nion of each individual in reading or hearing the Bible. If I have misrepresented the Protestant principle, I request you to give me the true practical definition. I think that every Christian who can and will reason consistently, will conclude with me, that Christ never did appoint so doubtful and precarious a principle of guidance. For the proof of this position, I refer the reader to the unanswered arguments of my last letter on this branch of the subject.

Reason tells us that since Christ made the belief of his doctrines necessary for salvation, he must have provided some infallible means for ascertaining what those doctrines are. This, my Rev. opponent has admitted. And yet, he does not attempt to show that the Bible, interpreted by each individual for himself, constitutes that infallible means. Why? Because his arguments would be as good for the Unitarian, as for the Presbyterian,-as good for the Universalist, as for the Methodist, Baptist, or Episcopalian. If the Protestant rule of faith is right, then are ALL right. If it is wrong, they are all equally bound, before their conscience and their God, to abandon it-for truth, next to God, is greater than all.

Reason tells us, moreover, that no society can subsist; and history assures us, that no society ever did subsist, without the right of judgment, and the supreme power of decision, in cases of controversy among its members. Even in this country, where freedom is supposed to be unbounded, the laws are not left to the arbitrary interpretation of each private individual. Is it consistent then, with reason to suppose, as the Protestant rule of faith teaches, that the Son of God revealed a religion,-made the belief of it necessary to salvation, and yet left it at the discretion of every individual who can read, to determine, with all the certainty of opinion, what it is? So far reason and history are directly against the Protestant rule of faith. But what says the written word of God? I will merely state its historical testimony.

How were controversies decided under the Jewish dispensation? Not by the private interpretation of the Bible? Read "Parlip. ch. xix. v. 10 and 11. Every cause that shall come to you of your brethren, that dwell in their cities, between kindred and kindred, wheresoever there is question concerning the law, the commandment, the ceremonies, the justifications, SHOW IT TO THEM, that they may not sin against the Lord, and that wrath may not come upon you and your brethren, and in so doing you shall not sin. And Amarias, the priest, your high priest, shall be chief in the things which regard God." This is the principle appointed by God, in the old law. Why should it be different in the new? Josephus testifies in like manner (lib. 2. contra Apionem) that the "High Priest sacrifices to God before the other Priests, guards the laws, and determines controversies." And even Herod, though a Jew, instead of interpreting the Scriptures as Protestants do, by private opinion," assembling together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, inquired of them where Christ should be born." Matt. xi. 4.

Did the Saviour of men appoint a different principle whereby to "determine disputes in his church?" Did he not say, "Hear the church; he that will not hear the church, let him be to thee, as a

heathen and a publican?" But how can we obey Jesus Christ, if instead of "hearing the church," we make our private explanation or opinion of the Bible, our rule of faith? Christ would not, could not enjoin on us to hear the church, under such a penalty, if the church were not an infallible authority. That it is an infallible authority, I have already proved in my fifth letter, to which I refer the reader. Again, look at the usage and practice of the church from the earliest days of her history. Look at the decision of the Apostles, in the first council of Jerusalem. (Acts xv. 28.) "It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us," &c. See again, (Euseb. lib. 5 cap. 23. et sequent) the controversy about the time of celebrating Easter, settled finally by the decision of Pope Victor, A. D. 198.

In 255, Novatian was condemned by the Roman Council under Pope Cornelius, for teaching that sinners who had relapsed after baptism, could not be reconciled to God on their repentance, by the absolution of the church. (See Baronius on this year.)

Sabellius was condemned in the Councilof Alexandria, under Pope Sylvester, in the year 319, for teaching that there is but one person in God. Of the Council of Nice, held a few years afterwards, it is unnecessary for me to speak.

