Church, who obstinately be- lieves any falsehood in matters of faith, knowing it to be such." See St. Aug, Lib. 9. in Matth. 9. ii. And that man of God, Doc- tor Martin Luther, says, "that it shall profit the Calvinist nothing, to believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, so long as with blasphemous mouth they deny this article of faith, which Christ has proposed to us with his own mouth, "this is my body, which shall be given for you." Luth. lib. quod verba Christi. Here you see that no salvation is possible if you deny any one article revealed by the Saviour of the world? Does not your si- lence on the many points of Christian belief intimate that you teach that Christians may admit or reject them as they please? Thus it is God has been dishonoured by such usurpers, and re- ligious experimentalists as you, w^ho in defiance of his own' prohibition, invade the one fold which has been purchased by the sacred blood of his only Son ! In a former letter, Rev. Preacher, we convicted you of Nestos rian heresy. Your New profession of faith, stated in the EXPREse jterms of the Bible, proves that you do not believe either in that Holy Trinity or the Incarnation ! Alas, there will be "heard a voice in Rama, lamentations and great mourning," the "virtu- ous ladies" bewailing their own lost Chesterfield, "and would no be comforted, because" ! This profession of Faith will prove. Rev. Sir, another teasing "hook in your nose." Permit us to ask a brief question in reference to your articles of creed de- duced in EXPRESS terms from the Bible ; — we do not mean a "chal- lenge." What article of Catholic faith is cOiVTRADicTED by the EXPRESS texts of Scripture inserted in your new creed ? Let this be noted by your "Christian public." You will confer a favour 334 on us by indicating the parts of the Bible from which you have selected your articles of faith. This will prevent cavil — perhaps subterfuge. We are vour obedient servants, JOHN POWER. THOMAS C. LEVINS. July 2Sd, 1833. Hr. MSrownlee^s Ijetter^ .TVo. 13. TO T)RS. POWER, YxlKELA, & MR. LEVINS. " Ante Nicaenum Concilium sibi quisque vivebat: Etad Romanam Ecclesiam parvus habe batun respectus " — vEneas Sylvius, Pope Piug ii. Epis. 288. Gentlemen : — I have carefully read your 12th letter on the 27th of July. You are heartily welcome back again after your tem- porary retreat. Stand to your post, I exhort you, as good Rom- ans ; we are only beginning the tug of w^ar. But seriously, I thank you for your letter. It helps on my cause marvellously. What a miserable cause must yours be, when Bishop Dubois' THREE select champions can venture out, before an American pub- lic, with such a production as this is ! But I thank you for it; it estabhshes all I have advanced relative to your notorious deism. The evidence is now fuUand running over. Accept my thanks for your aid lent to the Protestant cause. I agree with you also, very cordially, in believing that no small degree of degradation attaches itself to the labor of detailing, out of your books, the accounts respecting " the Duke of Brunswick," " And St. Patrick's miracles," and " St. Denis' carrying his own head, after he was beheaded," "and your Du Cangis' account of your famous feast of the Asses," and the true "account of the Purgatorial crabs, with the sacerdotal velvet coats," and "St. Peter's chair plundered from a Mufti's mosque." I admit that it is degrading in your historians to detail them. And one really feels himself lowered to be compelled to quote such trash ! But then what must be the infinitude of the degradation of that " infal- lible Pope," and that " infallible church," and of those "infallible priests of Rome," who have gravely recorded all this contempti- ble imposition in their devotional books, — ay, in their breviary : and do solemnly command their votaries to believe it all, on pain of damnation ! Yes, your hypocrisy affects to deny all these ! You affect, in matchless assurance, to treat them as fictions ! This is pure homage to our enlightened American public; and an item of that Jesuitism by which all Roman Priests are sworn to con- ceal their real tenets and rites from the eyes of Protestants and 335 Republicans. You and your bishop know that ifyou were in Ita- ly, or in Spain, and ventured on the disbelief of these same mira- cles : or even the allectation ol' ridiculing them before enligjitened nnen : — yes, if you were heretic enough, in Spain, to smile at the headless St. Denis carrying his head under his arm; or at the edi- fying tales of other Saints sailing over the sea on their cloaks, with their com])anions for ballast, you would forthw^ith be the in mates of dungeons ; and escai)e burning only by a well timed re cantation on your knees ! Your grave defence of your ungrammatical and blundering Card, sets all gravity at defiance. How^ever, you have here, even in this small item, show^n yourselves good '^ Catholics" enough, and faithful, even to stubbornness. " Holy Mother," and her sons are clothed, if we may take their own word for it — with the attribute of " immutability." And being " immutable," the lofty perfection must not be surrendered to confess an error. On your tenets it is a crime to confess an error, even when you are conscious that you are wrong ! ! Your " ultra zealotry," is " ambitioning" too much, to use yonr own classic style, when you find fault w ith my scriptural creed ; or indeed any Christian creed. The Christian pubhc cannot but smile at three men, publicly convicted of open and avowed deism affecting to sit in judgment on a Christian creed ! ! ! In fine, as there is not one new idea in all your letter; though " concocted" by three heads : and as I have proposed to my- self to go forward into '' Holy Mother's" chambers of imagina- ry, even were its entrance guarded by Cerberus, with its three heads. I shall go on with the regular discussion. We noticed in our last letter, your idol claims to antiquity and Catholicity. I have now to observe, 3d. That Succession" is another mark claimed by the exclusive Roman Catholic sect. By this their writers mean to convey the idea, that their sect aloiie is that church to which Christ gave the promise. " I am with you : " and the assurance " that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." They alone, say they, have the direct lineal succession from Christ by St. Peter, and the other popes : all the other claimants in the Greek Church, the Syriac, the African, the Old Italick, the Waldcnsian, and Protestant Church, are all to a man '^damnable heretics, for which there is no salvation; it being impossible that God can save any except Roman Catholics. This is the genuine and immutable doctrine of the Roman sect! And you dare not deny it before the American public \ I will not discuss here, the question of ordi?iation. 