IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION THE RELIGION OF CHRIST? Philadelphia, July 3, 1833.

TO THE REV. JOHN BRECKINRIDGE.

Rev. Sir,-In your letter No. XX. when we were discussing the previous question, you gave, as the definition of the Protestant Rule of Faith, The word of God as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament ;" and because I did not attack the "word of God," you charge me with having evaded "the real Protestant Rule of Faith, and argued against its abuses alone!" If you had thus candidly, given up private interpretation as an “abuse" at the commencement of the discussion, we might have saved much time and labour. But I am surprised and indeed gratified, to perceive that good sense, and the pressing necessities of the case, urged you, finally, to yield, however reluctantly, so precious a tribute to the majesty of Truth. It certainly did not occur to you that by this admission, you sapped the very foundations of the Protestant religion, since it is known to all men that this very "abuse" is the parent of the Reformation.

When I ask you to define the Protestant religion, you tell me, that it is "a religion which protests against the (supposed) errors of the Catholic church," (in so much the definition applies to Deism as well as Protestantism, since both protest against the same doctrines,)" and which is derived exclusively from, and consistent with the Holy Scriptures as the only infallible rule of faith and practice." This is your definition. But how is the Protestant religion "derived" from the Scriptures? Is it not by private interpretation? Now, Rev. Sir, will you "derive your religion through a medium which you, yourself, have denounced as an "abuse ?"

Again, the Protestant religion is "a religion consistent with the Holy Scriptures." But who is to be the judge of this? Or how is it to be determined whether any particular doctrine of Protestantism is "consistent" with the Holy Scriptures or not? Does not this position again, betray the "radical delusion" of the whole system? Every sect considers that its own notions are "derived from, and consistent with, the Holy Scriptures." And pray, do the Holy Scriptures contain, in reality, the notions of every sect of Protestants? If we admit the principle of your definition at all, it will be as favourable to the Protestant who denies the Trinity of persons in God, as to him who admits it ;-to the one who holds that there is no sacrament, as to the other who maintains that there are, at least, two, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Every sect maintains that its own peculiar prejudices are "derived from and consistent with the Holy Scriptures," and how am I to know which are the doctrines that are really, and truly, derived from the sacred volume ?

You make the following statement, in the first paragraph of your last letter." If, as you say, I am the original assailant, why do you tell me that mine is the business of defence?" Answer. Because, when I held you responsible as the original assailant, it was as the challenger "of priests and bishops" to the field of controversy;

but it was agreed, that we should commence by the rule of faith.-Those who have read your letters through, to the final and very memorable concession, by which you recognise "private interpretation" as an "abuse," will be able to appreciate the merits of your "defence" of the Protestant rule of faith. The second question to be examined, according to mutual agreement, was, whether "the Protestant religion be the religion of Christ." Now I undertake, as the very question supposes, to prove that it is not: and I should suppose that yours was the opposite side of the case, which I intimated by saying that yours is the business of defence." This is the position selected by yourself, as may be seen by referring to your last letter in the preliminary correspondence, where you say, "I am to defend the Protestant faith."The sincere inquirer, who looked to your last letter, for this promised" defence" of the Protestant religion, must have found himself mortifyingly disappointed.

66

In my last letter I reduced the question to the simplicity of a dilemma, from which I defy you to escape. It is this: Either the Protestant religion is a religion differing from the religion of Christ; --and by this admission you give up the question ;-or else, the religion of Christ was NOT professed by any society of Christians, previous to the time of Luther. And in that case, the religion of Christ is only three hundred years old!! To which of these alternatives do you choose to cling? for, one of them is inevitable. To this argument, you oppose the "defence" of--silence. Not a word

of authority; not a word of reasoning! Silence only, prudent silence.

My second argumant grew out of the first: It was this, that whenever God gave new doctrines, such as the Protestant religion was, when Luther and the rest began to preach it; he always gave, at the same time, to the preachers of such doctrines, the gift of miracles, to show that they were not impostors; this gift, however, was denied to the authors of the Protestant religion, and therefore the inference is, that God never deputed them. To this argument the only answer given is, that "we (Protestants) profess no new religion." That you say so, I admit. But in order to show this, you were bound to prove that your religion had been professed by some society, in some part of the world, in some age, between the preaching of Christ, and the preaching of Luther. But there was no such society and therefore your gratuitous assertion of the Protestant religion's not being a new religion," must go for nothing. We require

proof.

