LETTER V. To the Right Reverend Doctor Bowen, Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church of South Carolina, &c. &c. &c. RIGHT REVEREND SIR-I proceed in this letter to follow up the exhibition of contradictions and inconsistencies of "A Protestant Catechism." I have concluded this species of Review of Part I. But surely you will not assert that St. Peter is the Devil! I am aware of your protest that when Christ asked Peter whether he loved him more than any of the other Apostles did,* and in recompence of that greater love, told him to feed not only his lambs but also his sheep, that he did not intend to give to him any precedence amongst his fellows. I know you protest that the declaration of Christ,† And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you; that he might sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, STRENGTHEN THY BRETHREN, means not that Simon Peter was to have any superiority over his brethren. I am also aware of your protest that the text in Matthew‡ wherein the name Simon is changed to Peter or Rock, by the Saviour, who declares, that upon that rock he will build his church and that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it, and that to Peter he will give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and that what he shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and what he shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven, does not draw any distinction between Peter and the other Apostles as favourable to his power or preeminence: yet though conscious of all this, and believing that you, like many other gentlemen, whom I have known in similar circumstances, had no extravagant affection for the memory of the Apostle Peter; I knew that you acknowledged him to have been a most faithful servant of our Redeemer, after he had risen from that single weakness, recorded in Matt. xxvi. 6, 9, &c., and had his faith, which never failed, secured more than ever by the experience of his imperfection; I knew you could not but perceive that even so early as before the day of Pentecost he did confirm his brethrens by his address, by his explanation, and by his directing them to proceed to fulfil their duty: I knew that you saw another instance of it in his coming forth to address the multitudes whom the noise of the divine descent had collected together; and other instances in several parts of the sacred writings, as in his performing the first Apostolic miracle,* in his address to the people,† in his vindication of the Chrishedrim. Upon this ground I did expect tian doctrine, and mission before the Santhat an impression of respect would exist in your mind for the Apostle St. Peter, whom the Historian Eusebius calls the first amongst the Apostles, though I should even admit as genuine the interpolation as some call it, for courage," yes, I did imagine that a Christian Bishop would teach children to respect the character of that most couragesuccession: but I was totally unable to reous of those Apostles to whom he claims concile this with the garbled text which introduces Part II. of this wretched little production. "But he turned, and said unto Peter, get thee behind me, Satan; for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. (St. Matt. xvi. 23.) Now, sir, I put it to your candour, to your honour, to your conscience. Has not this text so garbled and so put forward, the appearance of making our Saviour style this very Peter, a Devil, who was opposed to the law of God? Is this the true meaning of that text? And, is it not so put, to make upon the minds of children an impression of the worst kind regarding that Apostle's character, for the purpose of creating a direct prejudice against his successors the Bishops of Rome and their adherents? I need not inform you, that you can produce a garbled text from the Bible to mean anything you please; a remarkable instance of which was, the undertaking to prove by a plain positive text that there was no God, and to support which, reference was made to the first verse of what you number as the Psalm xiv. we as xiii., where indeed the following words are plainly and fully found: "There is no God." The isolated proposition announces the doctrine of atheists, if I may give to mere negative a positive character. But the whole system is destroyed by reading what precedes and follows: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominably," &c. Now, suppose I supply the suppressed context to the garbled extract above. (Matt. xvi.) Simon had made a declaration of his belief that Christ was the son of the living God, whereupon his name was changed to Peter, and the promise therewith recited was made to him, after a declaration that he was BLESSED this? impediments; whilst others give it a more mystic explanation in addition to the former, similar to that in John xxi. 18, 19, viz., not only that Christ should die, but that even Peter should follow him in martyrdom. "Follow me." Suppose, sir, we omit this last and adopt only the others, there will be no inconsistency between Christ declaring him blessed, and giving him this admonition. As to the word Satan, I need not inform you that it canThis is the record of Peter's crime, if not create a difficulty for a second, as you crime it was; that is, he loved Jesus so that know the meaning of the word is adversary, he was afflicted at hearing him declare that or opponent, and is only used to designate the Devil as the principal opponent or adhe