1 simply ob- serve that we advocate it on gospel principles; and reject with abhorrence, the superstitions and fanatical rite which Romish priests are pleased to call ordination and consecration! It has no 336 more authority from Christ the only Head of the Church, than has any rite of Mohammed, or the Uving idol of Thibet. This we noticed formerly. There must be a call of God's providence. (Heb. 5. 4.) and a call of the church given to a pastor, — " Come over and help us." The man who wants these, has no right before God, or the Church, to ordination. He who wants these, "climbs up another way," and has the seal of reprobation branded on his forehead, " as a thief and a robber." Such is the appointment and destination of the Roman Priest by his bishop: no call, no consent of "the church," is asked for: they are ipso facto, usurpers put " into livings," by ghostly tyranny, and usurped power. The whole system is a conspiracy against Christ's crown and authori- ty, and an outrage on the consciences, and rights of men ! In their claims oi succession, the Roman sect ludicrously assert that they have an unbroken line of descent from " Christ the first pope," through "St Peter the second pope," down to this day ! ! This is ingeniously figured forth, and proved, by a painting to be seen in Roman Catholic families; and which was described to me the other day, by a friend of mine, to whom it was shown in Phil- ladelphia. In this portion of their "genuine tradition," strong as proofs of holy writ, Christ is represented as ascending; and a stream of his blood is issuing in an arched line from its veins; and is entering into the veins of St. Peter ; and through him into the veins of the popes, in regular succession! Hence they are the genuine successors "6?/ hlood relationship.'''' And this morsel of tradition, ingeniously committed to paper, is more firmly believed by "the simple faithful," than is any passage in all the New Testament ! Such is the force of invincible but culpable igno- rance. Now, to reap any benefit from "the succession, one would na- turally -suppose that the "universal particular Church of Rome," should, first, prove their succession ; — and then prove their exclu- sive succession. For he who claims all the inheritance, and leaves none to any other, must of course, prove that no one but himself is heir. But unfortunately for these exclusive claims of the Roman bigots, the Greek Church has genuine apostohcal de- scent. The Church at Alexandria, in Egypt, had it ; the most ancient and famous Church at Antioch has it, and has its Patriarch sitting in St. Peter's chair to this day; also the Church of Africa, once so famous; and through the genuine Old Italick Church, from which your sect apostatized the Waldenses had their true, apostolical succession. And then hear the words of your own Pope Gregory I. of whose writings, you and your bishops are so scandalously ignorant. That "Saint" and Pope has declared, and you ought to know it, that "St Peter's prima- cy descended to three bishopricks, namely, that of Antioch of AI-' 337 exandria, and of Rome. Sec Iiis Epis. 40. Lib. 7. Tom. 2. p. 887. Paris Edit, of 1705. And, moreover Jie pronounces the title and claims of ^^Supranc and rwivcrsal hishop,^^ to be the invention of Antichrist, wlio was already in the world." Eve\i a priest's ifrno- rance cannot deny tiiat St. Gregory the Pope wrote this. Now, if you believe him, you must renounce your exclusive succession: if you do not belieye him, then do you pronounce him a lying here- tic : and therclore "the infalhble" *'holy mother and pope," who canonized him, and "the infallible and immutable Holy mother Church" who worships him on his saintly day, is no more infalli' hie ajid immutable ! Choose ye with which horn of this dilemma, you shall be pierced, and ecclesiastically slain ! You arc perfectly aware that no historical evidence has ever been produced by your writers that Peter ever was at Rome. Every intelligent Roman Catholic is fully aware that it rests solely on the fictions of interested priests. Several writers have on our side of the question, entered into accurate chronological arguments to show that Peter never was there, as a presiding teacher. I beg to refer to Willet's Synopsis Papismi, p. 141. There is no evidence in the Bible that Peter ever was at Rome ; far less that he was a Pope ! If he was Pope, how utterly inex- cusable, undutiful, and wicked, must St. Paul have been: who resided there so long ; and never had the grace or good manners to salute him, or send his due pontifical salutations, or even to mention the name of "//te lord your god Pope Peter!'"' Nay, if "lord Peter" had been pope, he must have been a most unprincipled man. For Paul, when brought before Nero, at least two years before Peter's death, says, "At my first answer no man stood by me: but all men forsook me : J pray God that it may not be laid to their charge." Now, you must admit, either that "lord Peter," was not Pope, and not even present in Rome ; or that he was a foul traitor to Christ, and the cause for which Paul was nobly suffering ! You insist on it that he was present : that he was Pope. Therefore you and "the Holy Mother Church" are the most notorious slanderers and revilers of your own Pope Peter ! Besides it is singular that your wTiters should betray such ig- norance of your own Canons. I beg you to look into Decret. pars. I. Cap. 2. Anacletus, &c. These canons make your ridic- ulous fictions about Peter's headship, stand out in bold relief. I shall quote the Canon, — "Arnbo Ecclesiam, &lc. Both Paul and Peter did consecrate the Roman Church." And, as St. Paul was "not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles ;" and did even administer a severe apostolical and therefore a super-pontifical re- buke to "/oro( Peter, the Pope," — you must, to make your succes- sion and exclusive claims good, show the evidence of your suc- cession from "lord Paul" the Pope, also ! Or, as a necessary al- No. 22—43 338 ternative, you must abjure the Bible evidence; and what is more with you, you must abjure and deny your own Canons; or, final- ly, if you choose, for once to be honest men, renounce your ab- surd succession ! "Quid faciam Roma), — mentiri nescio" — said a true prophet. But, gentlemen, even admitting that the apostles had successors as apostles, which, we have already proved, they had not : — and even admitting it possible that you can get over the infinity of historical and chronological difficulties, which every body sees lying in your way, — your succession has failed, and is lost in in- explicable ruin ! This I took the liberty of proving in my Letter IV. and you made no reply : you durst not touch the subject : your silence was ample evidence that you cannot disentangle the question of succession from its labyrinth of confusion, and