Thus, then, it appears, that the Catholic rule of faith is found to be consistent with the light of reason and philosophy, with the experience of history, with the testimonies of Revelation, with the practice of the Jewish and Christian Church;-whilst the Protestant principle is contradicted by them all. But why should I not refute that delusive principle, by a reference to the practice of Protestants themselves. If God speaks so plainly in the Scripture that every man can understand what he says-why, I should like to know, do you, ministers, intrude yourselves between God and the people to help the Almighty to speak, and your hearers to understand? With us a ministry is consistent with you it is a palpable contradiction. Why your Confessions of Faith and Articles? But so it is, that those who depart from the rules of religion instituted by Christ,-those who quit the rock of truth, to build upon the quicksands of opinion, will ever be involved in the labyrinths of self-contradiction and inconsistency.

I shall now conclude by giving the passage from Tertullian, which you accuse me of having garbled. But first I must correct your mistatement of my argument, in support of which, it was introduced. You say, it was "intended to show that Rome was the seat of the true church, and the Pope the supreme head and successor of St. Peter." It was not, I assure you, Rev. Sir, intended for any such purpose; although it is, even for that, a very appropriate testimony. It was intended to show, that in Tertullian's time, heretics alone had recourse to the rule of faith which Protestants now profess to follow; and that the Catholic Church possessed by prescription, in the succession of teaching and belief, the doctrines which were received from the Apostles. Tertullian was showing where the true doctrines of Christ existed, and how they could be distinguished from the errors, which private interpretation pretended to discover in the pure word of God, the Bible alone. Let me then give what you

have quoted as the "ungarbled passage," and see whether it does not bear me out MORE STRONGLY than the briefer extract which I had furnished. "Survey the Apostolic churches in which the very chairs of the Apostle still preside over the stations, in which their own letters are recited, uttering the voice, and representing the presence of each of them. Is Achaia nearest thee? Thou hast seen Corinth. If thou art not far from Macedonia, thou hast the Philippians and Thessalonians. If thou canst go to Asia, thou hast Ephesus; but if thou art near Italy, thou hast Rome, whence to us also authority is near at hand." Now, if this does not prove against the Protestant rule of faith, I am at a loss to understand what proof is. How does he refute the heretics? By the Bible alone? Not at all-but by comparing their doctrines with those held by the succession of teaching in the Apostolic churches-which were numerous in his time. He refutes heresy by the argument of prescription-by showing that in the Christian Church, truth existed before the heresy was broached, and that the first or oldest doctrines are the true doctrines. In reference to the Church of Rome, read the conclusion of the chapter from which you have quoted-Let Protestants reflect upon it: "heresies were not of that church; because they went out from her, and have since their apostacy turned all the malice of their united efforts against her." One would suppose tha in this short sentence, Tertullian was the historian, or prophet of the calumnies that have been heaped on the church of Rome, for the last three hundred years. But no he was the historian of his own times, for the adversaries of the church have always been distinguished by the same characteristics.

Let me entreat you, in conclusion, not to consider me as intending to insult you, whenever I find it necessary to correct the unfounded statements of your letters; and to name, or authorize your friend to agree with me on the selection of a sworn interpreter, to decide the questions on which we are at issue, as I wish the decision to be published before the meeting of the General Assembly. Yours, very respectfully, JNO. HUGHES.

11*

RULE OF FAITH.

TO THE REV. JOHN HUGHES.

Philadelphia, April 18, 1833.

Sir, It is difficult for me to express to you my surprise at the pertinacity with which you reiterate the charge of "intolerance" against the Presbyterian church. After the statement of facts made in my last letter, ignorance can no longer be your apology and the plea of inadvertence, which we were ready to make for you in our minds, is silenced by your assurance, that "you have not made even a mistake in quoting." You insist that it is the original, genuine Westminster Confession of Faith, and any other book, containing either more or less, is not the original, genuine Westminster Confession." But the question, was whether this was the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church under the care of the General Assembly? Mr. Hughes had said, (Letter 7th,) "The standard of Presbyterianism in the United States of America, and in the 19th century, makes it a sin against the second commandment to tolerate a false religion ;" and he had identified it with our church, by a direct reference to its supreme judicatory, viz: "It is true the General Assembly has not told us what religion it regards as false." And to show us that he did not quote from an antiquated copy, or a foreign edition, (which might have been the standard of the Scotch church, or of some other church) he informed us that it was published by Towar & Hogan, in this city, in 1829!

