Among the ancient Romans, it was for the senate to vote the honours of a triumph; and to you I need not hint, that the patience with which a Roman general, at the head of his victorious legions, waited the decision of the senate, furnishes a beautiful example of republican modesty,-and, conveys a moral. It was only in the degenerate times, when boys were emperors, and emperors were tyrants, that it became fashionable for a man to wreath his own brows with the laurel of victory-for having simply "marched an army up the hill, then marched them down again."

Still, on the subject of what you have "shown," and "proved," and accomplished, all our readers will form their own judgment.That you intended to do all you have said, I make not the least doubt; but beware of the "doctrine of intentions." For be assured, that whatever opinion you may form of your own labours, the public begin to look upon your situation, (in reference to THE RULE OF FAITH at least,) as somewhat like that of Pyrrhus, when he exclaimed, on the battle field: "Give me another victory like this, and I am ruined."

In my last letter, I said that one or two of your assertions were "untrue.' I expressed, at the same time, my regret that you had left it in my power, or rather compelled me, so to characterize them. For religion always suffers, when they, who profess to be her ministers, violate, even in the slightest degree, those sacred principles of moral integrity which constitute the bond of well-ordained society, and the foundation of honour;-even as it is understood in the ordinary transactions and intercourse of men. It was on this ground, that I considered the "task painful." I did not, nor do I now, make the slightest charge against you personally; but I perceived that my suggestion to be cautious in quoting authorities, had been slighted. I perceived from your letter to the young lady in Baltimore, that you were ready to take up, as weapons of destruction, those antiquated calumnies, by which the "delusion" of Protestantism has sustained itself, against the apostolical evidences of the Catholic religion for the last three hundred years. And that, without intending it, perhaps, you would copy the falsehoods, which have been asserted one thousand times by your predecessors in controversy, and as often refuted by mine. I perceived that you had forgotten the philosophy of the Holy Scripture, which tells us "the Ethiopian cannot change the colour of his skin," nor "the leopard his spots," that the proposition, which was false, when it was asserted for the first time, cannot become true, by multitudinous repetition. All this I had perceived before we began this controversy. My experience since, has not disappointed my anticipations. I told you that Usher, was a Protestant Archbishop; although you had placed him side by side with St. Thomas Aquinas as a faithful expositor of Catholic doctrine ;-you were candid enough since, to acknowledge that I was right; and to plead that the error was to be ascribed to "some strange mistake of printing."-But how comes it that this "strange mistake" has not been corrected? How comes it, that the sentence of Usher's authority, among Romanists we need not speak"--is still going the rounds of the Protestant newspapers, for the edification of the illiterate and the amusement of the learned?

69

In your last letter but one, you asserted that "Luther was condemned for saying it is not in the power of the church or the Pope to constitute (NEW') articles of faith.'" was "untrue;" and if the word seem uncourteous, you must blame I replied, that this assertion the poverty of the English language, which could not furnish me with any other to express my exact meaning. Luther's words are these Certum est in manu Ecclesiæ aut Papæ prorsus non esses statuere articulos fidei, imo nec leges morum, seu bonorum opertum." 27. The literal translation of which is this: "It is certain that it is not in the power of the church or the Pope to define or determine articles of faith, nor even laws of morals or good works." In your first translation you inserted the word 'NEW' before articles;' in your second, you deem it more prudent to leave it out-and yet you have the courage to say, that your second version is "WORD FOR WORD WHAT YOU HAD SAID BEFORE !" It was yourself, Rev. Sir, and not Luther, that spoke of new articles Let the reader compare them. of faith. Here, then, is my first plea for having said the assertion was "untrue."

6

My second is, that Luther, thanks to his Catholic education, was too good a classical scholar to use the word "statuere" if he had meant exclusively "to create," or-according to the liberal translation which you first gave it, to "constitute new articles of faith.”— Every one, the least acquainted with ecclesiastical language, knows shat statuere is a kind of standing or technical word, to express the judgment of a council or other authoritative body, in determining questions, or deciding controversies. If this is not sufficient, let us recur back to the good old Latin terms, when Livy said, "Statuere terminos"-" to fix, settle, or determine the boundaries." Cicero, "Statuere, documentum"--" to deliver instruction." "Statuere, navem"-" to bring the ship to anchor." This, accordPlautus, ing to your vocabulary, ought, I suppose, to be translated--" to constitute a new ship"--or "create a ship." And yet, you say, towards the close of your last letter, "What I have said above of Leo the tenth's condemnation of Luther, plainly shows that you (Mr. Hughes) differ from him, and that he claimed the right not only to define,' but to 'create' articles of faith, and impose them on men for their belief!"