contra- dictions. There is not one sensible man among you that, for one moment, believes it. I should insult your intellectual powers did I even insinuate that you, gentlemen priests, do yourselves believe this "fundamental tenet." And as for the "simple faithful priests who know no better, and "the simple laymen," who believe infi- nitely more than they know any thing about, — why, they believe in the succession and the descent of the ^^holy prastes" just as strongly, and on just as good evidence, as do the intelligent pagans of the East, that "the world is a large flat body, resting on the back of a land Turtle!" I shall only add here that your line of succession from the apostolic church is broken ofi', by the total and utter loss of the bond of HOLINESS. You are "the man of sin," trafficking "in sin," and in "the souls of men," as I shall show, when I come to indulgences, and the Pope's chancery Book containing the regis- tered price of every sin, and the fixed price of men's souls ! The succession of Doctrine also is utterly and incurably destroyed. This I showed in Letter VIII. You have renounced every grand peculiar doctrine of the Gospel : even your recognition of the Trinity is merely nominal: the main object of your worship is "the queen of heaven,"-she who "commands her son," namely the Virgin Mary, — she is in your spiritual heaven, and in your tem- ples, what Venus was in the East, and Jupiter was among the Greeks and Romans ! You have practically lost the most holy doctrine of Trinity, utterly, in your thirty thousand gods and god- desses, usually named saints, and saintesses ! And this being the case with the object of divine worship, it is easy to see that not even one leading doctrine of the Gospel has kept its place in your system; all these have been quenched in your heavens: a!I is dreariness and darkness ; your skies are covered with the veil of blackness : no one solitary star sparkles there ! Now this be- ing the case, hear the words in St. Clement's Epist. 1. which ijou 330 ndmit to be c^cnuinc; St. Peter there declares that "the true suc- cession is in the succession of doctrine." Also )our Pope Felix says — "Qui participes, &c. those who would share the apostle- ship> must follow the apostles' doctrine.' So also in your Decret. P. 1. dist 40. cap. 1. "Petrus &c. Peter left the inheritance of in- nocence to his heirs." And let me add an extract from the Greek father Gregory Nazianzen: — "7b men gar. &lc. He that buildeth the same doctrine is of the same chair : but he who is an enemy to the doctrine, is an enemy to the chair." See his 21 Orat. ad Athanas. p. 390 : Paris edit, of 1778. Therefore your succession is broken olf utterly and forever ! This is not all yet : we shall pay our respect to some of the .prominent Popes through whom you claim your "holy and unbro- ken line of succession." A simple detail from history will show what kind of a thing this "holy and unbroken line of Roman suc- cession" is. The popedom of Peter and that of Joan, the female pope, rest on equal evidence. Peter's papacy was not mentioned for sever- al centuries after his death : Joan's was not registered for 200 years after her decease. But even supposing the fiction true, that he was pope in good earnest, the Roman writers, and even the ancient fathers cannot agree who were the immediate successors of lord Peter, the fisherman! Seven of the fathers with Augus- tine, make Linus ihQsecoiul bishop of Rome. Tertullian and the Latins make Clemens the second. Cossart in his great w^ork the Concilia, cannot determine from any existing evidence, which of these w^as the successor of lord Peter. He frankly admits "the uncertainty of the Pontifical succession." Latterly, the supposi- tion inclines to favour Linus. . But, it so happens that "the Apos- tolical Constitutions" bear witness that Linus, your sccofid pope, was ordained not by pope Peter, but by Paul. This fairly upsets the succession from lord Peter, by Linus. Again ! Baronius, Bcllarmine and others, make Cletus, and An- acletus tw^o diflerent popes : Cotelcrius, Fleury, and others make them the same man : Bruys and Cossart declare that it is perfect- ly uncertain whether they were or not the same man. Twenty other Romish writers enter the lists, to settle the point. Their learned trifling fully establish this i)oint, — namely, that there was not a soul of tliem that knew any thing about the papal succes- sion ! A?id the sum of the whole is this, — it is a truth about as cer- tain, and as valuable, as that of the true successor of Robin Hood, or Jack, the giant killer I Thus gentlemen, to avail myself of a truly expressive Irishism, — the pontifical succession was fairly cut off, before it began ! But passing this, — and supy)Osing the impossible thing to have happened,— tiic grand schisms have utterly cut off your succcsioa 340 Dr. Geddes in his valuable work, in four volumes on the Papacy, makes twenty-fom schisms : your Baronius enumerates twenty-six: Onuphrius the most accurate of writers, makes thirty: this, says Edgar in his Variations of Popery, is the commonly received estima- tion. The detailed account I have before me by Geddes and Ed- gar : and could I find room for it, I should exhibit a history of wars, bloodshed, perjury, treason, blasphemy, and the most hor- rid impieties, reigning triumphant in the very throne of the Pope and in all his dominions ; and unparalleled in all history ! ! A few specimens I shall glean from the principal writers. The secojid schism was between Popes Liberius and Felix in the fourth century. Felix was chosen by the Arian faction to oppose Liberius, who was thence banished. But having signed, the Arian creed, he was recalled: then commenced the bloody wars, between these two Arian Popes. "The wars raged long, the clergy were murdered, by the opposing factions, in the very churches.