point. Every proposition asserting the contrary is "untrue." Name, if you can, a Catholic in the whole world, who has publicly denied that supremacy, without breaking the bond of communion and membership which united him to the church.

We have now arrived at your review of my arguments in favour of the Catholic rule of faith. In my last letter I gave the authority of Scripture to prove that Jesus Christ established a Church, by giving a divine commission to his apostles and their legitimate successors, until the end of the world--that this commission extended to the teaching of all nations-that to this commission he attached the attribute of his own infallibility. "As the Father hath sent me, so do I send you"-" He that hears you, hear me; and he that despises you, despises me; and he that despises me, despises him that sent me."

How did you, Rev. Sir, answer these arguments? Did you deny the authorities? Did you detect error in the reasoning? Did you accuse me of illogical deductions? Not at all. You have recourse to the old method of distortion; and tell us that my rule of faith is “in substance this:" "the Holy Catholic Church is the living infal lible interpreter of Scripture." And then you deduce your own consequence from your own distortion of my argument."Now it will be borne in mind, that before any church can interpret, it must know what is to be interpreted."--"What do you mean by the Holy Scriptures?"" the Council of Trent has settled the question, &c."And then having worked out the distortion to your own purposes, you tilt away at the Council of Trent, and affect to wonder that I did not begin by settling the canon of Scripture, instead of proving." the rule of faith!" The canon of Scripture held by the Council of Trent, is the same that was settled by the Council of Carthage in 397. And if John Calvip, in the 16th century, thought proper to become a Protestant against some books of that canon, it is for his followers to look to it. But when you say that the "Jews, our Lord Jesus, the apostles, and early fathers, unite to EXCLUDE them from the canon"-you make another of those assertions which might be indecorous to call by its proper appellation.

It does not appear that "our Lord Jesus" or "the apostles" ever determined or wrote upon the subject of such exclusion, which they certainly would have done, if the Scripture alone" had been intended as the rule of Christian faith.

Your next alternative to evade the consequences flowing from the commission given to Jesus Christ to his apostles, is to collate with it, those texts which communicated the power of miracles. These certainly do not destroy the commission which extended to "all nations in all days, even to the consummation of the world." Now either the apostles had successors, for the discharge of the commission, or they had not. If they had, then your position is untenable. If they had not, then please to tell us, what Christ could have meant by commanding the teaching of all nations during all days, even until the end of the world. Was he speaking ironically? If they had notwhat did St. Paul mean, by saying of the Christian ministry, no man taketh this honour to himself, but he who is called of God, as was Aaron? What did he mean, by appointing Titus and Timothy, and

instructing them to appoint other faithful men for the discharge of the same commission ?

The little sophism, about the meaning of the word apostle (one sent,) has not the merit of much ingenuity. However, according to your logic, in order to "be sent" one must have "seen the Lord," and as the second generation had not seen the Lord, therefore, the apostles had no successors!! But pray, did the commission to teach all nations during all days, extend only to those who had seen the Lord? Did it also expire with "the last apostle?" If it was discharged in the second generation, were not those by whom it was discharged, in so much, THE REGULAR SUCCESSORS of the apostles? This is what I contend for. Had General Washington no successors in the presidency of this Republic, for the very logical reason, that they succeeded him, and their appointment differed, in some circumstances from his? Jesus Christ gave a commission extending to all nations and all ages of the world. Mr. Breckinridge says that the commission ceased to be discharged after the first generation,-inasmuch as it was given to the twelve apostles, who lived but a few years and "had no successors." Which shall we believe? Do not the society of "Friends" view baptism, and the Universalists, everlasting punish ment, in the same arbitrary lights of analogy! And if your assertion on this subject be credited, will it not become natural, or rather unavoidable, for men to believe that Jesus Christ was merely sporting with human language, and immortal souls?

But how comes it, that even Presbyterian clergymen apply to themselves (when it suits them,) every text, by which the Son of God commissioned his apostles to "teach all nations;" to preach the gospel to every creature, and to evangelize the world? It is not a contradiction in terms for them to claim the authority of a succession which they DENY? It is no wonder that the ranks of infidelity should thicken around us. As long as the human mind is governed by the ordinary laws, men must and will look for consistency somewhere: either in the desperate alternative of total scepticism, or in the bosom of the Catholic church, from which their fathers separated. When we hear you asserting that the "apostles had no successors," would it not be proper that some one should move at the next General Assembly, that the following article be expunged from the "Westminster Confession of Faith."