66

My third argument was, that the Protestant religion being a reli. gion of opinions, is not the religion of Christ, which was a religion of positive truths. Consequently that they are not the same. To this you give no reply, except that I had introduced it before!!!— But it has never been answered; nor has even an attempt been made at a refutation of it. The one was a religion of certainty, the other is a religion of chance. Can you deny this?

My fourth argument was, that the Reformers themselves denounced each other as heretics and deceivers of souls. And to this argument you reply that it "will be easily exposed and turned directly against

me." As if this invalidated the inference which it furnishes against the religion, of which these Reformers were the authors! These few remarks of yours, are the only testimony contained in the whole of your last letter, to show the reader that "the Protestant religion, is the religion of Christ."

As to your objections against the doctrines of the Catholic church, even if they were well founded, they do not appertain to the present subject; and you will recollect that one of our rules binds us to "adhere strictly to the subject of debate for the time being, and to admit no second topic until the first shall have been exhausted." In obedience to this regulation, I shall pay no attention to any thing you may have to say against the Catholic doctrine, until we shall have discussed the present question, viz. "whether the Protestant religion is the religion of Christ." But that question once disposed of, I shall allow you to take up any doctrine of the church, and I shall hold myself prepared to refute all the arguments you may bring against it."

66

The candid reader, who wishes to investigate the grounds of his religion with a view of arriving at the truth, should reject from his mind every preconceived opinion, which, on examination, he does not find to have been established on the basis of facts. The supposition which Protestantism holds forth to its votaries, is, that the religion of Christ, established in its purity, by the Apostles, gradually, and, what is rather strange, imperceptibly, became corrupted, and was finally restored to its primitive purity, in the 16th century of the church, by the event which is called the "Reformation." Now, Rev. Sir, to save you the trouble, at this moment, of straying from the question, to prove that this was the case, let us suppose for sake of argument that it was. Let us suppose that Christ after having promised to be with his church, in the teaching of "all nations, till the end of time," violated his promise; and that, in fact, all Christendom was buried, as the English Homily book has it, "in damnable idolatry for the space of eight hundred years and more"-and starting even from this extravagant supposition, you will find it a difficult task to prove that "the Protestant religion is the religion of Christ." And why?

1. Because no man can tell what the Protestant religion is. We know it as a compound of heterogeneous opinions about the meaning of the Bible. As you have defined it, you have bound yourself to prove that Quakerism, Episcopalianism, Baptistism, Methodism, Presbyterianism, Universalism, Arminianism, Unitarianism, Swedenborgianism, are all "the religion of Christ;" since the mercy of your definition graciously embraces them all! Each of them is "a religion, exclusively derived from, and consistent with the Holy Scriptures as the only infallible rule of faith and practice." Now, Rev. Sir, permit me to ask you, did you seriously intend to distribute, as your definition imports, the religion of Christ equally among all these sects? Do you mean to defend the doctrines of all these denominations? For all these according to your definition, constitute the Protestant religion; and this you have undertaken to vindicate, as the religion of Christ." How much wiser would it have been in you, to have borrowed the language of the celebrated Bishop

Watson, of the church of England, and told us that the Protestant religion is that system of Christian liberty, in which “a man believes what he pleases; and professes what he believes." quæ velit, et quæe sentit, loqui.

66

2. But by another definition you have said that the Protestant religion is the religion of the Reformation." Now the only way to ascertain the religion of the Reformation is, by bringing to view the doctrines of the Reformers as stated by themselves. To begin then with the father of that revolution, he tells us that "God works the evil in us, as well as the good.". ...Is this "the religion of Christ?" And that" by his own will, he (God) necessarily RENDERS us worthy of damnation, so as to seem to take pleasure in the torments of the miserable." (Luth. Opera, ed. Wittemb. Tom. ii. p. 437.) Is this "the religion of Christ?" Again. "If God foresaw, says he, that Judas would be a traitor, Judas was compelled to be a traitor; nor was it in his power to be otherwise." (Luth. de Servo. Arbit. fol. 460.) Is this the religion of Christ?'' Man's will is, (says the same Reformer,) like a horse: if God sit upon it, it goes as God would have it; if the Devil ride it, it goes as the Devil would have it: nor can the WILL choose its rider, but each of them (viz. God and the Devil) strives which shall get possession of it." (Ibid. vol. ii.) Is this "the religion of Christ?" "Let this be your rule, (continues the same father,)" in interpreting the Scriptures; whenever they command a good work, do you understand that they FORBID it." (Ibid. Tom. iii. p. 171.) Is this, Rev. Sir, "the religion of Christ?" O what a task you have undertaken!