^' St. Augustine speaking of Pope Felix calls him an Arian heretic, — "A monster, raised to the Roman hierarchy, by the mahce of Antichrist ! " See Labbeus, ii. p. 991. And will the American public believe me, when I declare to them that these two bloody monsters and Arian heretics, were after all their murders, perjury, and heresy, solemnly enrolled in the ghostly list of Roman saints ! St. Felix ! ! St. Liberius ! ! These are their titles. And here are the words which our priests address to them in solemn prayer, on their festival days, — even to these murderers, and deniers of our Lord's deity, "0^ / St. Li- berius, the light of the holy church, lover of the divine law, whom God loved, and clothed with the robe of glory, — procure for us, by thy inter- ceding merits, the pardon of all our sins! See Rom. Breviary p. 35. And Rom. Missal, p. 14. The same worship is to this very day, offered up to the bloody and atrocious Felix as a saint, a pope, and a martyr ! And to this kind of gods, do Drs. Power, Levins, and Varela offer up this kind of prayers ! If they neglect to do it they know that they are perjured men. For they have taken the great oath to do it, and to do it regularly, — on pain of damna- tion in their soul, and their body ! ! The fourth schism was between popes Eulalius and Boniface in the fifth century. After many shameful scenes, the Emperor decided the matter, and commanded Boniface to be pope. It is evi- dent that at this time, the Roman emperor dictated the election. Our priests, and "Holy mother," must therefore admit that Peter's spiritual lordship had at this early period, yielded to the temporal power of the emperor Honorius, and his, successors. The seventh schism was originated by popes Silverius and Vig- ilus, in the sixth century. The first was elected by simony and fraud; and he was ordained by fear and violence. He was creat- 341 ed pope by the king of the Goths. Vigilius his rival was elected by another faction, by simony aud fraud, equal in atrocity, to that of his antagonist. He received 700 pieces of gold, and the popedom from the empress Theodora ; on condition of his aiding her purposes: this he accepted; and was raised to the papacy. This "holy and infallible pope," in order to get rid of his rivals, suborned false witness to swear that Silverius was plotting to be- tray Rome to the Goths. He paid 200 pieces of gold for this testimony of the perjurer. It succeeded, the rival was banished, and shortly after this, he was starved to death ; others say, assas- sinated. See Godeau, iv. 204. Platina, 08. Now, it is obvious that, according to your own S»nons, both of these popes were illegally chosen. Here the links of the chain were broken. Be- sides the character of Vigilius who professed to transmit the suc- cession, was an atrocious character. Coveteousness, and the impious mockery of the laws of God and man, were among his least sins. He murdered his secretary by the blow of a club: he scourged his nephew to death ; and was accessary to the murder of the pope, his rival, see Platina, 68. The thirtee?ith schism took place in the close of the ninth centu- ry : it disgraced the papacy of Formosus, and Sergius. The first was elected contrary to the Bulls of Popes Nicholas and Ju- lius. But he was sustained by the power of the King of the Goths. Sergius, his rival, was finally expelled, and died an exile. Formosus did not long enjoy his guilty power and honours. Six years after his election, he died. The atrocious Pope Stephen was his successor. This "Vicar of God" ordered his predeces- sor, Foimosus, also a "Vicar of God," to be dug out of his grave; he had him dressed in his pontificals ; and gravely brought into court, to be tried. The question was put to him, "How dared you, being bishop of Porto, to alloVv yourself to be raised to the Holy See?" The dead body not making any reply, as might naturally be expected, his silence was deemed guilt ; he was so- lemnly condemned, his popedom declared illegal and invalid : his head and three of his fingers were cut oflf: and his mangled bo- dy cast into the Tiber. The scenes which followed this, were outrageous and horrible. The "Holy and Infallible father" Ste- phen died in a dungeon by the rope ! Bruys pronounces his eu- logium, — "This father and teacher of all Christians," says the popish writer, — "was as ignorant, as he was wicked." "He was guilty of a wicked and unheard of sacrilege," says Baronius. Pope John X. in his turn helped to cut off your succession by con- demning Pope Stephen and re-establishing the interests of Pope Formosus. But all things are mutable in "immutable and infalli- ble Rome." Pope Sergius III. pronounced his ban on the decrees of Pope John X.; reverses his acts ; restores the ordination of 345i Pope Stephen, and condemns the ordinations of Pope Pormosus. See Platina p. 127. Now it is utterly idle for any man to at- tempt to trace the genuine succession through all these confu- sions, and tumults and wickedness. If these men were Christian pastors and ^Hhe pure successors'^ of Peter, then what holy and ex- alted saints must Nero and Tamerlane have been ! Baronius, I am aware, ventures to make a somewhat different inference from this. After a suitable degree of railing at the Pro- testants, as he always does when he is constrained to narrate some of the infamous acts of the Popes, by way of a Jesuit's offset, and ruse de guerre, he very gravely pronounces this succession of abominable popes " a clear defiionstration that the supreme au- thority of the Roman see can never possibly be destroyed. " For, if it could," says he, " such a long succession of monsters in vice and folly must infallibly have ruined it." What an admirable ar- gument this would have been in the lips of the Roman pagan em- perors, who, you know, were also the supreme poutiffs of the Pa- gan superstition. " Verily," they might have said, " we have here the evidence of the truth of our holy pagan idolatry, and a demonstration that our pontifical authority can never possibly be destroyed. For if the pagan religion were false, and if my ponti- fical authority could be destroyed, — surely such a long succession of atrocious despots, must, by their vice and folly, long ago have ruined it !" The fact is this, in each of these cases, the boasters had nothing to lose ; tlie divinitij of Roman Catholic despotism and pagan despotism, being equally doubtful of proof, and equally from Peter ! and from heaven ! T\\Q nineteenth schism happened in the beginning of the eleventh •century. It revealed scenes more shocking than any thing hith- erto conceived. As Rome Catholic advanced in age, she increas- ed, by a double compound ratio, in all possible wickedness. There were three popes in this schism. Benedict was elected in A. D. 1033. He was placed in the "Holy Chair," by simony, the u7ii- versal and every day sin of Rome ; and by faction and tyranny. His life was a compound of all the pollution of the Roman pagans compressed into one little soul and body. This was " the Holy Father of Rome," the only "judge of all controversy," " the foun- tain of indulgences and pardon of sin" for money ! Silvester was set up as a rival to this monster ; and he expelled Benedict. John was the third pope, at this time. Benedict, without resigning, sold the papacy to John for 1500/; and was quiet as long as this money ministered to his diabolical lusts and wickedness. Silves- ter, who had been driven away by one faction, again returned and seized the Vatican. Benedict having spent his money, also renewed his claims to that office which he had sold for gold. These three ruffian popes, by violence and bloodshed, kept posses- 343 sion of the Lateral! the Vatican, and St. Mary's. " A three- headed beast," said your two writers, Labbeiis and Binius, " rising from the gates of hell, infested the holy chair in a w^olul manner." Labb. Il."l280. Bin. Lib. 7. 