which it seems to breathe. The "American people," as a people, knows no distinction of creeds; and yet you speak as if the government were already chained to the car of the General Assembly! The Catholics, as citizens, are part and portion of that "people," being as peaceable in their demeanor, as upright in their dealings, as industrious in their avocations, and as ardent in their attachment to civil and religious liberty, as any other denomination. When the tree of American liberty was planted, was it not watered with Catholic blood ? When the instrument of American independence was drawn up, was it not signed with Catholic ink? When the provinces on our borders were to be conciliated, was not the commission intrusted to a Catholic Senator, and a Catholic Priest; afterwards Archbishop Carroll? When the battle was won, was not the glory of the victory divided with the Catholic soldiers, of a Catholic king? And yet, you speak of Catholics as if they live and breathe the free air, by the criminal connivance of "the American people." But you, forsooth, are about to rouse that "people," from its apathy to teach them, that in allowing the Catholics to share the benefits of the constitution-for I know of no other privilege that they enjoy-they are "cherishing a serpent that will sting the bosom which warms it."

But this, you say, was my "own illustration," applied to Presbyterians. Yes, Rev. Sir, but applied on the faith of history; to the Puritans, who, when they were persecuted in Virginia, fled to the Catholic colony of Maryland, and in return for the hospitality they received, turned round at the first opportunity, and persecuted those who had exercised it towards them. Read M'Mahon's History of Maryland. This was the case, which was illustrated by the simile of the serpent; and if history testifies that Catholics have at any time, ever been guilty of such base ingratitude, I have no objection that you should borrow and apply "my illustration." Your application of it to Catholics, as distinguished from "the American people," borders too much on the ludicrous, and shows that you were straitened for matter wherewithal to excite prejudice against Catholics, when you quit the testimony of past events, and appeal to the visions of futurity. But I fear that your fallibility as an historian, will have impaired your credit as a prophet.--Since it is much easier to be acquainted with what has taken place in the world, than to thread with prophetic accuracy the labyrinth of future contingencies.

"Chi offende, non pardona," says the proverb. And it would be one happy result of this controversy, if you could only turn against the Catholics that current of jealous apprehension, which for some time past has been setting in, against the Presbyterians themselves in reference to their ambitious projects and political aspirations. It would be well, if the "American people," could be induced to cast their eyes in another direction. But, Rev. Sir, I shall not be the accuser of Presbyterians, as to any ulterior political designs. I have marked their movements; their professions of zeal for the glory of God; their plans for accomplishing it; their schemes of sectarian quackery, by which it would appear that they are accountable for the religious, and moral well-being not only of the "American peo

ple," but of the whole human race;-their wish to have "Christian parties" in politics, and Christian magistrates, whose duty it is, says their STANDARD, to be "nursing fathers of the church;"-their enumeration of Presbyterian votes on the day of election; their attempts to have the mail stopped on Sunday--in a word, their gigantic schemes for the reformation of the world, according to their ideas of perfection;-all conspire to produce the apprehension, not that they will seize the civil government, (the American people will take care of that) but that in their zeal for the sanctification of others, they may neglect the sanctification of themselves. This is all the evil that I apprehend from the intermeddling and pragmatic spirit, which seems to animate the zealous members of Presbyterianism, from the Moderator in General Assembly, down to those well meaning children who cherish large notions about curing the moral distempers of a whole neighbourhood, by thrusting tracts into every house, whether the family desires them or not. But as to the "American people," they have nothing to dread on either side,-they will take care of the State, if clergymen will only take care of the Church-the denomination, however, that first attempts to bring about a union of these two, makes preparations for tragic nuptials.

In your postscript you charge me with attempting to injure the Rev. Mr. Burtt. I really cannot suffer such a charge to pass unnoticed. How does the case stand? You stated that you had been informed, that Bishop Kenrick had warned the people against reading this controversy. You subsequently apologized to him; but transferred the charge to some other of the Catholic clergy in this city. The charge itself was a "GRATUITOUS FALSEHOOD," because there was not the shadow of foundation for it. This was manifest, from the ludicrous texture of that ludicrous composition, signed John Burtt-and more so still, from the letter of the Rev. Mr. Fitton, of the "Connecticut Valley," who proves it a falsehood, by showing that he was in Washington city, on the very day on which he is charged with having issued the "prohibition,' ," in St. John's church, Philadelphia. It was a 66 CALUMNY," because it insinuated dishonesty of purpose on the part of the Catholic clergy, in forbidding the people to behold the light of truth which your pen was shedding, around the topic of controversy. This was the state of the case independent of any man's authorship. And when I held Rev. John Burtt as accountable for it; you should remember that I did so, on your own specific testimony, for in your last letter but one you stated positively, that Mr. Burtt was "THE ORIGINAL, AND RESPONSIBLE INFORMANT." If that gentleman is injured, therefore, let him charge the injury upon you, or upon himself, or on both together; but not upon Yours, &c. JNO. HUGHES.