"To these (church officers) the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed, by virtue whereof they have power to retain and remit sins,' to shut that kingdom against the impenitent. both by the word and censure; and to open it unto penitent sinners by the ministry of the Gospel, and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require.” Chap. xxx. art. 11. page 166.

These are modest pretensions for gentlemen who assert that the Apostles had no successors. Now I had always thought that these same keys belonged to St. Peter and his successors. I know by whom and to whom they were originally given, and to whom they still belong, if priority of title and possession be admitted. But as Mr. Breckinridge had informed me, that the apostles had no successors, I was at a loss to imagine what had become of the " "keys"—

until, peeping into the "Confession of Faith," I learned to my great edification, that they had been miraculously discovered at WESTMINSTER, England, in the year of our Lord, 1647, and graciously fastened, by act of Parliament, to the belt of the Presbyterian Church!

The whole of your strange position, against the institution of the "Catholic rule of faith," is founded on the assertion, that the "Apostles had no successors"—an assertion, which is inconsistent with the character and extent of the commission given by the Saviour. How could Christ impart such a commission without PROVIDING for its fulfilment; and how could he provide for its fulfilment without a sucCESSION in the ministry of teaching? Therefore, unless you make it appear, that Christ has deceived us, it will follow as a necessary consequence, according to the proofs and reasoning of my last letter, that the promise of infallibility was made to the Apostles, and the Pastors of the churches, their legitimate successors, in the ministry of teaching all nations, during all days, even to the consummation of time :and not to the private interpretation of the Bible. Consequently, that the Catholic rule of faith is the true rule, having been "established by the Son of God himself."

But

I said that this Catholic rule is infallible, and in your reply, you "grant that if it was established by Christ, it is infallible." then you say, that you have proved that Christ did not establish our rule, and my conclusion falls to the ground. Indeed, Rev. Sir, the language of Christ, the language and practice of the Apostles, the practice of the Christian church for 1800 years, and your own Confession of Faith stand against you, and show that you have proved no such thing. And if you had much confidence in either the strength or evidence of your "proofs," so called,-it would have been superfluous in you to attempt the exposition of its fallibility. You say, that it is not selfevident that our church is infallible, or our rule the true one. By what process, then," you ask me, " do I apply these texts to the proof of my rule?" You answer the question yourself. "The process of private interpretation." On this question and answer you build an argument, to show that I arrive at the proofs of the divine establishment of the Catholic rule, by my own private interpretation of the Scriptures :—and so, that I am obliged to have recourse to the Protestant principle in the last resort. I had answered this objection, before it was written, by showing, that in the Catholic church every doctrine, and every proof of our doctrine, is reduced to a simple matter of fact:--That these texts have been understood, as I have used them, in all countries and ages:--That their authority, merely AS HISTORICAL EVIDENCE, establishes the point, and shows that Christ instituted A MINISTRY OF TEACHING, to transmit to all nations the knowledge of the doctrines which he revealed :-That to this ministry he promised his own perpetual presence-all of which are FACTS, with which the principle of private interpretation has as little to do, as it has with ascertaining whether or not the city of Philadelphia was founded by William Penn. For the farther proof of this, I refer the reader to my own arguments in the last letter, which you took good care not to assail.

Your next position may be called the argument of confusion

"Either the Pope is infallible, or the Council: or both united: or the universal church. It seems not to be agreed among yourselves, where infallibility is lodged, and therefore even at the threshold a great difficulty arises." Christ, Rev. Sir, was not less the Son of God, because "he was a scandal to the Jews and a stumbling block to the Gentiles." The distorted portraits which Protestant writers have drawn of the infallibility, as well as of the other doctrines of the Catholic church, may, indeed, raise difficulties at the "threshold,” and prejudice may regard them as insurmountable. We can see no difficulty whatever. Every definition of doctrine and morals by a General Council is infallible. It was of such definitions (according to Catholic interpretation) that Christ said: "He that hears you hears me," and "he that will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican." No Council is General or Eeumenical without the POPE's concurrence. Consequently, the spiritual empire of Christ is not divided in the Catholic church. A man may be a very good Catholic, without inquiring, whether the Pope is officially infallible or not. He may even hold it as an opinion, that he is not infallible, and neither Priest, nor Bishop, nor Pope will frown upon him for his opinion. The Pastors of the church are not, like the Reformers of the sixteenth century, the creators, but they are merely the guardians and expositors of the doctrines, which they derived from Jesus Christ and his apostles. They are the WITNESSES OF TRUTH, and they are warranted by a sacred authority, to reject even "an angel from heaven," if that angel attempt to preach another doctrine besides that which they have received. They all teach the same doctrines. But let me show your argument in a light, which does not require the use of a "sectarian telescope." All Americans agree that these United States are independent. Now would it be an argument against this independence, if any one should raise "difficulties," by asking where this independence "is lodged"—whether in the President--or in the Congress-or in both united—or in the whole Republic.