In vain do we tell him that our church does not adopt the Westminster Confession on the subject of "Intolerance; that Towar & Hogan printed no edition of our standards in 1829; that the Synod of 1729 was not the "General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church," and that the very union which incorporated that and other parts of our church into one body was based upon the principles of equal rights and universal toleration. Having then so grossly misrepresented the public standards of the Presbyterian Church; having asserted that something is found in her accredited book, not one word of which, as every well-informed person knows, is contained in it; and having been convicted of this misrepresentation, you have the hardihood to deny that you have done our church the smallest injustice! I had really expected from you a different course: if not from a love of justice and truth, at least from a regard to your own reputation! Dr. Miller's repose will hardly be disturbed by your efforts to put his "Letters to Presbyterians" at issue with our standards. You have certainly been in good company while writing at his side, and as his friend, I feel quite willing to leave his defence to be ga thered from the expressive contrast between your letters and his, as they have simultaneously appeared in the columns of the Presbyterian. I close my notice of this subject, by noting it as one of the items of the proposed reference.

127

I have been much struck (and not I alone) with your summary method of replying to my arguments. You called with great confidence for proof, that the Catechism of the Council of Trent "took liberties" with the commandment touching the making and worshipping of images. When I adduced the proof, you drop the subject. You called on me to vouch for the faithfulness of the translation and the continuity of the sense of the long extract from the Council of 4th Lateran, about burning heretics. I met your call; and exposed your "feudal" defence of that atrocious act-you drop the subject.

"I

Again, in reply to a whole series of facts and reasonings on subject after subject in dispute, you say "I REFER THE READER TO MY FIFTH LETTER," or some other letter: and when we turn to your fifth letter, lo! there is no answer there! Your letters aid each other in this respect, like the idle boys who combined to deceive their master: "Jack," said he to one of them, "what are you doing?" am helping Dick, Sir. "Dick, what are you doing?" "Nothing, Sir." Such defence is almost as easy and as victorious as the colloquies got up in Kentucky by the Bishop of Bairdstown, in which two strolling priests, in Thespian style, personated the Romanist and the Protestant. The Protestant fought long, and died hard; but was always beaten!

I had at least supposed that you would defend the sacraments of your church. But in reply to what has been said as to her abuse of the eucharist, and her promotion of extreme unction into a sacrament, you say not one word. I have called until I am weary for your reply, as to the admission of the Rev. Mr. M'Guire. As the whole controversy turns on this point, I will present it once more; and your silence, if persisted in, must be construed, even by your friends, into a confession that you cannot meet it. this, "THAT THE CATHOLIC HAS ONLY TO EXERCISE HIS PRIVATE JUDGThe admission is MENT UPON THE SCRIPTURE PROOFS OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH: THAT ONCE ESTABLISHED, THE CATHOLIC IS ENABLED TO MAKE AN ACT OF FAITH UPON DIVINE AUTHORITY.' 99 I have still further to say, that in all this discussion, the obligation Now is this so, or is it not? of proof is on your side. Your church claims to be the only true church, and asserts that out of her there is no salvation. Here is an exclusiveness so great and so peculiar, and so unlike to all other churches, that the whole world has a right to claim the proof, or the surrender of it. Your rule of faith, contrary to all other churches, claims the authority to decide, 1. What is Scripture? 2. What that Scripture means?" This is a most unusual, a super-human claim; especially by one who is a party in all these questions. If you have these awful trusts committed to you, surely you ought to make out your title to them very clearly, before we can commit our consciences implicitly to your lordly sway; and if you have these powers from God, the proof is very clear. Moses and Aaron, the ancient Prophets, the Apostles, and the Lord of all, made out their commissions very clearly, by such proofs as appealed to the outer senses as well as to the reason and conscience of men.

It is for this reason, you ought to have begun with your own rule of faith. But claiming to be Apostolical, you come to us, and say,