must suffer, and would prevent the calamity if he could. What was the crime in versary of God. The salvation of man was Let us look to chap. xxvi. of the to be procured by the death of the Resame Evangelist, v. 39. "And he (Jesus) of the ways of God, became, by his impordeemer; and the Apostle, in his ignorance went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be tunity, an adversary or an opponent to the possible, let this cup pass from me: neverthe-regulation of Providence, but not criminally less not as I will, but as thou wilt." I need not multiply passages, this one will suffice. Was it then a grievous crime in Peter, whom Christ declared BLESSED, to be led by his affection for Jesus, to intreat of him to prevent an occurrence which would be extremely afflicting, and which Jesus himself prayed, without sin, to have prevented, if possible? Peter was not yet aware "that thus it behoved Christ to suffer," and the reason is given in the very place where Jesus "opened their understanding." Of course, sir, you know that the meaning of the word rebuke in this place, especially when you take its force from the original, is not chide, or reprove, or correct, but earnestly urge and intreat. Thus in the act of Peter we can discover no moral turpitude, no want of faith, but an unrestrained affection, and an uncalculating haste and warmth, earnestly opposed to the affliction of the Son of God. I now examine the answer of Jesus. The Saviour tells Peter to 66 get behind him," calls him "Satan," and tells him that his spirit is according to human_principles, not according to those of God. The first phrase we are told by one class of our ancient witnesses means literally, not to come forward to speak with him upon this subject, but to go back and walk after him, patiently waiting until the fulness of time should explain what Peter did not as yet comprehend. Another class say that it meant an admonition to Peter, to go after Christ in learning the lessons of doctrine which the Saviour was to teach at his own good time, and not be prematurely urging difficulties or creating so, however injudiciously. In doing this he did not savour or know the regulations and according to the wisdom of man. of Heaven, but spoke from the affection Thus, Right Reverend Sir, the ancient commentators, Chrysostom, Hilary, Jerome, Augustin and others, for whom you profess great esteem, declared that they received from their predecessors this explanation, which is indeed expounding holy writ so as to avoid making one place thereof rePugnant to another; neither is it contrary to God's word written, nor is it besides the concluding [that] you would be guided by same. I could scarcely imagine that after the early fathers in the exposition of this pas sage, you could approve of so exhibiting it as to impress upon the minds of the children, that the most courageous amongst the Apostles, for this much you will admit with the interpolated Eusebius, as I am led to believe, was called a devil, and declared blessed by our Saviour in the same chapter of the gospel, and was rewarded for his noble declaration of faith which had not been revealed to him by flesh and blood, but by the Eternal God, and then rejected as an enemy to God's doctrine. I should have calculated upon your displeasure if I were to impute those inconsistencies to you. I may, I believe, make this No. 12 of inconsistency, &c. 13. p. 5. Q. 25. Is the Protestant Church a sound and uncorrupt part of the Catholic Church? A. Yes; for it is a certain mark of a sound church, to teach no doctrines but such as are agreeable to the word of God. Now, sir, according to the definition Q. 4, every one who professes to found his reli- A. In the Bible; where it is now, and where alone all true religion is to be found. But we have more reason to ask, where the Roman Catholic religion was for several hundred years after Christ: the Church of Rome being very different now from what it was in those days. I shall not enter into the controversial examination of this answer. I merely adduce it at present for its inconsistency. The Protestant principle in Q. 10 and 11, makes each individual a competent judge of the meaning of the sacred text; and all individuals being thus placed upon an equal footing, no one has a right to charge another with error, or mistake, as he has no certain rule to exhibit at which side the error exists: and thus, no person can with certainty know the true meaning of any text concerning which two opinions can be formed. To tell me that the true religion is in the Bible, is in such a case like telling me that the fish I want to take is in the sea. I may fish as long as I please and catch a great variety; but by what mark shall I know this one which I seek for the first time? Is it not then great inconsistency for the Protestant who holds this principle, to tell the Catholic, who says that he finds the doctrine of his church in a particular text, that he errs and does not know the meaning of that text? I look upon such language to mean this: "Here is a book which contains truth; each of us is equally competent to understand its contents, neither of us has any claim beyond the other; but since we differ in our explanation, I must be right and you must be wrong. How different, sir, is the language of the Catholic? "Christ established a tribunal to teach his doctrine to mankind during all ages; and promised to guide that tribunal in the preservation of truth for the world. That