Is not the PROMISE OF JESUS CHRIST, that he would be with the apostles and their successors in the ministry of "teaching" until the end of the world, as good a guarantee, for the infallibility of the Church, as the immortal "declaration" is, for the independence of our country? Would Christ be with a ministry, which is supposed by Protestant opinions, to have been teaching error and idolatry for a thousand years before the " Reformation" was born, or for three hundred since. If he was not, what became of his pledge and promises? Do you not perceive, Rev. Sir, how questionable your assertions would render the VERACITY of Christ? And how they tend to shake the very foundations of Christianity? Do you imagine that the fulfilment of these promises, is to be overturned by a rule of grammar? -"Two negatives make an affirmative."

I must now show the reader, what a chemicological process the arguments of my last letter were doomed to undergo in New York. "I remark," says Mr. Breckinridge, "that your reasoning, as to an infallible rule of faith,' if well founded, leads us to reject every system, that does not make all men perfect. For you agree that

Christ has established an infallible rule to guide us in matters of religion, as well as to settle disputes in his church. You argue, that a rule, which does not settle disputes, as to doctrine, is fallible, and therefore, not Christ's rule. Now, by parity of reasoning, a rule that does not regulate practice, so as to make an END OF SIN, and make men perfect here, must be a fallible rule." This reasoning is your own, dear sir, and I would not spoil it by a single word of com

ment.

You next complain that I should have adduced the arguments of Volney, Priestly, and what you call "extreme heresies," to show the inconclusiveness of your reasoning, against the Catholic doctrines Unitarians, Universalists, &c. (whom, I suppose, you intend to designate by "extreme heresies") are the legitimate descendants of the Protestant rule of faith. And, if every man has a right to interpret the meaning of the Bible for himself, it becomes something like nonsense in the ear of reason, for one Protestant to call the opinions of another Protestant by the name of "heresy." What do they, but INQUIRE, THINK, and EXERCISE the privilege which you proclaim to be the right of all. Will you have them to stop thinking at the point where Presbyterians have halted? Will you say to the ocean of their thought; "hitherto thou shalt come, but no farther ?" That ocean is too boundless to be hemmed in by the "Westminster Confession." Its course is onward-and the present condition of Protestants in Germany, where infidelity is preached from the pulpit, and proved from the Bible, by the Protestant rule of faith, shows how it can sweep away the feeble remnants of Christianity, that were spared by the first Reformation.

Your frequent charges against the Catholic church, for "restricting the freedom of the press ;"--" claiming the government of kingdoms:"-" establishing the inquisition :" burning heretics :""encouraging extended and bloody massacres of the Waldenses and Huguenots," and a hundred other sins which she never committed, certainly do not prove the "Protestant rule of faith," nor disprove that which Christ established. Childhood, full grown ignorance, greyhaired prejudice, and last, though not least, ladies of delicate nerves, may be frightened by these tales of horror inconceivable! But to these their effect will be exclusively confined. I dislike recrimination, but you will not take it amiss, if I remind you, inter nos, that the standard of Presbyterianism in the United States of America, and in the nineteenth century, makes it a sin against the second commandment of God, "to TOLERATE a false religion." It is true the General Assembly have not as yet told us, what religions are to be regarded as "false." But I cannot well understand how the Presbyterian conscience can be at peace with itself, or "the Great Head of the church," as long as it is burthened with this sin of TOLERA

TION.

In my last letter, in order to exhibit the delusion of the Protestant rule of faith, I introduced an uneducated "collier," to whose experience and judgment I refer the reader. You pass by the argument contained in the paragraph, and seem to be shocked at the profanity of the poor man's language. But, Rev. Sir, these are times