TO THE REV. JOHN HUGHES.

Philadelphia, June 27th, 1833.

Sir,-The great question now before us, is this: Is the Protestant religion the religion of Christ? The order of debate as agreed on between us, entitles me to introduce this topic. Hence you have called on me for a definition of "the Protestant religion," and pledged yourself to respect it. The terms of the question make it general-not Presbyterian, but Protestant; they also refer us to a fact out of which the name grew, viz: that a protest had been entered: and they point us to the church and system against which we protest.The very first step, therefore, in the order of discussion, is to show against what we protest. After this, or if you please, in contrast with it, it will be proper to examine that which the Protestants propose, as true and good, in opposition to the errors and evils of the church of Rome. I have on this plan given you a definition of the Protestant religion. It is a positive definition, viz. a religion exclusively derived from, and consistent with, the Holy Scriptures, as the only infallible rule of faith and practice-and I referred for illustration of it to the earliest creed and the earliest Christian writers, as well as those who have been emphatically called The Reformers of the 16th century. It is also negative in contradistinction from the Roman Catholic religion as to doctrine, morality, government, discipline and worship, and as protesting against the errors and corruptions of the church of Rome. If I am then to show why I protest, I must exhibit what I protest against; else the correlative term Protestant, has no meaning. And if, as you say, I am the original assailant, why do you tell me that mine is the business of defence?" And if, of two leading questions, (viz. "The rule of faith," and this) the first is given to you, and the last to me, shall I be required to defend under the first, and also under the last? Are you then afraid to follow me in the steps of my discussion, while I compare our respective religions with each other, and with the religion of Christ? If so, you concede the weakness of your cause. If not, then follow

me.

66

I have already proved (in my letters No. 18 and 20,) on the authority of Roman Catholic writers, and Roman Catholic councils, that a Reformation was necessary--and that it was an article of faith that a Reformation was necessary-not only in the days of Luther, but for ages before: that a Reformation was needed, in the head and in the members: that the name of Christ had been forgotten by the nations, and even by the clergy; that Rome herself, the avowed mother and mistress of churches, was the very place where Christ's religion was scandalized and his worship corrupted: that simony and sacrilege with nuns, clerical debauchery, "a world of supersti tions," and the most shocking corruptions abounded and reigned in the church; and in a word, that an ignorant and corrupt priesthood were bringing ruin on the church. Pope Adrian the 6th said, "the whole world groaned after a reformation:" the Suffragan Bishop of Saltsburgh (onus ecclesia) declared "it is vehemently to be presumed, and cautiously to be feared, that the ruin of the Latin (Roman)

church, as to its ecclesiastical dignity, is near;" and the 2d Pisan council (sess. 3d apud. Richerium, b. 4. pt. 1st) decreed "that the universal church needed reformation in faith and manners, in the head and members."

And yet it has also been proved that the church of Rome would not be reformed; that it was not reformed; and that on the ground of its pretended infallibility, it never could be reformed. Such confessedly was the deplorable condition of the church of Rome when "the Reformation" began, and its authors received the name of Protestants. Treading in their footsteps, we PROTEST against her corruption of the religion of Christ.

1. She has corrupted this religion at the fountain-head, by making another Bible, adding to it "the Apochryphal Books," which I have already proved were rejected for many centuries by the Christian church, which contain fables, lies, false doctrines, and contradictions; and in which alone are found some of those very errors that are held by the church of Rome. She has also given to corrupt and unwritten traditions the same authority with God's own word; and thus at her will brought from this forge any doctrine that the times and ends called for. From these topics, while on the rule of faith, you uniformly shrunk, thus confessing that they could not be defended.

