Letters in the Roman Catholic controversy.

Front matter

a Ts reretabetel ake kec eee nase : Rohete)

bere weet! ii ist ae i i

Peres nat

Contents

Dedication. . | Hig The challenge and acceptance. | 1

Part f.

LETTER I. Rule of faith is the Holy Scriptures—Thejudce of controversy is the Holy Ghost speaking in them—this, our only tribunal of appeal—tradi-’ tions—the fathers—contrast of the Protestant; with the Roman catholic rule, and judge. ‘Their charge of our divisious—repelled—charged on Popery. 3

LETTER I. To the Editor of the Truth Teller

Sin:—I feel indebted to your politeness 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.

T 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 throw 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 rather squints that way.

Mr. Editor,—I shall not allow myself to be stopped at the very threshold of diseussion, by any invitation to settle the Rule of faith and the Judge of controversy. if we pause here until we shall agree on this point—we shall stop here forever. 'The Protestant and the Roman Catholic do not ;—-and what is more, they can never agree on this point. ‘This creates the abyss which lies between them: If they could agree on this point, they would no longer stand in the relation of Protestant and Papist.

The only Rule of faith and final Judge of controversy, as every Protestant believes, is THE Hoty Spirit SPEAKING TO US IN THE WRITTEN WORD oF Gop, THE Honr SCRIPTURES; containing all 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 | wish, 1 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.”

To charge the Holy Scriptures with obscurity, or deficiency, is the same thing as to bring a charge against the Holy Ghost. No christian can do this. The apparent obscurity on the pages of the Bible, proceeds from the darkness of our minds. Hence the Spirit of God teaches us to pray—‘‘ Open thou mine eyes that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law!’ Psalms cxix. 18. And shall I dare to call that obscure or imperfect, which the Spirit of God gave forth, and has declared to be clear oz, ‘plain to him that understandeth;” so that he may run who readethit? Shall E dare to add human traditions, or the laws of erring mortals, to that Rule which God has given to the church, and pronounced “perfect” and “sure” and “right,” and “pure?” Ps. xix. Shall we dare add to God’s holy word, who has laid this solemn command on protestant, pope, and priest,—“‘ ADD THOU NOT UNTO HIS WORDS, LEST HE REPROVE THEE AND THOU BE FOUND A LIAR!” Prov. xxx. 6. Will any priest or layman, dare add to that Holy Book which the Holy Spirit has made perfect, closed up, and sealed with a tremendous malediction on the mortal who shall ‘‘add to wé or take away from it.” Rey. xxii. 18, 19.

I can appeal, in controversy, to no tribunal but to that of rmx Hony Guost spEAK- ING IN THE SACRED SCRIPTURES ;—who has expressly enjoined on us this command, Isaiah vii. 19, 20. ‘Should not a people seek to their God? for the living to the dead? to THE LAW, AND TO THE TESTIMONY, IF WE SPEAK NOT ACCORDING TO THIS WORD, IT IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO LIGHT IN THEM.” ‘The Bible contains the whole religion of the Protestant. 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? But the man, be he Pope, Priest, or Protestant, who ventures to do this, does actually usurp the throne of God: “‘ ne sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God!” He sits in judgment on his Maker; he calls him up to his bar, and dictates to God! If this be not the consummation of blasphemous daring, I profess I know not what can be!

As for Romish traditioas and oral laws, we shall treat them with the same respect as we do the Koran of Mohammed, until the evidence of their divinity be produced, and established by prophecy, tongues, and miracles: and the faet 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 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 an editio exrpurgata, free of the scandalous alterations, and corruptions made in them, by the monks of the dark ages!

For the Pope, and ‘‘ Holy Mother Church,” f shall yield myself a dutiful son and throw myself at his holiness’ feet, as soon as he shall produce, before the Christian world, a few genuine and authentic credentials, from the court of heaven; confirmed infallibly by the miraculous gifts of tongues, 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 to lock up in darkness the heretical mind; and be the final judge of controversy. ‘lhe world has become too enlightened to give credit to the fanatic, or knave who sets himself up for the ‘‘ standard” of truth, or as one who is admitted into the secrets of Heaven, and the cabinet minister of the court of the Almighty. Nay, so unruly has the human mind become, in consequence of its bursting the chains of darkness, and emancipating itself from the ghostly power and superstition of the dark ages, that it not only ventuers to calla man a FANATIC, but gravely to propose a place in bedlam, for the man who would enact the scenes of former days ; who would constitute himself the final judge of controversy, set up claims over God’s own word; pass gag laws against the freedom of speech and the press; or forge chains for 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, indignantly, that the written word of God, or, the Holy Ghost speaking in the scriptures, either is, ie or can be the Rule of faith, or Judge o if controversy. What we call God speaking in the scriptures, they venture to pronounce a thing obscure, powerless, and utterly unfit to be a Rule or Judge. What we call the voice of God speaking in the Holy Word, has no authority, no power, with them,—no binding obligations on the conscience ;— until the Pope, or the Holy Church shall pronounce it to be the word, and give it vitality and authority! By their creed, even Almighty God cannot speak through his own word, with either intelligence, or authority, until the Pope shall bid it have intelligence and authority! He—not God—is the “living speaking Oracle,” of truth; he, not God, is the “only final Judge of controversy !”

