I must begin by remarking that in paragraph 22, you state that the doctrine which you here combat is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. and this gives me denuo, “again” or “a se- Again, Sir, you say, "But the water which was used was only an emblem of the Holy Spirit; this baptism admitted them into the visible kingdom of God, into the family of believers." If he was admitted into the family of believers in a proper manner, he must be a believer,-if a believer, he must have faith; and according to you, if he had faith, he was justified. Thus he must have been justified either before or at baptism. The Catholic says, that without faith in the adult, the Sacrament will not produce its effects of sanctification or justification, because the want of faith is an obstacle to that grace. The doctrine is stated to be "Baptism is regeneration." Now Sir, regeneration means the being born again. But as this may be explained in a variety of ways, it is better that we should be explicit and precise in the meaning of our subject. In paragraph 16, you appear to say that we call Baptism regeneration, in the sense that by the mere performance of the rite upon the adult, he is suddenly fitted for heaven, whatever his disposition may be, even though he had not faith. This is in keeping with your assertion in paragraph 42, stating that we teach "that in partaking of the Sacraments we become entitled to salvation." Sir, the Catholic Church teaches no such doctrine. Therefore if I am to understand your proposition thus explained, you have made another egregious mistake. I will not say that you have intentionally misrepresented us, for I think it very likely that you have been honestly led astray by your own Theologians, who scarcely ever give an honest representation of what we teach. I would as soon expect to find a correct exhibition of the concerns of a Convent from Maria Monk, or the Rev. Dr. Slo- You appear by your explanation of the above cum, or the Rev. Dr. Brownlee, of New York, passage of St. John and of that in the 16th as I would to obtain a correct statement of chapter of St. Mark to consider Baptism not Catholic doctrine, from one of your Theolo- indeed to be regeneration, but not to be more gians. I have, Sir, read probably as deeply than a mere unessential profession of belief, as you have, the works of the great defend- for you tell us that no reference is made to ers of what you call Reform, and I am want of Baptism where the man is damned; pretty well acquainted with the doctrines of but he suffers this penalty, because he rejects the Catholic Church, and I know of no more the Gospel, the only provision that could be mean and wicked and unprincipled forgery: effectual in saving his soul. Thus, accordthis, Sir, is very strong language, which I de-ing to you, the reception of the Gospel is the liberately use: I know of no more mean and wicked and unprincipled forgery, than the great body of Protestant Theologians have committed, in misrepresenting Catholic doctrine. Hence, Sir, I am by no means astonished at the palpable ignorance of the genuine doctrine of our Church, which manifestly pervades the great body of the Protestant clergy, who study those works, and who rely upon their authority. In your paragraph 14, you say, "The meaning of the original Scripture text is, except a man be born from above." Now, Sir, you will excuse me for dissenting from you. The word in Greek, which I suppose you call the original, is av"wesv. This word has several meanings, amongst which is “ from above" and " again," or " a second time."-My reasons for dissenting from you are; first, the authority of the Vulgate, one of the very oldest Latin translations, made, I may say, at the moment almost co-eval with the original, only provision for salvation. If by this you mean, that the only way in which a person can partake of the merits of the Saviour is by obeying the precepts of the Gospel; you teach Catholic doctrine. It may not be amiss to give an authoritative exhibition of what preparation the Catholic Church requires in an adult, who prepares for Baptism. After having in chapter v, of the sixth Session of the Council of Trent, celebrated on the 13th of January, 1547, described the excitement of the sinner by God's holy inspiration, and his correspondence with this grace by his determination to turn to God and his prayer for aid, the council proceeds to state in CHAPTER VI. The manner of preparation. But they are disposed for justification itself, whilst excited by divine grace, and being aided in receiving faith by hearing (Rom. x,) they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which are divinely revealed and promised; and in the first place, that the impious man is justified by God, through his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: (Rom. iii, 24,) and whilst understanding that they are sinners, by turning themselves from the fear of divine justice, by which they are usefully shaken to the contemplation of God's mercy, they are raised to hope trusting that God will be merciful to them for the sake of Christ, they