221. And Baronins, yom' orthodox Roman historian also calls them " the three heacled beast which had issued from the gates of hell !" Annal. A. L). 1041. Tom. 11. You have Cerberus, then, in the " pure and holy line," of your succession ! ! And how was a remedy brought to this state of things? Your Baronius has faithfully told the tale. As the mouths of the real Cerberus, \\\i\\\X,^ three heads, were stopped only by "a pitchy mouthful," so a certain " pious man" of the name of Gration, bethought of a similar scheme. The three mouths of this monster pope could be stopped, he was sure, with money. Yov money, you know% gentlemen, is the only omnipotent god of )^our " Holy Mother" and of all the priests ! This man, Gratian, actually bought the pope's chair, with all the spiritual powers, and honors, and appurtenances, thereto belonging, be they less or more. He bought it, with all its names, titles, and attributes, of antiquily, caOioliciiy, succession, unity, miraculosity, and sanctity. The three popes formally made over " Holy Mother Church" for gold!!" Benedict, one of the holy fathers, for instance, was to have all the revenues arising from England while he lived ; and the other holy pair had their just share! And the purchaser, by the merits of his gold, was duly made pope, "Vice God," and the "Holy Father" of the faithful, to open heaven and shut it on whom he l^leased. This new and fourth existing pope assumed the name of Gregory VL I have only to add that your writers, Platina and Damian tell us with much gravity that Benedict, this wicked pope, who caused this schism, and bloodshed, and misery, was subject- ed to punishment after death. Yes, the father of the faithful and " God's vice-gerent" w^as doomed to punishment! He appeared, say they, to a traveller, with the graceful countenance of "a bear," and a head decorated with the "long ears of an ass !" he was or- namented also with the long tail of an ass ! The traveller had the courage to ask him, — having found out that it was his " Holi- ness," what could possibly be the cause of such a wicked and unholy transformation ? " Ah ! " said the deceased "Holy Father," — " this is the due reward of my pollution when I was the head of the Holy Mother!" This pontiff, adds one of your saints, is doomed to be dragged headlong, until the day of judgment, through thorns and filth, in regions continually exhaling sulphur and vStench, and burning with fire. See Damian, c. 3. Platina, 142. Spondani, Epit. VI. 1094. Edgar 82. I shall notice only one instance more : the ticcnty-ninlh schism, usually called the great Western schism, began in 1378. On the 344 death of Gregory XL the conclave, consisting of twelve French cardinals, and four Italians proceeded to choose a pope. The citizens of Rome had recently received back the Pope and his court, after 70 years absence at Avignon. They very naturally supposed, that unless an overpov^ering multitude should give them some salutary hints, backed by some well-timed club-logic, to re- gulate their heterodoxy, they might be wicked enough to choose a Frenchman, for a Pope: and he, of course, they had reason to fear, would retire to Avignon, there to spend his riches. Guided by such disinterested motives, they placed a. guard of honor around the holy conclave, and proceeded to give them the necessary hints by 30,000 armed men; — namely, that if the holy fathers did ven- ture to choose a Frenchman for pope, it must be for no other rea- son than their own anxiety to get to heaven before their time, as Martyrs!! The Cardinals are remarkably prudent men; they never had given a martyr to " Holy Mother" yet ; and they did not choose at this time to begin the prec^edent : their lives were exceedingly valuable ; good men were then scarce. They took the hint from the mob: and took measiires to get ample vengeance on both friends and foes, and Holy Mother too ! They formally choose Urban VI : and then retiring beyond the reach of the Roman mob's discipline, they as formally elected Clement VII. Here your conclave chose two opposing heads of *'Holy Mother." Clement set up his court at Avignon: Urban, at Rome. And from that day all Europe was convulsed with wars and bloodshed. This schism lasted about 50 years. All Europe was a great ecclesiastical arena, on which kings and popes who are the worst of men, entered the lists with deadly animosi- ty, against popes and kings. What little remains there w^as of re- ligion in Europe, was nearly extinguished. The ghostly factions acted usually without policy, and always without Christian prin- ciple. "The pope's conscience," says Edgar, "evaporated in ambition, selfishness, and characteristic malignity." The cam- paign was opened by a volley of spiritual artillery. The electors denounced Pope Urban : he excommunicated every soul of them and formally gave the holy cardinals all over to the devil, soul and body ! ! Clement paid Urban back in lull tale. It was a fair trial which Pope could curse his antagonist with loudest thunder and deepest curses ! Kings and Queens shared in the horrid ana- themas. No bishop or priest escaped. They cursed all on each side, mutually : and each pope declared that " What he bound on earth was bound in heaven." Hence each believed, and declar- ed that his antagonist, and all his adhering bishops and priests, were cursed and excommunicated! and thence stripped of office, and sanctity. And in as much as each of them was duly elected pope, and each of them was a gentleman of equal honor, and d45 tqually credible, we are bound in duty, to believe each of them to have been correct ! And as each of these duly elected popes had annulled and vacated all the ordinations, collations, and pro- motions of his rival, of course, there was not one bishop, or one priest in all Europe, who was not duly deposed, and duly excom- municated from the church and stripped of his office. They anni- hilated the hierarchy of Rome ; and it was regularly and duly done ! And I challenge all the Roman priests in our Repubhc, to show any thing even plausible against this historical fact. Let ihem touch this if they have the courage. As if to make things doubly sure, in this formal deposition, the Council of Pisa deposed and set aside these hvo popes; and elected pope Alexander. This, instead of heahng, made /Aree acting popes! And all Europe sustained a fresh convulsion by the three fierce ecclesiastical factions. The Council of Constance, of atrocious memory, met in A. D. 1414. By this time Pope John had succeeded Pope Alexander. The Council required the three popes to resign forthwith : each on oath solemnly yielded ; and swore on the holy evangehsts to obey. But each of them instantly resumed his papacy : and thus, says an able writer, " Holy Mother had three perjured Heads : and there were three perjured Vice- Gods !