the safety of the sovereigns," at "this congress of Christendom.” No, their safety was in submission and silence;-and they felt themselves well off, if, after holding the Pope's stirrup, and kissing his feet, they could hold their crowns by doing homage for them, and their lives by his lordly grant.

(4.) And then to think of explaining this atrocious-decree, which deluged Europe in blood, by referring to the poor Albigenses, as disturbing the peace of kingdoms, and "obliging sovereigns to provide for their own safety," by indiscriminate extermination of all who did not think with them! They were no more in strength and numbers, compared with all Europe, than a little flock of kids before a great

army.

(5.) But the strangest of all your expositions is this "had not then Catholic kings, and Catholic barons, and Catholic vassals, all the orders of feudalism in Catholic Europe, the right by virtue of their majority, to take precautions against such consequences? No republican, I should think, would deny it." The argument is, that a majority have a right to exterminate the minority; for disagreeing with them in opinion. Heresy was the sin for which all these bloody acts were passed. No sin against the state is mentioned; nothing that it concerns the civil power to punish; but just what the Protestants of this land are doing, protesting against the Papacy!— Yours is truly strange republicanism. How well for us, in view of old decrees and new arguments for them, that Protestants have yet the majority in our country!

But my heart grows sick at the recital. Indeed, sir, yours is a sad business, to defend or explain such enormities. But no skill can torture it into propriety. No Jesuit can cover, or excuse, or deny it.

I next pass to meet your demand, and sustain my statement," that the Catechism of the Council of Trent gives only four words of the second commandment, and closes with an expressive et cetera." I find that you are accustomed to make calls on me, which from their wording, convey the impression to the public that I am wholly in error as to some authority or fact, and then, when I produce the proof, instead of owning it, you drop it in silence. So you did in reference to the Pope's anathematizing Bible Societies, so you did in reference to Bellarmine's "fere de fide." Before the proof was adduced, you brought a heavy charge against me. After it was pro

duced, you do not say one word in the way of interpretation or argument, but pass the discussion with a petulant taunt. So as to the three systems in your church, as to the Pope s supremacy--viz: a presidency, an unlimited monarchy, and deification. Twice have I brought proof, you answer only by a denial.

And now as to the second commandment and the Council of Trent. You say my statement is "untrue," and that it is "bearing false witness against my neighbour." Now for the proof.

CATECHISMUS CONCILII TRIDENTI PII. V. PONTIF. MAX. Jussu promul gatus. Primum Præceptum Decalogi. Ego sum Dominus Deus tuus qui eduxi te de terra Egypti, de Domo ser

Catechism of the Council of Trent published by order of Pope Pius V.

1st. Precept of the Decalogue. I am the Lord thy God who led thee out of the land of Egypt and out of the

vitutis. Non habebis Deos alienos coram me. Non facies tibi sculptile, &c.

Secundum Decalogi Præceptum. Non assumes nomen Domim Dei Tui in vanum.

house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thee a graven image, &c.

Second Precept of the Decalogue. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

Here then we see even as I have said, that four words only are given, viz., non facies tibi sculptile, thou shalt not make to thee a graven image, and then follows the expressive et cetera. It is true these four words are fastened to the end of the first commandment, and no doubt for the purpose of casting even them into the shade. But it is the real 2d commandment which begins with these four words. But however you class the long and expressive command against making and bowing down to, and worshipping images, where are all the other portions of it? Are they not dropped? And do we not clearly see why? Here then is on one hand the catechism word for word, and on the other, Mr. Hughes denying it, and charging me with falsehood for reporting it. Truly your denial will presently be to us, a stereotype proof of the truth of a proposition. What is thus so clearly proved from the catechism of the Council of Trent, the translations into various languages, copy in a greater or less degree according to circumstances. I have mentioned several instances of the kind in my last letter. You take no notice of them. There is now on my table an example, "The most Rev. Dr. J. Butler's Catechism, enlarged, improved and recommended by the four Roman Catholic Archbishops of Ireland, as a general catechism for the kingdom." Philadelphia, published by Eugene Cummiskey, 1827, lesson 14. 1st commandment, I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have strange gods before me, &c. 2d. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. 3d. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, &c. &c. Here is not one single word about graven images. Have I not justly called this expressive silence?