2. The Supremacy of the Pope, is a radical error in the church of Rome, is a wicked and anti-christian usurpation, which by a lawless monarchy oppresses men, and rebels against God.

In the famous creed of Pius IV., which every Roman Catholic is bound without qualification, to believe, is this oath: "I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Bishop; the successor of St. Peter, the prince of the Apostles, and vicar of Jesus Christ." Boniface VIII. in a decree extant in the canon-law, pronounces it "necessary to salvation for every human being to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Bellarmine says, (chap. 17. b. 2.) “All the names, which in Scripture are applied to Christ, proving him to be above the church, are in like manner applied to the Pope." Is not this profane? The Pope is also styled "Head of the church"" Lord of lords"-"Father of fathers"- -"our Lord God the Pope," and the like. As the vicar of Christ, the Pope is blasphemously set up to take his place on earth. Thus he is the Prophet, Priest, and King, of the church on earth. He is a Prophet; for no council is valid, unless called and approved by him; and from this infallible source we are to learn, (1.) What is the word of God and what not; and (2.) without daring to think for ourselves, we are to learn what it means, and what not. As a Priest, he professes to offer up continually the true Christ in the mass as a sacrifice to God; and as a king, he is a monarch, is Head of the church and the state, is King of kings; has both swords, and can make laws to bind the consciences of men, can depose kings, dissolve oaths, allegiance, &c. This can all be clearly made out on indisputable evidence. This is blasphemy. Is Christ absent from the world that he needs a substitute? "All power is given unto me on earth and in heaven, and lo I am with you always, even to the end of the world." (Matth. xxviii. 1820.) Is he impotent? Is he neglectful of his kingdom? Does not

66

the Scripture say, "There is one Lord," (Ephes. iv. 5.) one head as well as one body that Christ is the only potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords. (1 Tim. vi. 15;) and the only lawgiver. (James iv. 12?) And did not Christ say to Peter and the other Apostles, "Be ye not called Rabbi, (master) for one is your master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren; neither be ye called masters, for one is your master, even Christ; but he that is greatest among you shall be your servant." (Matt. chap. xxiii. 8.) Does not Paul say, (2 Cor. i. 24.) We have not dominion over your faith: (yet Paul was equal to Peter) but we are helpers of your joy by faith ye stand," (Titus iii. 1.) "Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates." (Matth. xx. 25, 26.) Jesus said, "Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great, exercise authority upon them, but it shall not be so among you." This was a rebuke to apostles, who were asking for supremacy! So palpable is the sacrilegious arrogance of the titles and authority of the Pope, that Pope Gregory I. said, (though many centuries ago) "I confidently say that whosoever doth call himself universal Bishop, or desireth to be so called, doth in his election become the forerunner of anti-Christ, because in his pride he doth set himself before all others," and he calls that title, (which is less presumptuous than others since assumed,) foolish," "proud," "profane," "wicked;" and refers the man who aspired to it, to the example of Lucifer for illustration, and to the judgment of the great day for retribution. How fitting is the prophecy of Paul's,-than which a truer likeness was never drawn, and which God's people have been accustomed for many ages, (uniting with Pope Gregory) to apply to his successors at Rome! "And that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition who opposeth, and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. (2 Thess. ii. 3, 4.)

Add to all this what Genebard (chron. ad Ann. 901.) says: "For almost one hundred and fifty years, about fifty popes, having departed from the virtue of their predecessors, were apostate, rather than apostolical; at which times they entered in (to office) not by the door, but by a back-door, that is to say, by the power of the Emperors. Baronius too (vol. x. A. D. 908) thus writes: "Hast thou heard of the most deplorable state of things at this time when Theodora the elder, a strumpet of noble family, obtained supreme controul (monarchism) if I may so say, in the city of Rome. She pro stituted her daughters to the popes, the invaders of the Apostolic seat, and to the marquisses of Tuscany; by which means, the dominion of such wicked women became so absolute, that they removed at pleasure the lawfully created popes, and having expelled them, introduced violent and most wicked men in their places." Such things are almost too bad to relate-how much worse to be done in the infallible seat by the Vicar of Jesus, and the universal head of the church! Yet the same author informs us that these monsters were received by the church with the reverence due to the successor of Peter! (eundem ut Petrum cole rent.) Now from such a church, is