^^ John was deposed for his infamous crimes: the Council actually proving and declaring "the Holy Father" guilty of" perjury, incest, rape, murder, and sodomy," See Labbeus 16, — 178, 222, and Dupin, iii. 14. Grego- ry the ?iext pope, abdicated, and renounced the papacy: the third one, Benedict, stood out he retired: into a strong castle, and there deserted by all his friends, he consoled himself in his dotage, by excommunicating twice in the day, with bell, book, and candle, all the nations of Europe who had deserted his holy "personal cause ! ! " Pope Martin was raised to the papacy. And the infa- mous Council made itself an execration to all generations, by their treachery and infernal cruelty. They condemiled, and burn- ed alive, the famous martyrs Huss and Jerome of Prague, against whom they could bring no charge, but that of their being devoted Christians, and faithful opposers of the deadly heresy of the Ro- mish sect. We might go on to deduce a list of upwards of 200 popes of a character on all points similar to these. But this we deem enough, both to give the public an idea of the line of succession boasted of by the Roman Catholic sect : and, at the same time, to annihilate their ridiculous claims of descent from the Apostles ! I shall only add that were I asked to select a list of the worst of men ; and the most wicked rulers : even the most unprincipled of the species, — such as atheists, despots, mockers of virtue and reHgion ; the common enemies of God and man ; — I would pass by the Kings 44 840 of Egypt, and Syria, and the despots of Assyria, and Babylon; I would leave out the atrocious Alexanders, and the Csesars, and the Greek despots, and the Roman emperors : I would even omit the JSferos, and the Tamerlaiies : — and 1 would, after making an honorable exception of a few worthy names, — give " the Popes OF Rome," as furnishing that horrid list ! Their enormities, per- petrated under the mask of holy religion, exceed, in fact, the powers of description. The characters of these men, as hinted at in John's Revelations, ■' as drunk with the blood of the saints," — and as exhibited in the history of their lives, can no more be adequately portrayed than can the character of the Prince of Darkness ! What man — what church, that respects the charac- ter and claims the honor of being Christian, would ever claim SPIRITUAL or ECCLESIASTICAL succESbioN through such a line of inhu- man and despotic tyrants! Men! such as the arch-deceiver would select as his prime ministers ! Men ! who have been the head, the heart, and the ever ready hand of that bloody Romish sect, which has already murdered fifty millions of the human family : and is now seeking with an unsatiable ghostly ambition, to regain its power, in order, if possible, to murder as many more ! ! 1 am with respect, gentlemen, yours &c. W. C. Brownlee, Colleg. Min. Middle and North Dutch Churches. Aho YorkyAug, 5, 1833. Reply of JDr. M^ower and Jftr. JLeving TO DR. BROWNLEE. »■ This man began to build, and was not able to finish. Lug. 14. 30. Rev. Sir: — Our controversy with you, personally, is terminated* It would be folly to continue it with a preacher who can neither form nor appreciate argument. Public opinion must be respected, — our own character must not be dishonored. To continue po- lemic discussion with you cannot add to reputation, for your sub- stitute for argument are falsehood, ribald words, gross invective,, disgusting calumny, and the recommendation of an obscene tale. These have been your weapons from your first to your last puerile letter. In the " Truth Teller" of July 6th and 13th, the following pro- position was proposed to you, — "What articles of faith, found in the Scripture in express terms, must be believed in order to be saved ?" You were, at the same time, informed, that " the con- 847 tinuation of our controversy with you, perso?mlhj, would depend on your answer." After a cautious delay your answer was con- cocted, — your articles of faiih found in the Scripture in express terms were given. Our hisl letter contained our remarks on your Bible creed. By this creed you exclude the Trinity and the Incar- nation. W.'iat is your answer to our letter? this;—" Your ultra zealotry is ambitioning too much when you find fault with my Scriptural creed,— or, indeed, any Christin?i creed ! ! /" This is your iheological answer ! this is the answer of the Erudite in the " He- brew and Greek of the Holy Ghost !" This is the answer of the Preacher in the Middle Dutch Church I He says w^e "ambition too much when we find fault with his Scriptural creed." But his Scriptural creed excludes the Trinity and the Incarnation and to '\fi7id fault with the exclusioji of the Trinity and Incarnation is, from his own avowal, " ambitioning too much ! " Hence, to secure the favour and approval of Preacher Brownlee, we 7nust ?iot "find fault" with the Scriptural creed which excludes the Trinity and Incarnation. We ask his "Christian public," is not this an ample and practical illustration of his Protestant rule of faith. But, further, he writes, — "you ambition too much when you ^7i(//aw/Mvith ANY Christian creed!" Therefore, in the opinion of Preacher Brownlee, no Christian creed is to be condemed. This is liberaHty ! But why does the Preacher " find fault" with the Catholic creed? Is this consistency? Any christian creed MAY RE adopted; — This is the final, logical, and orthodox conclu- sion from the twelve polemical letters of Preacher Brownlee on his Protestant rule of faith. This is the triumph achieved by Preacher Brownlee for himself, the Members of the Middle Dutch Church, and ihc *' virtuous ladies.^' As the Bard suno- of the burial of Sir John Moore, " Wc learc him alone with his glory." John Power, August 8th, 1833. Thos. C. Levins, TO DRS. POWER, VARELA AND LEVINS. LETTER THE LAST. ** Therefore I will put my hook in thy nose and my bridle i.v THY LIPS, and I will turn thee back by the way, by which thou earnest."— IsAi. 37. 