Hence it is morally impossible that the Protestant and the Roman Catholic can ever agree on this point.

The priests affect to believe that the absence and want of their hiving,. speaking oradle in our system, has originated the various divisions and sects among Protestants. And this has afforded a rich harvest of materials for our good humored opponent’s eloquence. Every body has heard of Dr. Power’s stereotype sermon on Unity, Catholcity, infallibility, and the endless divisions of the heretics.

The priests have been rather unfortunate in selecting this topic for their declamations avainst the Christian world. For, it isknown to every one that there is scarcely even one erroneous sect, or heretic, in ancient or modern times, which has not sprung up in the bosom of ‘Mother Church!” But, then, the Holy Inquisition and the bishops have carefully and assiduously sought them out, and made glorious bonfires of them 7 Yes, every returning year, at that Romish feast of charity called an auto DA FE, did Holy Mother turn all these sectarians into the fire, and burn them as did the votaries of Moloch, in sacrifice to the genius of their idolatry !

Now, did the Protestants imitate the example of the Romish Church in the horrid festivals of her ghostly despotism; and did the strongest party in the land, annually, doom to the dungeon and the flames, all the weaker sects,—then assuredly there would soon be as much terrific unity among Protestants, as there isin Spain and Italy!

But, in the United States, in our happy Republic, there is no State religion,—and no wition of Church and State, as in all Roman Catholic governments. Hence the lovely picture of Protestant mildness, charity, Liberality, and mutual forbearance !

But, after all, it is a pleasant piece of humor, to hear the Roman Catholic priests fidiculing the divisions and various sects of the Protestants; while they laud ‘the anity of Holy Mother Church, created and cemented by their living, speaking Oracle!” What! This coming from the members of the Roman Catholic 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?

Witness the feuds in that day, when three rival popes were mutually putting the pontifical ban on each other! Witness the divisions and horrid scenes of conflict in the bosom of Holy Mother in the great Western Schism, which every Roman Catholic historian details! Witness the divisions, in doctrines, caused by the Augustines, conflicting with other sects! Witness the violent feuds between the Jansenists and the Jesuits! Witness the divisions caused by the Dominicans, so famous for their zeal in burning better and more virtuous men than themselves! Witness the different aects of gray friars, and white, and black; and the mendicants! Witness the exaspe rating feuds between the Franciscans and the Dominicans, touching the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary:—the former, stoutly maintaining that she was con-

Q * ceived 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 sentiment was a dam~ nable heresy! Witness the eternal wars in the bosom of Holy Mother, between these unnatural and turbulent sons, the Scotists, and the Thomists! Witness the characteristic feuds and brawls of the Jesuits, the Benedictines and Dominicans. Witness the siz grand 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 histories! The fierce and indomitable Jesuits were pitted against the Jansenists, 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 Dominicans united on the efficacy of the sacraments, in opposing all other sects! See Dr. Courrayer’s translation of Paul Sarpi’s Council of Trent.

Witness the violent conflict between the Franciscans and the Pope, John XXIL., in the 14th century ! and the fierce contest between the Jesuits, on the one side, and the Augustine doctors, and the university of Louvain, and of Douay, on the other! Witness the long and furious controversy between the Molinists of Spain, with the Augustines and Thomists, and which set at defiance Pope Clement VIII., and all his influence, for a long season!

In fine, I know scarcely a single century of Holy Mother’s history, when the bosom of her Unity was not a frightful arena of fierce contending priests, whom ny power on earth, fallible or infallible, could compose, till they had exhausted their mutual fury! See the pages of Nicholas De Clemangis; Wessel of Groningen; Cassander, Rayner, and Ferus, Cap. 8. Judic.