begin to love him as the fountain of all justification. (Psalm xli, 1.) And therefore they are moved against their sins with a sort of hatred and detestation, that is with that penance which should be done before Baptism, whilst finally they propose to receive Baptism, to begin a new life and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition, it is written, (Heb. xi, 6,) that he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and is a rewarder of them that seek him: and (Matt. ix, 2; Mark, ii,) Son have confidence, thy sins are forgiven thee, and (Eccles. i, 27.) The fear of the Lord driveth out sin, and (Acts ii, 38.) Do penance and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost: and (Matt. xxviii, 19, Mark xvi, 16,) Going, therefore, teach all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I commanded you. And (1 Kings vii, 3, ii, 1.) Prepare your hearts unto the Lord. When you calmly examine this doctrinal declaration, is it possible you could deliberately assert, that Catholics teach, that the mere rite of Baptism is regeneration? No Sir, no honest and intelligent man could do So. You have done it, not I believe by reason of any want of honesty, nor because of any lack of intelligence, but because you have never studied our doctrines in their proper place, but taken upon trust, the assertions of your first founders and of your divines, whom you call Reformers, and whom I declare to be, in this instance, void of all honesty. The sacrament of Baptism is the means or instrument by which God takes away sin and sanctifies the soul of the properly disposed adult. Thus, though it be not regeneration, it is the Sacrament of regeneration, and I believe you will find in the passages of Scripture above cited and in many others, sufficient warrant for this belief. Now, Sir, there was no sufficient motive for mistranslating the word av"wesv to find a proof against us, of the necessity of the influence from above, to prepare an adult for the Sacrament of regeneration, because any man who would deny such necessity would, by the fact, cease to be a Catholic. The third canon of the sixth session of the Council of Trent is in the following words: If any one shall say, that a man is able to be lieve, to hope, to love or to be penitent, as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him, without the previous inspiration of the Holy Ghost and his aid. Let him be Anathema. Thus Sir, the Catholic Church condemns as a heresy that which your teachers impute to her as a doctrine; and she anathematizes those who hold that which you charge her with teaching. Is there any reason here, Sir, for the application of the 10th verse of that same chapter of the Gospel of St. John? "Art thou a master in Israel and knowest not these things?" I have nothing then to say to your 15th paragraph, but that it leaves the Catholic untouched, and that a mistake concerning doctrine, which it contains, will not be easily reconciled with either your 19th or your 20th paragraphs. Your 16th paragraph, Sir, is so pretty a piece of rhetoric that it would be a pity to spoil it, did not the unsparing sternness of truth and justice require its decomposition. In the first place, good Sir, you ought to have better ascertained the fact that Cortes, Pizarro and their infamous host of plunderers really did hold swords in one hand and crosses in the other, before you made the assertion. I once knew the Mayor of a city, who sent a dispatch, assuring the government, that he was in such dread of an invading army, that whilst he was writing the communication, he had a sword in one hand and a pistol in the other! I am aware, Sir, that Hume and Robertson, and other philosophical historians furnished models for pretty sentences of this description. But I can assure you there is often a good deal of hyperbole on their pages, and where the Catholic religion is in question, they are not to be trusted one whit more than are your theologians. I put down the sword and cross then as figurative. You see, I am not always an enemy to the figurative sense. I am no apologist for the barbarous extirpators of the Indians: but recollect, Sir, that there are some sentimental members, even to-day, in the Evangelical Churches of our Union, and perhaps Sir, even in the Lutheran Evangelical Church of the United States, who weep over the wrongs endured by our red brethren in Florida and in the Cherokee district, and who denounce in no measured terms, the barbarities of Georgia and the cruelty of the infamous hosts of plunderers who are aided and abetted by the Government of the United States. Sir, I have lamented the fate of the Carrib, I traversed the odoriferous lands where once he dwelt in peace before the face of the white man was seen within his borders. I have read the description of the injustice and cru elty under which he was bowed down and I wept. I have read and I have listened to the effusions of a similar description by our own public men and by those who are eminent as statesmen and as scholars in remote nations, when they were advocating the cause of the Indian and of the Negro! I have observed both, and I have learned the value of the effusion. tized. 