Once more, your attempt at explaining Pope Nicholas' calling himself a god, is a veil too thin to cover the deformity and blasphemy of the assumption. It is true that he quotes from the Emperor Constantine; but he so quotes as to approve of what he had said. Upon your construction, there is no meaning or sense in the reasoning of the Pope. Whereas the Pope uses the reference to prove himself superior to all secular authority. In proof of this, see his words; Satis evidenter ostenditur a seculari potestate nec ligari prorsus, nec solvi posse pontificem quem constat a pio principe, Constantino (quod longe superius, memoravimus) Deum appellatum, nec posse Deum ab hominibus judicari manifestum est. It may very evidently be shown that the Pope, who as we have already related was called God by Prince Constantine, can neither be bound nor released by the secular authorities, for it is evident that God cannot be judged by

men.

Your pompous challenge to a reference, with the reason assigned for it, viz., that the language and the books about which we differ are unknown to the mass of our readers, is curious enough; especially when we consider that your public prayers and standard Bible are

both in an unknown tongue. I have uniformly studied to be simple, faithful, and full in my references. I now greet your arrival at the principle of private interpretation. If you will add to the points you mention, the question about the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and the other catechisms, and about the Pope calling himselt God; also, the question of the true sense of my extract from the 4th Council of Lateran, and the interpretation of 2 Peter i. 20. then I will promptly agree to such a reference, it being understood that the parties shall be neither Roman Catholics nor Presbyterians.

But now let us return to the line of our argument. If I am not greatly deceived, your reasoning in behalf of your rule of faith, "in THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION" has been fairly shown to be unscriptural and fallacious-I proceed to remark still farther.

99

I. One of your methods of defending your church's infallibility, is this, "if the church be not infallible, then the gates of hell have prevailed against it, and the Redeemer has forgotten his promise to his spouse. Now observe, (1.) The question in debate is whether this infallibility was ever promised; and whether the existence, security, and triumph of the church at all depend upon such infallibility. We say not all. The gates of hell shall never prevail against the church, because Christ her head is with her. By such an inference therefore, you beg the question, but do not prove it. (2.) In this way also you assume without proof, that yours is the true church, and then argue that she is infallible. But you must first prove yours the true church, and the only true church; or else on your own system your conclusion is worth nothing. You can only prove it by private interpretation;-you cannot prove it all. (3.) Supposing that Christ did promise (which we deny) an infallible church on earth; there is another conclusion far more obvious than that which you draw. It is this-the church of Rome has proved herself fallible in doctrine and fallible in morals-therefore the gates of hell have prevailed against her;—and she cannot be the true church of Christ. This is on your own principles, and you cannot consistently escape the conclusion.

II. Allowing that Christ appointed an infallible tradition of doctrine, and a succession of infallible teachers, then the church which does not dispense his ordinances, and teach his doctrines, as he instituted, and taught, cannot be a 'TRUE church of Jesus Christ. Now I will prove that your church has corrupted the ordinances of Christ, and the doctrines of Christ. If so, she is destitute, of the true rule of faith, on your own principles. I refer you for proof of this to the decree of the Council of Trent, 21 Sess. 1st. and 2d. chaps. I suppose you have the original, and can compare it with this translation "Although Christ the Lord did in the last supper institute this venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, in the species of bread and wine, and thus delivered it to the Apostles;"" and though from the beginning of the Christian religion, the use of both kinds, was not unfrequent-yet when in process of time, that practice, was, for weighty and just causes, changed, Holy Mother Church, recognising her acknowledged authority, in the administration of the sacraments, approved the custom of communion in one kind, and commanded it

to be observed as a law." Chap. iv. Canon 1st. "Whosoever shall affirm that all and every one of Christ's faithful are bound by divine command to receive the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist in both kinds, as necessary to salvation, let him be accursed."

Here then is (1.) a confession that Christ instituted the sacrament of the supper in bread and wine. (2.) That from the beginning the use of both the bread and the wine was common (not unfrequent.) (3.) That there were weighty and just causes for CHANGING (mark it!) CHRIST'S LAW. (4.) That the Roman Catholic church made the CHANGE into a LAW. (5.) Whosoever finds fault with this dreadful innovation IS ACCURSED. (6.) Yet this is no less, than dividing in twain a solemn sacrament of Jesus Christ, and dropping one half of this sealing ordinance! How expressive is the prophecy. (Daniel vii. 25.) "And he shall speak great words against the Most High; and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws."