29. Gentlemen : — Indulge me in a few words on parting, seeing that nothing can stop your desperate retreat from "Holy 348 Mother*s" defence. — " Your controversy with me/* you tell the public, " is personally ai an end." Beware of rash words, gentle- men. Controversy with me personally you will not end. It is true, this theological discussion was not personal on my part : I trust I chose a higher aim : no priest can be an object of attack person- ally, when " Holy Mother" is full in view. The Protestant aims his " Jerusalem blade," at the Head of all evil, on earth, viz : error embodied, and personified in Antichrist. But for you, — you have made it your avocation to he personal : you cannot be otherwise than persojial: Jesuitism would die of spleen if it vented not its malignant personalities. Romish logic has never yet distinguish- ed between argument and personal abuse. I do not say that this is your personal infirmity. — No. It is of the essential nature of the whole system. Jesuitism is by its very nature, at war with all mankind, and the good of all civilized society : issuing as it did, from the bottomless pit, if its natural malignity and hatred of all that is good were changed, or modified, it would of necessity die. *^ No faith with heretics,^^ is the watchword of its bloodhounds. The clanking of chains, and the moans of its tortured victims in the Inquisition, are its favorite music : and the fires of the auto DA FE, light up its dreary and horrid pathway ! The bowels of Jesuitism year7i over us, according to its natural parental feelings ! And the fires of Smithfield, and the massacres of Paris and of Ireland, would be renewed, tomortow, in our Park, had this bloody sect the political ascendency and power ! How could you then, Rev. Sirs, utter such an untruth — and say that your controversy personally with me, zvas at an end? But so it is — " A man may smile, and smile, and be a villain." You have, again repeated your blundering and ungrammatical card, demanding, — " What articles of faith found in the Scrip- tures, in express terms, must be believed in order to be saved?" That is, what articles are to be believed to be saved ? For such is the construction of the sentence ; there is no human person spo- ken of: the subject, or person of the verb, " must be believed," is the subject which is " to he saved." You have in all your letters, given the American public sufficient specimens, in all conscience, of the deficiencies of a Romish theological education: you might have spared the public taste this last specimen of your literary powers. But this little Card is the youngest and last of the fami- ly ; and of course it is a great pet with you ! You have inflicted it upon us three times ! It is natural : — It is human nature ! In a family, the youngest, little, rickety child is always the object of an absorbing parental fondness, — especially when its parents are waxing old, and are themselves very feeble-minded ! You have given us another rare specimen of Romish logic in 849 your remarks touching my Scripture creed. You facetiously af- fect to infer that we reject the Trhnly andlhc Incarnation ; because we do not mention them in express words. On your principles a man does not believe what he docs not find room to express in certain phrases! Hence, on the principles of your profound logic, our Lord, who does not, in express terms, mention either the Trini- ty or the Incarnation^ in the Lord's prayer, did not himself believe in them? — This, however, is not my main reply. Had your Ro- mish education embraced in it, the first elements of a sound chris- tian theology, and tlie analytic method of evolving truth — you must have seen — you could not but have seen, that in the very first text which I have quoted, namely, " Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved," — the true Christian necessarily believes, and confesses his faith in the 7ri?iitt/, and in the Incarna- tion. He cannot truly believe in Christ, unless he believes in the Father, who sent his Son to redeem us : and in Jesus Christ the incarnate God, who in human nature, sufl^ered, and died for us : and in the Holy Ghost, who " creates us anew in Christ," and gives us that very faith, by which we receive Christ. I shall not therefore follow you any farther, in your disjointed, and bald declamation about " Creeds of Christian faith" and " ar- ticles of belief" "Physician, (I say,) heal thyself!" Those men who have been fairly coivvicted of Deism, on evidence which would satisfy any jury of twelve honest men ; and who in fact, have openly declared in the face of the pubHc, that they, and their sect do absolutely reject God's word, as " utterly defective,'' and " utterly insufficient to be the Rule of Faith," — are not to be listen- ed to, in their cantings about Christian creeds, and articles of faith. It is sheer hypocrisy. " And of all the cantings of this canting world, the cant of hypocrisy is the worst." And of all hypocrites, the most insufferable are these two classes, — namely, — the drunkard, on an ale house bench, — and the infidel priest, demure- ly discussing solemn articles of our holy religion ! ! The highly complimentary truth which closes your last letter, would have been duly appreciated by me, had it not been wrung from you by constraint. Here the priests of Rome have been, in one respect, like the fair sex; — pardon me, Ladies, for placing you, even in supposition, in the company of those with whom, we are all aware, no virtuous lady can associate for one moment. But in the fair one's letter, one can never arrive at her real feeling and meaning, until she comes to the Postscript. There, every thing is wrapt up in the last sentence. Even so, after all the priests, vitu- peration, and scandal, and personalities, the truth is evolved in their last sentence,— namely, — "We leave him alone," that is their opponent—" with his glory!" " There are few polemics who can boast of receiving such a compliment as this from their antagonist ; 350 that is too say, for it is to delicious not to be thoroughly paraphras- ed, — "We abandon to him the whole cause, in despair! " JVe leave him alone with his glory /" Our Roman Catholic Rule is utterly untenable! We abandon the defence! The heretic's /e/i argu- ments we cannot, — and will not touch ! They have crushed our Rule ! And the one score and five arguments against Holy Mother's *^ idolatry, ^^ and her *' superstition,'^ and her '^fanaticism,'' have anni- hilated our hopes. They are tremendous,— because we feel the overpowering force of our own errors and impostures! Conscious innocence can withstand any thing! But a guilty consciousness makes one feel one's self annihilated by the smallest volley ! Holy Mother's " antiquity," we can defend no more, when we have a conviction in our consciences, that all our leading tenets and rites were recently invented by our priesthood ! And the heretic in his terrible Letter viii. has let the fatal secret out! Her " Catholi- city''' is gone too ! We can no more say a word in defence of it. The plague rest on this cunning " American pubHc" of his ! We really had thought that we could have made his "religious pubHc'* believe that particular meant general, that our church was all the universe ! Our succession is ruined ! These schisms, and these dia- bolical popes, set forth in all their horrid garnishment, have killed us outright! Alas ! for the stately bark of St. Peter ! It has been shipwreck- ed in Europe. And our last hopes were bringing these States under our grasp, and the holy despotism, — the salutary despotism of