As for Untry,—there was Unity, Mr. Exditor,—most striking Unity, in Holy Mother. There was unity in opposing the Spirit of God speaking in the scriptures. ‘There was unity in adoring images, relics, and the saints. ‘There was unity in declaring for seven Romish sacraments instead of the bible’s tivo. There was unity in the belief and profit of purgatory. There was unity in believing that the Pope has the keys of Heaven; and that he and the priests will allow no heretic to pass into the kingdom of heaven. There is perfect unity in Mother Church, in denying the necessity of regeneration anda new heart, by the Holy Ghost; there is unity in denying that Christ finished his atonement on the cross—wnity in offering him up, afresh, for the sins of the quick and the dead, in the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass! There is unity in denying justification by the righteousness of Christ alone! There is unity in believing that Christ is not the only mediator, that the holy virgin is mediatrix; and ‘ jure matris jubet filio;” by ‘‘the rights of a mother, commands her Son’ to hearus. See the. Rosary and Missal; and Bonavent, Cor. B. M. Virg.—Tom. 6. Rom. Edit. of 1588; Psalter of the Virgin, p. 84. Argent Edit.

This is a specimen of the only unity which characterizes the Holy Mother, and which your ‘living and speaking oracle’? promotes!

Besides, Sir,—‘‘ Ego et Rex,’’—-1 and the learned priests have, already, tried our mutual strength on the floor, in oral debate. And we got along, in perfect good humor, and quite as successfully as one could have anticipated, without stopping to settle the point about the Rule 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 leave, soon to pass on to one great and vital point,—say, run Caurcu.

fam, Sir, your most ob’t and humble servant,

Letter II. To Doctors Power, Varela, And Levins.~

On the Rule of Faith.

GenTLEMEN :—You begin your letter with an expression of amazement at my “chivalrous” daring in ‘‘challenging prelate and priest,” to this discussion. The chivalry of ‘the lion hearted Richard’ himself, excites less amazement than this venturous daring of mine, to challenge four men led and shielded by ‘“infallibility”” itself! And all of them, moreover, sharing in the blessings of the same “ infallibility !” But you forget the feelings of a protestant. In his estimation, “prelate and priest” are official creatures of mere human fiction,—and quite harmless among “lion hearted” republicans. And the ghostly claims of ‘‘infallibles,” sound in his ears like the bravadoes of the antiquated heroes of Otranto! 44

The fact is, and you know it, gentlemen, I was driven into this controversy by your own partizans. And, therefore, my claims are too humble, in this matter, to be decorated with the honors of ‘‘chivalry.” I return them, with all humility, to their rightful owners.

You have utterly mistaken my meaning as to ‘the settling” of the point of the Rule and Judge of truth. I simply alledged that there could be no use in stopping at the threshold of the debate, until we,—that is, Catholic and Protestant, should come together on this point. For the truth is, we never can ‘settle it’ in this sense. This creates the abyss which lies between us. My only object in those remarks, was.to make sure the continuance of our discussion.

That the question touching ‘‘ the Rule” was of small moment, was no statement of mine. I deem it of infinite importance. I have not declined the discussion of it.

Nay, gentlemen, pardon me, I have discussed it,—though briefly, in my first letter:

yes, and settled it too, in the only sense, so far as I can see, in which we can settle it. That is, I have distinctly laid down the Protestant Rule, and shown out of the Holy Bible, that it is the Holy Spirit speaking to us in the written word. And I have also stated, fairly, your Rule, namely,—the scriptures, the apocrypha, and oral traditions, explained by a living, infallible oracle. This was, as I did conceive, going ae far as we ought to go at the entrance of our discussion. I was willing to take it up m its proper place if you pleased. And, I did really suppose that you would, yourselves, have preferred the discussion of it, after we had discussed the subject of the ‘ infallible

Church.” It was natural, first to seek out this said ‘infallible church,” and, then, to seek out, in her, this said ‘*infallible Rule and Judge.” And, gentlemen, are you not aware that this is the order, which was pursued by your ‘infallible council of Trent?” [See Sess. 3 and 4.]

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 be it: only let none of us propose a retreat.

The point fairly at issue between the Protestant and Roman Catholic churches on the Rule of Faith and Judge of Controversy, is this:—Both of us, in the first place, admit that there is an infallible rule of faith, established by Christ, to guide us in matters of faith, and decisions of controversy, in religion. But, in the second place, we differ, toto celo, as to what that Rule is.

First :—The Protestant Church declares that the only Rule of faith and Judge of controversy, is the Holy Spirit teaching us in the written word of the Old and New: Testaments, every thing necessary to be known and believed, in order to glorify God and enjoy him for ever.