1. The will, or consent. 2. Faith, for which the words of the Saviour are quoted (Mark, xvi, 16) and 3. Repentance or penance with a determination not to sin again. In the chapter xxxviii, the catechism states distinctly the reason why the consent or will of an adult is necessary for baptism, and refers not only to the passage which I have quoted from St. Thomas, but also to a passage of St. Augustin testifying the same. And now with this testimony of Catholic doctrine, you can easily perceive what an accumulation of blunders lies covered by the pretty figure which your imagination painted to decorate your 16th paragraph. These descriptions will go down to the children of future generations: and before the lapse of two centuries, it will be proclaimed and generally believed, that we of this age, and of this section of our Union were heartless and unjust. Even now Sir, this is proclaimed to half the world, and by the greater portion of that half it is believed. You and I know, that this is an unfounded calumny, yet we are not able to prevent its transmission to other days, nor its belief byer commit sin again, you argue that baptism generations yet to rise. Thus, also, Sir, your 16th paragraph is the production of mistake. It is imagination, a painting. The Catholic Church confers not baptism upon an adult against his will, not without his consent, nor would such a baptism be a sacrament. Hence from the beginning, she prepared those who sought Baptism by the exercises of the Catechumen, in order to create those dispositions which the Council of Trent describes. It was often discovered in the early ages of the Church, that persons feig ned a desire which they had not, and in order to prove and to prepare them, several councils enacted that they should be kept during months in a state of preparation, until their motive could be detected and their dispositions be ascertained. And it is indispensably required in every case, that the question shall be asked 66 Wilt thou be baptized?" Children answer by their sponsors; but adults must answer also for themselves, and St. Thomas of Aquin, writing upon the subject nearly three centuries previous to the formation of a Lutheran Church, gives the following reasons: (3 par. qu. lxviii, Art. 7,) First, The persons who come for baptism, are by the ritual required to ask it from the Church. Next, by baptism we die to the old life of sin, and begin a new life as described in Rom. vi, 3, 4. He proceeds to say: "And therefore as in a person having the use of free will, its determination is required, that he should die to his old life, by which determination he repents of its acts: so a determination is required by which he would intend a newness of life, and the beginning thereof is the receiving of the Sacrament itself." In the Catechism of the Council of Trent, (part ii, chap. xl,) three things are declared to be necessary for adults in order to be bap Your 17th paragraph assumes the truth of an opinion which we condenm. Upon the assumption that grace is inamissible, that is, that a person once converted to God can nev gives no grace, because they who have been baptized do subsequently commit sin. Now Sir, the argument is of no weight as against us, because we hold that grace once received may be lost, that a person may be justified by the merits of Christ, and fall off from that state of justification. We find that in the 11th article of the Confession of Augsburg, the Lutherans of that day, teach "that they condemn the same Anabaptists who deny that the Holy Ghost may be lost after man is once justified." Thus, Sir, the principle of your 17th paragraph is cut away from you, by the leaders and founders of your own Church, in that very document in which you say "the doctrines of the Reformation, were clearly defined." (par. 8.) This Sir, is not the place for me to enter upon a history of this tenet and of the disputes and contradictions amongst the Protestants upon the subject; even among those who professed Calvinism, it was the great cause of serious differences at the Synod of Dort;-and although Calvin deduced it as a necessary consequence from the Lutheran principle of the certainty which a man has of his justification, still the Lutherans denied the correctness of the inference, and it continued in the most memorable disputes, of Lutherans with other Protestants, to be as firmly denied to have been revealed by God, as it was asserted by the great body of the Calvinists to be an original essential article of that revelation. I was not prepared to find this Calvinistic tenet embraced by the President of the General Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the United States of America, for the purpose of attempting to destroy in reality, the value of infant baptism, when in the 9th article of the Confession of Augsburg the Lutherans declare "that baptism is necessary to salvation, and that they condemn the Anabaptists who assert that children may be saved without baptism, and out of the Church of Jesus Christ." Thus, Sir, if