Rome, and the Inquisition. We were working our way secret- ly and slily. We had got many Protestants, — silly fools we ad- mit, — WHO achmlly sent their daughters into our 7iu7ineries, and their sons to our pure and holy seminaries of Jesuitism, to be educated! ! And carefully and successfully did we train them : and return them into the bosom of their vile heretical parent; deeply imbued with Romanism ; and faithful to the Catholic Jesuits' cause ! ! But, alas ! the cunning American public is now waked up ! And our hopes are blasted! ' The curse of St. Patrick on these dis- cussions! It is true, we knew the wholesome rule of our holy Jesuit Busasus. •' Avoid, if you can, all controversy on the articles of faith, with heretics ! " We did act on this all along ! But these obstinate heretics would not be way-laid : they plunged right on- ward ; and they got in spite of us, into our citadel, — into the very chambers of our imagery! The veil so carefully thrown over all our weak parts, has been unceremoniously stript off. And St. Patrick only knows what is to be the end of these things ! Our blessings on this officious meddling "American public" of his ! — We had once thought that we could easily train, by our Jesuit legions, swarming over all the land, the people of this American Republic ! Our doctrines, and our rites, and church goverr*- 851 ment, sustained by a /orei^g-w power, cRunot thrive, — they cattnot even /ire in a Republic ! But when we receive the power we shall soon teacii these stifl'-hendcd Republicans another lesson. And Spain and Austria and Italy shall be the fair model of a new and renovated government ! But the maledictions of St. Peter and St. Paul on these discussions! The artful secret has been divulged, before we were ripe ! Our execrations on this reading and thinking generation ! Ten thousand plagues on this light and knowledge, which paralyzes us ; and strikes us blind, as do the sun's bright beams the owl of the forest." Such are the ad- missions wrapt up honestly in the last sentence of your letter: and we thank you for the concessions: we shall give wings to them. But, finally, permit me to grace your retreat With an appro- priate historical exposition of your favourite text at the head of my letters. It was not for nothing that you quoted it so often, and so apropos. "Coming events cast their shadows before ! " You had a presentinent of this ill-fated retreat : and it was im- possible that you could forget the Retreat of the great personages, alluded to in the premonitory passage of the prophet. These were Senacherib, the despot of Assyria ; with his two mischief-making sons, Adramelech and Sharezer; who closed the chapter of their father's accidents, in a bloody tragedy. These with their servant, rabshakeh, came up to invade the fair land of Judah, and destroy Mount Zion. The King of Assyria was but another name for a cruel foreign despotism, exercised over the souls and bodies of men. You know who is the anti-type of this unenviable character. The two sons of that prince, children of Behal, may represent the two men who are the right and left hands of the symbol o( foreign despotism, — men, who, like these sons, would kill their sovereign ! And Rabshakeh was a vain, blustering, swaggering, wine-bibber ; much given to gasconade ; a captain of the Assyrian host ; fighting against Zion, and against the Most High ; much given to speak and write blasphemy in the ears, and before the eyes, of the people: much given to taunt "the Hebrew of the Holy Ghost," and prefer the Babylonion tra- ditions and oracles of the heathens, to the pure and holy word of God. Moreover, for some misdemeanor or other, by the law of his despotic prince, he was doomed never to marry, nor to be re- ceived into the company of "virtuous ladies." Hence he exer- cised himself much in the language of Ashdod, in speaking evil of all "the virtuous of the sex." For he did, — "Like Moses praise and bless, The Canaan which he never could possess." But haste we to the sequel — Never w^as defeat more public and more complete, than that of our Assyrians ! IN ever was a 35^ RETREAT of any vain glorious foemen covered with more infamy than was that of the despot, his two sons, and Rabshakeh! Not one strong hold of Israel could they approach with a hand of harm! Not one arrow took effect in any one fortress of Zion. They missed their aim : they lost their cause : they lost their honor : they lost their whole ho.st ! The Mighty God of Zion breathed on them in the burning wrath of his Samiel, — and lo! they were all dead men ! The few struggling partizans, made their Retreat, in deathlike silence, and with unutterable confusion. God fights against all antichristian powers! Then, mark the end of the despot. The hands of those whom he trained up to wickedness, did Overthrow him 1 As for Rabsha- keh; — as you are admirers of tradition, let us seek his fate in the Misnah, and the Gemara of the Talmud. It is very obscure; but the most feasible may be this : — being a great patron of human ignorance, lie kept the people as blind and ignorant as possible : he hated reading and writing : it only made people averse from the patient bearing of the yoke of priestcraft and despotism ! He took care to burn every copy of the Book of the Law, that he could find in the people's houses. But even the longest chain has an end. The tide of popular fury turned on him; and banished him into some eremite's cell, to lead a life of penance and unalloy- ed misery. And he died as he had lived, the enemy of God, the curse of civil society, and the execration of all enlightened peo- ple ! His bleached bones were found by some humane shepherd, who placed them under a large rock, upon which in the process of time, some one wrote an epitaph. This epitaph probably found its way into the Gemara; and some amateurs having translated it, — the famous Robert Burns added the charms of a poetic version to it, in the following manner: — " Beneath these rugged stones Lie old Rabshakeh's bones ; O death \ it's my opinion, You ne'er took such A blatherin' bitch, Into your dark dominion ! !" I am, Gentlemen, yours, &c. W. C. Brownlee. Notice. — The priests having finally retreated and having ept- TiRELY GIVEN UP THEIR CAUSE, in this discussioH it would be as dis- creditable to address any more Letters to them, as it would be in a soldier, who keeps in his ranks, to consent, or correspond with COWARDS and deserters. I shall claim the continued and kind in- dulgence of the Christian community while I go on in the regu- lar DISCUSSION, IN Letters addressed to the Members of the Roman Catholic Church ; — retaining my right, however, to return to the charge, should the Priests come out with " more last words." New York, August 13, 1833. W. C. B. the end. I' Date Due ' f.'^^i^T*! T ' - f) PRINTED IN U. S. A.