Second :—The R. Catholic Church believes that the only Rule is the scriptures in the old Latin, or Vulgate translation, only, together with the Apocrypha, and oral traditons: and all these are to be infallibly explained by a living, speaking, infallible oracle and judge; who is, ist, according to one sect in Holy Mother, the Pope: 2d, by another sect, a Council: 3d, by another sect, the Pope and Council: 4th, by another sect, the Holy Mother Church,—meaning the Pope and his clergy. Such is the discordance of sentiments, in the very bosom of ‘unity and infallibility,” touching this vitally essential point, namely, ‘the infallible Judge!” And this, by the way, explains the phenomena, in the mode of pursuing their argument, both by my opponents and by Mr. Hughes’. They make a vaporing demonstration, and a threatening air of assault upon ‘‘the poor offending Bible,” the Protestant’s Rule, in order to hide the weakness of their own system. ‘They labor to raise a cloud of smoke and dust, around the truth, and then to escape in the dark.

Here we have, at one view, the rwo great dividing sentiments. Protestants, with humble veneration, receive the Holy Ghost speaking in the written word, as their only Rule and Judge ; and they know, and are sure, that HE speaks to them as plainly, and intelligibly, as a beloved father does, in a letter to his dear child,—choosing to express his will in the plainest and simplest terms. On the contrary, the Romish Church’s Rule is the Pope, or Council, or both, or Holy Mother. They are not agreed here. But they are agreed in this, that it shall not be the Holy Spirit speaking in the scriptores; and that HE shall have a rival, and opponent in His own house! And now, let the christian public decide whether we, as rational beings, shall listen to God our Maker, speaking to. us, or to an ‘infallible Judge,’”’ composed of one or more fallible human beings! And these, moreover, not very holy, nor very virtuous men! Nay, they are men of the most presumptuous arrogance, and pontifical pride! Did men reason and draw their information from the pure fountain of truth, and not believe, simply, by proxy, this controversy might be settled in afew minutes. Let us examine each of these in their order :—

1. The Protestant Rule and Judge. Suppose I say to Dr. Power, here is a point to be. settled; who shall tell us what this Rule is?) To whom shall we go? Shall J go with you to your ‘infallible Rule!’ Or will you go with me to the holy scrip tures, and hear the Spirit of God speaking infallibly to us? We cannot go to your “infallible Rule.” 'This is the very subject of enquiry ; you have not yet found this. infallible rule; this is the point in debate. We can goto the holy scriptures: you admit their authenticity and inspiration. If you do not, you are deists. 1 repeat it, gentlemen, if you question the divine inspiration of the Bible, you are Drists! If you place yourselves by Paine and Hume, then I am prepared to meet you with arguments on the external and internal evidence of the scripture’s inspiration. This, however, would be a shifting of the ground.

But if you admit their divine inspiration as the Council of Trent does,—then here we have found the infullible Rude. For the same evidence which establishes their divine inspiration, does also establish their infallibility. God, speaking to us, speaks infallibly the truth. Now, we have Ist, only to open their pages and listen, with profound reverence, to God speaking to us. Psalm xix. Here the law of God is declared to be “perfect ;” itis “ true ;” it is “right ;” itis ‘ pure.” Isaiah viii. 19, 20. ‘* Should not a people seek unto their God? for the living unto the dead? To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no hght in them.” Here those are reproved as going away from God, even going ‘‘to the dead.” on behalf of the living, who go to any human bar or judge, for the rule of truth. Again, Prov. xxx. 6, ‘ Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thow be found a liar!” 2 Tim. iii. 16. “ All seripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable, &c., that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” Here ‘the perfect’? word of the Lord makes the man of God perfect, and thoroughly furnished to all good works. No language can more plainly declare this rule and judge infallible. And, finally, read in Rev. xxii. 18, 19, the tremendous maledictions of Almighty Gop, on all those who ‘add te,’’ and who “take away from” God’s written word !

Here, then, we have the will of God most plainly spoken. Obscurity, weakness, and inefficacy, are not in the word of God. Who will challenge the Almighty and say to him, thou speakest obscurely, and weakly, and inefficiently 2? Who will venture to utter such blasphemy before the christian public? If you think it, speak it out. We challenge you to come out against the Bible: call it imperfect: call ita failure. Set up the Pope against God. Bring out your accusations against the Holy Spirit. Tell the public that it is the Pope or his clergy, and not God’s blessed word, that ‘‘ converts,” that makes us “ perfect,” that’ ‘furnishes thoroughly to all good works |’? I know you say this in your books: this is the very basis of your argument when you go to establish your living infallible judge !