your 17th paragraph condemns the Hinkelite, it must also condemn the whole Lutheran Society in 1530, and for at least a century and a half subsequently thereto : for they held that by Baptism a child is received unto God's favor, and that grace may be lost. Your 18th paragraph is of no account. Your 19th states as the doctrine of your churches, 1st, that Baptism is a necessary ordinance, yet in par. 14 you have told us, that "the water was only an emblem of the Holy Spirit," that no reference was made by the Saviour to baptism"--where he declared that the unbeliever shall be damned "that baptism is [only] symbolical of that change of the heart, which [change of the heart] is necessary to salvation," of course the symbol is not necessary. You proceed to say that your churches teach that it is "a means of grace," of course the means procure the end, then baptism procures grace. This, Sir, is in perfect conformity with the doctrine of its necessity, but which necessity it would appear from your paragraphs 14 and 15, you do not admit, for besides what we have seen in the 14th, you say in the 15th, "baptism was to be an evidence of faith," which faith, according to you in par. 14, justified. He that believeth-that accepts this Gospel as a revelation from God" -farther on you say, the receiving this Gospel is the only provision that could be effectual in saving his soul." It is true, that you said that baptism was making" an open profession of belief in the way which God has instituted." 66 But it is equally true that you say, that the sentence of damnation is the consequence of yielding no faith or obedience to this Gospel, and without any reference to baptisin." This looks very like a contradiction of the teaching of your own church, that baptism is a means of grace, that by baptism children are not only dedicated to God, but are thereby received into his favor. baptism is necessary for salvation; and that they condemn the Anabaptists who assert that children may be saved without baptism."You tell us, that it is a necessary ordinance, that it is a means of grace, that it ought to be administered to children, that by it they are dedicated to God: that by it they are received into his favor. Now, Sir, the solution of the contradictions is this: Concerning what Baptism is, you give us in your 19th paragraph the Lutheran teaching as it was for the first one hundred and fifty years, and in paragraph 14, you have adopted the Calvinistic teaching which contradicted the Lutheran,—and in paragraph 20 you blend them both; because, in the first part you tell us, that it is a means of grace, that is, that thereby the child that was out of God's favor, being therein dedicated to God, is received into his favor,-if received into his favor, it must be justified through Christ, if justified through Christ, it is born again of water and of the Holy Ghost, it is saved as St. Paul says, (Tu. iii, 5,) "Not by the works of justice which we have done," "but according to his mercy, by the laver of regeneration, and the renovation of the Holy Ghost." And in the second part you also tell us that "Baptism is not regeneration." I shall not dwell any longer upon the contradictions, not only be tween your own assertions, but of your own teachers. I might have dilated upon this topic still farther, by contrasting the assertions of your 14th paragraph with those of your 43d. It would have been a more pleasing task for me to have been otherwise engaged;-but you left me no choice.You unnecessarily assailed that Church to which I belong, with the charges of teaching doctrines "unscriptural,” and “of dangerous tendency," "calculated to produce demoralizing effects." You compared us to some members holding the tenets of the original Lutheran Church, whom you were pleased to designate "a declining and unenlightened sect," dwelling "in the abodes of obscurity," followers of “a weak and illiterate man, whose ground of dissent, as far as can be gathered from the crude, visionary, and inflammatory publications, which have from time to time appeared either under his name, or that of his sect, was that the Evan Now, Sir, the child is incapable of faith, the child is incapable of belief, the child is incapable of accepting the Gospel, or a revelation from God: the child is incapable of making open profession of that belief or accept-gelical Church had departed from the true ing of the Gospel. If baptism then is only this profession, this accepting-the child is altogether incapable thereof: wherefore, baptism, for a child, so far from being "a necessary ordinance," would be an useless and a delusive superstition. The Anabaptist would be right in rejecting it. Yet the Lutherans in their Confession of Augsburg declare "that doctrines of the Reformation, which he and his church attempted to restore." With him and his followers, I have as little connexion as I have with you or yours. But I apprehend that they who have had the patience to read what I have set forth respecting doctrine, on the subject of the Eucharist, on the nature of the sacraments, and of Bap tism, have found some cause to believe, 1st. That the Catholic doctrine on these points is in perfect conformity with the Scriptures. 