To the two sacraments instituted by Christ, your church has added no less than five new ones. One of these, viz. extreme unction, is thus proved by the Council of Trent, Sess. 14. chap. 1. "Truly the Holy unction of the sick, was instituted as it were, truly and properly a sacrament of the New Testament, hinted at indeed, (insinuatum) by our Lord Christ in Mark, but recommended and preached to the faithful by James the Apostle and brother of our Lord." In the canon just below, it is said to have been "instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord," but there is no attempt at other or better proof than that quoted before. A sacrament resting on an "AS IT WERE," and a HINTED AT" by CHRIST! And then the proof from James (5 chap. 14, 15, ver.) is perverted in the translation and use of it. "Anoint

66

ing the sick," as mentioned by James, "raised him up," by miraculous power, to live again. The Lord who "raised him up," "forgave his sins."-But extreme unction, as the name imports, is a last act; and the translation from the Greek, in the decree of the Council, changes the meaning to this, "the Lord will ease him." But besides the fact that this institution is utterly an innovation, there is about it a most singular dilemma, which explains in part the cautious language of the decree. The Council had decreed (3d chap. of Sess. 14.) that "the proper ministers of this sacrament are either Bishops or Priests regularly ordained by them." The same Council decreed that"in the last supper, our Lord appointed his Apostles priests of the New Testament." (Sess. 22d. chap. 1st.) When the Apostles administered the unction to the sick, (Mark vi. 14.) they were then priests, or they were not priests. If they were priests then, they were not made priests at the last supper; and the Council in affirming they were, have erred: or if they were not priests then, or till the last supper, the unction, not being administered by priests, was no sacrament; and the Council in declaring it was a sacrament, has greatly erred. In either case, the Council has overthrown its own infallibility, and that of the church of Rome.-Space alone is wanting to apply the same train of reasoning with equal effect to show that your church has corrupted the doctrines of Christ and his Apostles; so that many of those which you hold to be cardinal, are novelties

and errors; such are Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Indulgences, the Pope's supremacy, &c. which, if my life be spared, I hope in due time to make appear. So that it is easier to show that our religion was before Luther, than yours before the Council of Trent. The inference is most conclusive, that since the church of Rome has altered and added to the sacraments of Christ, and corrupted his doctrines, she is not unchangeable, that she has not been an infallible teacher," and of course lacks that rule of faith, which Mr. Hughes himself says the true church must have!

66

III. The canon of Scripture, used by your church, is not the canon of the Christian church. As to the canonicity of all the books of the true Bible, you and we are agreed. It is true you have often in this discussion taken, common ground with the Infidel, and attempted to perplex the proof of the authenticity of the Bible, in order to carry your system. We did not receive the Bible exclusively through the church of Rome. But allowing that we did, so did you receive the Old Testament canon exclusively through the Jews. If then because we receive it from you, we ought to take your traditions with the text from you, so ought you, because you receive the Old Testament from the Jews, to take their traditions with the text from them. Again though you get the Old Testament from the Jews, you add many books to their canon, which they rejected. Why have you done this? If you may add what the Jews rejected, and yet hold a part in common with them as you do, may not the Christian church reject what you add, and yet hold a part in common with you? This is what the Christian church has done. Now as to the Old Testament canon, it is conceded by your church that the Jews rejected, as not canonical, those books called " Apochryphal," which the Council of Trent decreed to be a part of the canon. nor his apostles ever found fault with the Jews for rejecting true Scriptures from the canon, or adding false books to it; though their false glosses and traditions were continually exposed by them. So far from this, Christ and his Apostles continually quoted from the present Old Testament; yet not a word from your additional booksMaccabees, Tobit, &c. &c. But they referred the Jews "to whom were committed the oracles of God," (Rom. iii. 2.) to their own Scriptures" search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life-and they are they which testify of me.' (John v. 39.)

Neither Christ

As it is written," "that it might be fulfilled," &c. were the familiar and unqualified approbation of Jesus and his Apostles, to the Jewish Scriptures. And by comparing the 27th with the 44th verse of Luke's 24th chapter, you will find Christ saying that "all the Scriptures" were compromised in the "law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms." That was the common division of the whole Jewish Scriptures, without the Maccabees, Tobit, &c. &c.

Again these Apocryphal books,. (according to the present canon of the Protestant churches) are excluded from the true canon by the earliest Christian writers. Justin Martyr, (A. D. 150.) quotes not one word from these Apocryphal books. The first catalogue of the Old Testament Scriptures, which we have after the days of the Apostles, is that of MELITO, preserved by Eusebius. (Ecc. Hist.