2. The Holy Scriptures are God’s law; and our Lord’s last will and testament, Kaivn Atadnxcn, Now, what shall be done to a man who forges a new law, and foists it into the code? What shall be done to the man who forges, adds to, or alters a man’s last will and testament, to promote his own ends? What ‘ sorer punishment,” awaits the man, council, or pope, who with fearful daring, under the very eye of the Almighty, adds to, forges, and alters God’s law ; and our Lord’s last will and testament ?

3. I shall lay before you, the following chain of reasons and maxims. God is the only lord of the conscience. Will any man deny this, and put his conscience in the keeping of pope or priest, who will, any day, pledge himself, in a manner similar to those spirital trafficers who absolved the Duke of Brunswick! They were, by a solemn bargain, ‘‘to be damned in the old Duke’s stead, if he happened to be damned for becoming a Roman Catholic!” Again, God alone can dictate to the conscience, and prescribe our creed and true form of worship. If the proudest pope who ever set foot on neck of king or emperor, should rise up and dictate these, he would seal his fate as ‘“‘that man of sin, sitting inthe temple of God,” affecting to do God’s work, by a shocking usurpation! Besides, God only can make known his will. He employed rational instruments to deliver his messages. God never required belief without evidence. He always vouchsafed sufficient evidence, when he sent a prophet or apostle : that evidence was exhibited by miracles, prophecies, and tongues. When any presented claims to inspiration, or to give an infallible rule, the church, by her Lord’s command, required the necessary evidence. T'ry the spirits, whether they be of God. The church still, must have recourse to the same mode of trying those who pretend to divine claims. If we believe without evidence, we yield ourselves a prey to imposture. If any society of men now claims to be infallible, then they have, from God, the usual evidence of miracles, prophecy, and tongues. If they want these, they are knaves and impostors.. ‘‘ Holy Mother’ has actually set up these claims: she diliberately says that God speaking in the scriptures neither is, nor can be the infallible rule: but she herself is it. This claim she sets up, without producing any of the necessary evidence. Hence, if there be truth in the Bible, she does act the knave and impostor! And, of course, you know whence she got her commission to do so. :

I shall devote the rest of this letter to examine your invective against the infallible Rule of the Holy Spirit speaking in the inspired writings. E.very error and heresy has its weak side. Your reasoning betrays this palpably. ‘The radical error, gentlemen, in your argument is this: you mistake the nature of the evidence by which this point is to be established. You say the Bible cannot prove its own authenticity : and, therefore, it cannot be the Rule of faith. This is an instance of that crafty logic, called shifting the question, when it cannot be met! 'The force of your argument is this—because a thing does not perform that which ti was not designed to do, therefore, 18 ts not fit for the thing for which God made it! No book proves its own authenticity ; we seck not on the pages of the Bible for the proof of its authenticity. Internal evidence, you ought to know, is not eaternal evidence. We prove the Bible’s authenticity by the evidence of antiquity. The Jews give their testimony to the Hebrew Bible’s authenticity; the primitive christians of the Waldenses and Albigenses, who have an unbroken succession of pastors from the apostolic times, give their testimony to it, by the tradition of the apostolic evidence : the many tribes of heretics and scaismatics do give their historical testimony to the genuine and authentic books of the Bible; the Romish Church gives its testimony to it historically. Thus friends and foes unite m their historical testimony. We have, moreover, the evidence of miracles testified to, - the evidence of prophecy in these books, fulfilled, and now fulfilling. ‘Thus, we prove the authenticity of the scriptures by external evidence ; and, finally, by internal evidence. See Horne’s Introduction, vol. 1., and other works on the canon of Scripture.

“And t this evidence being complete,the perfect evidence of the inspiration of the Bible is the j perfect evidence of its being the only infallible Rule of faith.

I pray you, gentlemen, try your objections against our Rule, with a deist, and you will see your radical mistake. A deist, says—‘t Dr. Power, I am glad to see your arguments against these heretics’ Bible Rule: I hope that, as a man of sense, you will

Just follow out your own argument. ‘The Bible, you say, cannot prove its own authenticity ; therefore, it 1s not the word of God ; it is not inspired! Nay, Dr. Power, the Bible does not prove the existence of God! Therefore, it is defective, it is not inspred!” You would say,‘ Sir, I prove the existence of God against you and atheists, from the works of nature; and, Sir, the Bible assumes this that there is a God; and it us he who speaks in it to us.” Just so, in reasoning against a deist ; you must prove the authenticity of the Bible, not from its own page: for he does not believe it. You must prove it as TI have said above, from other arguments: and thus, in-opposing a deist, you annihilate your own argument against our Rule !