2d. That although there are a great variety of opinions on those subjects in the several divisions of Protestantism, there is no doctrine, that is, no certain knowledge of what Christ has taught, nor any sufficient and satisfactory mode of ascertaining it upon Protestant principles,--and 3d. That there is in the works of the first Protestant writers and in their doctrinal articles, as much matter to sustain the Hinkelites in their teaching, as to sustain you in the opinions which you promulgate. I have now done with your doctrinal exhibition, but there still remain about a dozen paragraphs, some of which contain imputations of a nature very offensive to the Roman Catholic Church, put forward for the ostensible purpose of vindicating your own. I shall therefore try, in a few more letters, to examine the ground upon which they are made. I remain, Rev. Sir, Yours, &c., B. C. Charleston, S. C., June 28, 1838. 66 LETTER XIV. To the Rev. John Bachman, D. D., &c. REV. SIR,-In your 46th paragraph you proceed with explanations whose object is set forth in your 45th; viz. to show how generally you agree with all other Protestant Churches. You commence by saying that you do not believe in the doctrine of unconditional election." This belief is by some deemed most important and essential. So much so that for rejecting it and for believing as you do, the Synod of Dort, in 1618, condemned the Remonstrants, depriving them of their place" in the ministry, of their chairs of professorship in divinity, of all other functions as well ecclesiastic as academical until having satisfied the Church, they be fully reconciled and received into her communion." This Synod requested the State, not to permit any other doctrine but that which was just defined (the doctrine of unconditional election) to be taught; and to obstruct heresies and errors that were creeping in." Thus, Rev. Sir, either this doctrine is important and essential, or we have the Synod of Dort excommunicating and deposing a large number of Protestants for holding opinions that do not trench upon any important or essential doctrine. I suspect this is one of the principal causes of all the turmoil between the new school and the old school of the Presbyterians in the United States this day. It would be folly to seek for that which is impossible, viz. an agreement in doctrine between Protestant Churches, because their very separation from each other springs from contradiction. One asserting that God actually revealed what another declares to be a direct contradiction to his revelation! They agree but in one point, viz. To contradict the Catholic Church; and yet, in their specifications of error, they acquit by the majority of their suffrages that very Church to which they are opposed. I believe, Sir, that the majority of Protestants, judging by their forms of profession, would condemn you of error upon this head: I believe that judging by their individual opinions, the majority would be in your faBut you may as well seek to construct a permanent fortress upon the quicksand of the desert as to exhibit a doctrinal agreement between the ramifications of what you call the reformation! vor. You next inform us that you practice the rite of confirmation as a mode of admitting members into the Church, accompanied by the profession of faith, but you do not regard confirmation as a sacrament." In this denial of its being a sacrament you agree with perhaps all Protestants. But, in paragraph 43, you state that a sacrament is not only a mark of Christian profession amongst men, but rather a sign or evidence of the divine disposition towards us tendered for the purpose of exciting and confirming the faith of those who use them. Upon this definition I should be inclined to say that you ought to admit its being a sacrament. For, clearly it is a mark of Christian profession among men, and next it is a divine institution practised by the Apostles; it is an evidence of the divine disposition towards us, it is tendered for the purpose of exciting and confirming the faith of the recipient. I do not, by any means admit the accuracy of your definition; but supposing its correctness, you must admit the rite to be a sacrament. No! You say, "it is a mode of admitting members into the church, accompanied by a profession of faith." Why, good Sir, you informed us in parag. 14, "When men became converted to the Christian religion, they were admitted by water baptism as members of the Church of the Redeemer." In the same paragraph, you say, that the profession of faith was necessary with the use of water, you called baptism itself "making an open profession of it (the Gospel as a revelation from God) in the way which God has instituted, by baptism." Thus by the rite of baptism, accompanied by a profession of faith, and the rite itself is not only a sufficient profession, but the profession in the way that God has instituted, persons are admitted as members of the Church. Again, in parag. 19, you inform us that by baptism, |