My third plea is, that the Bull of Leo X. censured, en masse, all the forty-one propositions of Luther. One of which was, that the "Contrition which a man conceives from considering the multitude, grievousness and defilement of his sin;-the loss of heaven, and exposure to hell;--that this kind of contrition or repentance makes him a hypocrite and a greater sinner.* This was one of the proposi

tions.

How then, Rev. Sir, came you to assert and repeat, that "Leo X. condemned Luther simply for saying' (what in fact Luther never

"Contrito quæ paratur per discussionem, collationem, et detestationem peccatorum, qua quis recogitet annos suos in amaritudine animæ suæ, ponderando peccatorum gravitatem, multitudinem, fœditatem, amissionem æternæ beatitudinis, ac æternæ damnationis acquisitionem, hæc contritio facit hypocritam, imo magis peccatorem." Luther's 6th proposition included in the Bull of Leo X.

meant to say) that it is not in the power of the church or the Pope to constitute NEW articles of faith 9" In reference to this matter therefore, without pretending to much knowledge, I must decline be ing protected by the shield of "ignorance," which you have charitably offered me. If you have no use for it, you might hang it up amidst the other trophies of your victory. Thus it is, that you are warranted in saying, that "the nerves of my cause are cracking under the pressure of truth !”

But, it is difficult to conceive, how you could have imagined that Bishop Kenrick ever dreamt of "publicly" (or even privately) "warning the people against reading this controversy." Be assured, Rev. Sir, that he regards, as too precious, this opportunity of letting the people see what kind of weapons are employed on your side, in assailing the everlasting foundations of their religion. They, certainly, invade no man's rights, when they claim the simple faculty of knowing what they believe ;--and in the enjoyment of this faculty, they are highly amused at the successive portraits of their belief, which proceed from your pencil. The Pope, or a General Council, if any doctrinal controversy were to arise in the church, might determine what they ought to believe; but you go a little farther, and tell them exactly what they do believe. Bishop Kenrick has too great a zeal for the religion of Christ, not to allow the reading of this controversy: and if there were any doubts in the minds of Catholics as to the divine origin of their faith, the perusal of your letters would be quite as effectual in removing them, as that of mine. What will even Pro

testants conclude, when they perceive, that you labour to support your positions by assertions, which are untrue? Shall I quote another instance? In your letter, No. 4. of this controversy, you assert, that "the Catechism of the Council of Trent, repeats only four words of the second commandment, and closes with an expressive "et cætera." Now, every Catholic throughout the world, that ever read the Catechism of the Council of Trent, knows that this assertion is untrue!* And still you begin your last letter with a flourish of trumpets to sound my defeat, and proclaim that "the nerves of my cause are cracking under the pressure of truth." Protestants themselves will begin to learn the real state of the case ;--and the means, by which their religious opinions are vindicated, will begin to have a reflex operation which you little suspect.

Will the public deem it too much, if I request you to correct these assertions--and henceforward to quote the entire passage or text of our authors, on which you build an argument?

Since your allusion to Bishop Kenrick has led me, into this episode, I may as well close it with a little incident which occurred to myself last spring, and does not therefore depend on "information." I happened to go into the session-room of the "General Assembly," and found the Bishops" engaged in settling a question, which I soon discovered to be interesting; viz. "Whether baptism, administered by a Catholic Priest, is valid ?" A committee, it seems, had been appointed to draw up a report, which was being read when I entered.

66

* Pars III. de Decal. obser. De primo præcepto C. I. 16.

The committee had decided in the negative, and in support of this decision, reported a variety of reasons, with two of which I was particularly struck. One was, that they (Catholic Priests) baptize in Latin; as if infants were not quite as well acquainted with this language, as with any other. The second was, that they (Catholic Priests) BAPTIZE WITH OIL-a discovery reported on the authority of a certain Doctor, I think, of Maryland. It was listened to with great, but silent solemnity-although there were at the moment five baptismal founts, in as many Catholic churches, within half a mile of where the Assembly was sitting:-and though it is known to all the world that the Catholic baptism is, and ever has been, with water. I retired from the presence of these "Teachers in Israel," revolving in my mind, the words of our blessed Redeemer; "If, in the green wood they do these things, what shall be done in the dry ?"