And now let us see what Calvin, your own Calvin, puts forth as "the religion of the Reformation," which, you say is, the religion of Christ. "God requires, says he, nothing of us but faith; he asks nothing of us but that we believe." (Calv. Inst. L. iii. c. 23.) "It is plainly wrong to seek for any other cause of damnation, than the HIDDEN COUNSELS of God."...." Men, by the free will of God, without any demerit of their own, are predestined to eternal death." (Ibid.) Is this "the religion of Christ?" The whole operation of this doctrine is to produce fanaticism in belief, and quietude of conscience in the midst of immorality. This same impious doctrine of Calvin, is well approved, in the Presbyterian Confession of faith as amended in the year 1821.

"By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death."

These angels and men, thus predestinated and fore-ordained, are particularly and UNCHANGEABLY DESIGNED; and their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished. (Presbyterian Cenfession of Faith, p. 16, 17.) Now what else is this, but saying, with Calvin, that "the hidden counsel of God, is the sole cause of damnation ?"

There are few persons who will not acknowledge the justice of the following commentary, on this doctrine of Calvin, by a Protestant companion of his own." He is a false God," says this author. "who (according to Calvin's showing) is so slow to mercy, so quick

to wrath, who has created the greatest part of mankind to destroy them, and has not only predestined them to damnation, but even to the cause of their damnation. This God, then, must have determined from all eternity, and he now actually wishes and causes that we be necessitated to sin; so that thefts, adulteries and murders, are never committed but at his impulse; for he suggests to men perverse and shameful affections; he hardens them not merely by simple permission, but actually and efficaciously, so that the wicked man accomplishes the work of God and not his own, and it is no longer Satan, but CALVIN'S GOD, who is really the father of lies. (Castel. in lib de Prædest ad Calvin.) Is this, Rev. Sir, "the religion of Christ?"

This, however, was the religion of the Reformation :-of Luther, who maintained that the will of man is a horse, alternately bestridden, by God and the Devil, whichever succeeds to mount first, and is always obedient to its rider, for the time being. This was the religion of Geneva, as we have seen. This was the religion of England itself, as some of its most eminent divines admit and deplore, as for instance, Bishop Bancroft. (A survey of the pretended holy discipline, p. 44.) But we have nearer testimony than that of an English Bishop. Doctor Samuel Miller of Princeton, tells us, in his Introductory Lectures on "creeds and confessions," that "the Calvinistic articles of the church of England were the means of keeping her doctrinally pure, to a very remarkable degree, for the greater part of a hundred years! In the reign of James the 1st, says the Doctor, very few opponents of Calvinism DARED to avow their opinions; and of those who did avow them, numbers were severely disciplined, and others saved themselves from similar treatment by subsequent silence and discretion." (p. 60.) Those must have been glorious days for England, when, for nearly a hundred years, her church was almost pure, thanks, not to the Bible, but to her "Calvinistic articles," against which no one " dared" to say a word.

Here, then, is only one of the doctrines of the Reformation, by which we see free will extinguished ;—and man degraded from his station as a moral and responsible agent, to a mere machine, operated on for evil as well as good, by a predestinating influence, over which he has no control. On the other hand we see God himself, represented as punishing, with eternal damnation, his creatures for having done, what they could not avoid, by complying with those inevitable decrees, which had been framed in the solitude of eternity past. Is this "the religion of Christ ?"

5. But supposing, as Protestants do, that the true religion, contrary to the promise of the Saviour, had disappeared from the world; -were the Reformers, I ask, such men as God would have employed to restore 'it? I am aware that under the influence of those strong feelings with which that turbulent epoch abounded, their opponents may have done injustice to their character. On this account, I shall not give one line on the testimony of their Catholic cotemporaries. Such testimony would naturally be received with suspicion by my Protestant readers. In justice to all parties, then, I shall give the fathers of the Protestant religion as they describe themselves, and 2 K

22*