tribunal consisted of the Apostles at first; they were to associate others to them upon the formation of the church, according to the necessities that would arise; the associates were to enter fully into the commission, and by continued association, this body, though consisting of dying members, was to be perpetuated to the end of ages; and during its existence was to teach all nations, not contradictory opinions, but that single series of doctrines taught by the consistent God of truth: centuries have passed away, kingdoms have arisen and been destroyed, empires have been created and perished, nations have been formed and depopulated, the sword of war, the breath of pestilence, the scourge of famine, have desolated the earth, the most timid animals have taken refuge amidst the ruins which once were the great theatres of a busy population, whilst the ferocious beast against which every hand was armed, has burrowed his den in the rubbish of the palace, and couched upon the mouldered monu ancient church? A. The Protestant: for instead of being founded lately, as the Roman Catholics pretend, it is in fact much more ancient than their own: being a true primitive, apostolic church, "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." (Eph. ii. 20.) Allow me to ask, whether the approval of this answer does not necessarily imply that every division which enters into the formation of the Protestant church is a true, primitive, and apostolical portion? I was under the impression, indeed, hitherto, that your church claimed to be primitive and apostolical, but that she did not admit the existence of those characteristics in what she calls the sectaries; such for instance as Presbyterians, Unitarians, and Baptists. Is it intended to give them a primitive and apostolical character? Or, have we again a shuffling of terms, in defiance of all honesty and logic, by which the Protestant church in this place means only the Protestant Episcopal church? Take it either way, I am under the impression that it will involve you in a contradiction if you approve of the ment of a forgotten dynasty; the virulence | 15, p. 6, Q. 28. Which, then, is the most of persecution, equally as the allurement of wealth and power, has tried the durability of that tribunal, which has existed in every age, and now subsists by the very means by which it was at first enlarged; it has been at every moment an object to attract the eye and to fix the attention of its friends and of its foes through every region where civilized man has stamped the impress of his foot: that same tribunal is this day in existence, is this day in commission: it has never suffered lapse nor been superseded. Several of the doctrines which it was commissioned to teach have been committed to writing, and the books which contain them have been, together with others, [from] an early period, disseminated. This tribunal separated some books from the rest, and declared that they were written under the influence of the inspiring Spirit of truth: those so selected and ratified form the Bible; the rest, though more numerous, are considered of no account, though many of them were held formerly, and in the very first and second ages, in considerable estimation. In this Book of the Holy Bible, many of its passages are obscure and hard to be understood; truth cannot contradict itself: what it was from the beginning it must be now. I might err in my notions, so might another individual, but that tribunal has been appointed to explain, to expound, to testify, to teach: it has been so appointed, not by man, but by Christ. Let me then hold as it teaches, and I am certain of being right." In this, Right Reverend Sir, there is neither arrogance nor inconsistency, though you might protest that there is error. The Roman Catholic says that his tenet is testified by the text which he adduces. The Protestant asks him if he is more learned than himself, or if he arrogates to himself more of the spirit of God, so that he should be right whilst the Protestant is wrong. The Catholic does not rest upon the ground of his individual superiority, but of the authority of that tribunal, which, though spread through every nation and every age, still, whilst collecting its evidence from every part, can discharge it upon any given point. Thus I submit that there is palpable inconsistency in the answer of the Protestant Catechism, which asserts with certainty that the religion of Protestants is found in the Bible, and thus insinuates that the religion of the Roman Catholic is at variance with this sacred book. The first has only his own private opinion; the second has, in addition to his own judgment, an unbroken host of authorized wit answer. 