But to return to your assertions. You stated that it is a principle of Catholics, "that if the Pope were to command vice and prohibit virtue, he is to be obeyed." Now it is a fact, that Bellarmine, to whom you refer,* used these words, to express the absurd and im pious consequence, that would flow from the opinion which HE WAS THEN REFUTING! Just as I argued that the Protestant rule of faith, as exemplified in the case of the " collier," would lead to the impious alternative, that "Christ was a juggler." Will you have the courage to deny, that Bellarmine made the statement, to show the absurd and immoral consequence that would flow from the argument he was refuting? What then will Protestants think of such perversions ?— Again, you refer to the 16th canon of the 3d Council of Lateran, on the "validity of oaths"-to show that, according to Catholic doctrine, "an oath, contrary to ecclesiastical utility, is perjury, not an oath !" (Mr. Breckinridge-conclusion of Letter No. 2.) Now what is the FACT? That the Council was legislating on cases of ecclesiastical elections, where a factious minority pleaded the obligation of a previous oath, to justify their dissent from the voice and vote of the majority. Just as if the Supreme Court were to say, that an oath, taken under the late "Ordinance" of South Carolina, is to be considered not an oath, but rather perjury. What will Protestants think, of this perversion? or of the cause which required it? Will you have the candour to publish the errata?

If, instead of being the advocate of truth, I were merely the representative of a party, I might triumph in this exposition, which I challenge you to contravene. But I am not the person to enjoy such a triumph; and it would have been infinitely more grateful to my feelings, both as a Christian and as a man, if you had spared me the necessity of making this exposure.

* "Secundo, quia tunc necessario erraret, etiam circa fidem. Nam fides Catholica docet omnem virtutem esse bonam, omne vitium esse malum: Si autem Papa erraret, præcipiendo vitia, vel prohibendo virtutes, teneretur Ecclesia credere vitia esse bona et virtutes esse mala, nisi vellet contra conscientiam peecare." Bellarmine, Lib. iv. de Rom. Pont. C. V.

Nec nostram constitutionem impediat, si forte aliquis ad conservandam Ecclesia suæ consuetudinem juramento se dicat adstrictum: non enim dicenda sunt juramenta, sed potius perjuria, quæ contra utilitatem Ecclesiasticam et sanctorum Patrum veniunt instituta." Con. Lat. C. xvi.

Another point, on which we are at issue, is the "Pope's supremacy." You had asserted, that on this subject "there are no less than three systems in our church. This assertion I pronounced to be, what it is," untrue." I gave you the whole universe, and challenged you to name so much as one Catholic, who denied the Pope's supremacy! You have not been able to discover one. The supremacy of the Pope and the infallibility of the church, are articles of Catholic faith and doctrine :-and on no point of Catholic doctrine are there three, or even Two systems, in our church. We have one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. You refer to the authority of the Council of Basle-but that Council became a spurious assembly, after the Pope's legates, and greater part of the Bishops, retired from it to Ferrara-and those, who remained, had about as much authority to define a tenet of Catholic doctrine, as Luther had to excommunicate the Pope, which he did right manfully, by way of returning a compliment, which his Holiness had recently paid him. 2dly. Even this spurious remnant of a Council did not pass any decree affecting the dogma of the Pope's supremacy. That which you have quoted, relates to a supposed case, in which an actual Pope and an actual Council, should be opposed to each other, and it was decided that in such a case the preponderance of authority should belong to the Council. This decision, though emanating from a spurious source, and founded on hypothesis, does not even question the Pope's supremacy as an article of Catholic doctrine. Devoti's testimony has reference, in the very text, to the Pope's infallibility, which is not an article of faith, but between which and supremacy, it seems you are unable, or unwilling to make a distinction. These, then, are your first two systems. The third, you tell us, "deifies the Pope"-this acknowledges the very plenitude of supremacy. But how can you be serious, when you make this assertion? If some of our citizens were to theorize on the constitution of our government-one school teaching that Congress is superior to the President-another, that the President is superior to Congress--would that circumstance warrant an English traveller to publish to his countrymen, that the "Americans are divided into two systems" on the subject of the President's supremacy as chief magistrate of the whole republic? And if some orator, in the glow of patriotic reminiscence, which the fourth of July usually inspires, should happen to say, "the god-like Washington, the saviour of his country," would that prove that the "Americans deify their Presidents ?" Here are "three systems," on which even Mrs. Trollope could build a fine tale, if she could only induce people to believe it. But, just lend me the "Protestant rule of faith" for a few minutes, and I will prove from Scripture, that it is right to call the Pope God. "You are Gods." Psalms lxxxi. 6.--" I have appointed thee God of Pharaoh." Exod. vii. 1. See also Exod. xxii. 28. John x. 34. Now, Rev. Sir, I return you your rule of faith, and hope you will be satisfied with my proof, since "I give you chapter and verse for it." But as to the "three systems" of doctrine in our church, on the subject of the Pope's supremacy,--you might as well look for "three suns" in the heavens. Throughout the whole universe there is but ONF system of doctrine among Catholics on this