16, p. 7, Q. 33. Have Christians a right to persecute and destroy one another on account of religion? A. No; the religion of Christ is a religion of peace and charity. "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye love one another." (John xiii. 35.) I must own that to me this was the most extraordinary evidence of fatuity on the part of the English compiler, that ever came under my observation. Could it be possible that this little work was written by some hypocrite, who, still attached to the Roman Catholic religion, but loving the good things which are shared by the saints in London, pretended, like the bacon-bought new reformation beggars in Ireland, to conform to the Protestant church for the sake of his appetite? If so, he has most ingeniously given to the English Protestant church a most base and assassin-like stab. I like not this disreputable mode of warfare; give me the man who meets me manfully and armed in the open field, and though he should wound me, I respect him; but I know not words to express my horror, contempt, and detestation of the wretch who affects to embrace me that he might use his poniard. There is not a more notorious fact in existence, than that the English Protestant doest, do quickly. This is indeed one way of quoting Scripture. Allow me to exhibit an analogous instance. I begin at 1 Cor. xiv. 13. I shall mark in italics the omitted words, in SMALL CAPITALS those not in the original, and in Roman letters the words which, being in the original, are produced to form the above garbled quotations. I copy your own version of the Bible. church, from the moment of its formation | latter clause." Jesus said unto him, go and to the present, has always been the most do thou likewise. "Read John, xiii. 27, latter unrelenting, embittered, and cold-blooded clause." Then said Jesus unto him, That thou of any other in her persecution. Whilst she had power in the old colonies, she used it for the purpose of persecution, and at this day she is the only church in Europe whose religious teachers declare, and whose layadvocates maintain, that persecution is essentially necessary for her existence. Have you read the speech of the present Lord Chancellor, upon the Catholic debate on the 10th of June? Have you examined how your mitred brethren voted? Have you looked over the long list of parsons of that church, who got up petitions amongst their people to have the persecutions continued? Formerly, in those days when most of the English people belonged to the Episcopal or established church, it might astonish you, but the evidence of the fact is complete; this enlightened people were kept up to fever heat in support of persecution, through the dread of wooden shoes from France, tails of wild men from Ireland, the Pope's horns, the scarlet colour of his lady's mantle, of slavery, [of which] they had a holy horror, and the beheading of their good kings by sectaries; all duly inculcated from the pulpit. But this topic has another place. Could there be greater inconsistency than with this notorious fact before the world, to publish the above answer, unless it was intended as a biting and corroding sarcasm, against a church which has never yet ceased to admonish her head, who is also the head of the state, of his duty of persecution; for he is gravely told, that to relax the persecution will be to violate his coronation oath? A. That practice is expressly forbidden. "If I pray in an unknown tongue, my understanding is unfruitful. How shall the unlearned say Amen, if he understand not what thou sayest? If there come in those that are unlearned or unbelievers, will they not say, ye are mad?" (1 Cor. xiv. 14, 16, 23.) When I looked on this garbled and disingenuous quotation, it reminded me of another nearly similar juxtaposition of texts, whereby a man undertook to prove to another that he ought by God's word to hang himself immediately. "Open your Bible at Matthew, xxvii. 5." He did so, and read as follows: And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. "Read Luke, x. 37, the Wherefore let him that speaketh in an UNKNOWN tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in an UNKNOWN tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and 1 will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the unwith the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the derstanding also. Else when thou shalt bless room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing (IF) he understandeth (understand) not what thou sayest? For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified. 1 thank my God, I speak with more tongues than ye all; yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that BY MY VOICE I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an UNKNOWN tongue. Brethren, be not children, but in understanding be men. In the law it is written, With MEN of other tongues, and other lips I will speak unto this people; and yet Wherefore tongues are for a sign not to them that for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. believe, but to them that believe not: Prophesying SERVETH not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in THOSE THAT ARE UNlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? I could not easily believe, Right Reverend and culling as I have here exhibited; so as Sir, that you would approve of such garbling to make the Scripture say in the Catechism what it does not say in the original. I do not presume, sir, to teach you, but I shall state what the Roman Catholic Church unof the sacred record. In chap. ii. of the derstands to be the meaning of this portion Acts of the Apostles, we are informed in v. 4, Ghost, and began to speak with other "And they were all filled with the Holy tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” We can thus clearly see that the spirit which gave to speak in other tongues was the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. St. Paul tells us that the object was to be a sign to the unbelievers, exhibiting to them evidence of inspiration, which evidence was not necessary for those who already were believers; for such prophecy or instruction of men who, led by the influence of Heaven, taught them how to practise their duties, was more ne |