meaning is there in a particular universal church? It is awkward on another account. If she pretends to be considered the only true and universal church of Christ among all nations and in all times, why call herself Roman? To say the Roman Catholic church of Ameri ca, is just as absurd as to say the Philadelphia church of Cincinnati, -the London church of Pittsburgh,-the church of France of the United States. The very terms that she chooses indicates that sne cannot be the universal church.

It will not help the difficulty to call her the Church of Rome. These words indicate a sect and only a sect, as much as the words Roman Catholic. They signify strictly, only the particular congregations meeting in that place.

The Roman Catholic historians endeavor to reconcile this discrepancy of terms by saying that, though those particular congregations are meant, in their larger sense the terms are used to designate all those congregations, scattered throughout the world, who are in com-munion with the church of Rome. Thus testifies Du Pin

"It is true, that at the present time, the name of the church of Rome, is given to the Catholic church, and that these two terms pass for synonymous.

"But in antiquity no more was intended by the name of the church of Rome, than the church of the city of Rome, and the popes (bishops) in their subscrip tions or superscriptions, look simply to the quality of bishops of Rome. The Greek schismatics seem to be the first who gave the name of the church of Rome to all the churches of the west, whence the Latins made use of this to distinguish the churches which communicated with the church of Rome, from the Greeks who were separated from her communion. From this came the custom to give the name of the church of Rome to the Catholic church. But the other churches did not from this lose their name or their authority."

I shall hereafter give the day and date of this separation, when she received this sectarian designation and became a sect, in the proper acceptation of that term. It may, perhaps, appear that it was not only unscriptural, but dishonorable; as opprobrious as ever were the terms Lutheran or Protestant.

But suppose we call her "Catholic" alone; and her advocates now endeavor to impress the idea that she is no longer to be called "Roman Catholic," but Catholic, this term equally proves her a sect; for in the New Testament and primitive antiquity there is no such designation. It is simply the church of Christ. It is one thing for us to choose a name for ourselves, and another to have one chosen for us by our enemies. Societies, like persons, are passive in receiving their names. It is with churches as it is with individuals; they may not wear the name they prefer. She wishes now to be called no longer Roman Catholic, but Catholic. She repudiates the appellation of Roman; and claims to be the only Catholic church that ever was, and is, and ever more shall be. But we cannot allow her to assume it; and we dare not, in truth, bestow it, for she is not catholic. But, as there is no church known in the New Testament by that name, could we so designate her, still she would be a sect.

But let me ask, what is the church of Rome of the nineteenth century, or rather, what is the present Roman Catholic institution? Permit me here to say, most emphatically, that I have not the slight est disposition to use terms of opprobrium in speaking of this church; or of the worthy gentleman who is opposed to me in this debate. I do not wish or intend to use the slightest expression which could be construed into an unfriendly tone of satire, irony or invective towards

the respectable gentleman, or towards his church. I shall speak freely of her pretensions to be the only true church, &c. but I shall observe a scrupulous respect in all my language towards the present representatives of the Catholic church in the nineteenth century.

Are we then to understand her as the immutable, universal, ancient primitive, apostolic church of Christ? Are we to understand this by the Roman Catholic church of the nineteenth century, with her popes her cardinals, her patriarchs, primates, metropolitans, archbishops, archdeacons, monks, friars, nuns, &c. &c. teaching and preaching the use and worship of images, relics, penances, invocation of departed men and women, veneration for some being whom they call "the mo ther of God," teaching and preaching the doctrine of priestly absolu tion, auricular confession, purgatory, transubstantiation, extreme unc tion, &c. &c.

Is this the ancient, universal, holy apostolic church? Not one of these dogmas can be found in the bible.

They originated hundreds of years since, as I am prepared to show. from the evidence of Roman Catholic authors themselves. How then can we call it the ancient apostolic church? Not one of these offices nor dogmas is mentioned in the New Testament. Hear Du Pin on this point. In exposing the imposition, practised, by an effort, so late as the ninth century, to foist into the history of the church certain pretended decrees or writings of those called the first popes, Du Pin, an authentic Roman Catholic historian, proves these decrees and writings to be spurious, because in them there are numerous allusions to offices and customs not yet existing in the times referred to.

"The following proves them spurious. 1st. The second epistle of St. Clement directed to St. James, speaks of the Ostiarii or doorkeepers, archdeacons and other ecclesiastical officers, that were not then introduced into the church."

2nd. "This letter mentions sub-deacons, an order not then established in the church." p. 584.

3d. "In the first Epistle attributed to St. Sixtus, he is called an archbishop,' a word not used in this time."

4th. "The second, attributed to the same pope, mentions consecrated vessels, and appeals to Rome, the grandeur of the church. It is there pretended that all bishops wait for the pope's decision, and are instructed by his letters; modes of speaking never used by the first bishops of Rome."

5th. "The epistle attributed to Telesphorus calls him an archbishop, a name unknown in the first ages."

6th. "There is a decree in it, to enjoin three masses on our Savior's nativity, a custom not so ancient."

7th. "We find several passages in the letter attributed to Anicetus, which does not agree with the time of that pope; as, for instance, what is there laid down concerning the ordinations of bishops, sacerdotal tonsure, archbishops and primates, which were not instituted till long after; besides many things of the same nature.' p. 585.

How, then, can we suppose that this church of the nineteenth century, with so many appendages, is the apostolic church-the only original, primitive, universal institution of Christ?

But she glories in the name of mother and mistress of all churches throughout the world. This astonishes me still more; for with the bible in his hand and history before him, who can stand up and say, that this church ever was the mother and mistress of all churches!

The most ancient catholic church was the Hebrew. She was the mother, though not the mistress of all churches; for the christian church has no reigning queen on earth, to lord it over her-as Pau! says, on another occasion-"Jerusalem is the mother of us all."

If the gentleman admit Luke to be a faithful historian, he must not only place the Hebrew church first, but the Samaritan, Phenician, Syrian and Hellenist churches as older than the church in Rome. Í say if we speak of churches, as respects antiquity, the Hebrew, Samaritan, Syrian and Phenician churches must be regarded as prior to her. The Acts of the Apostles close with Paul's first appearance in Rome.

But that the Roman Catholic institution may stand before you in bold relief as a sectarian establishment, I will give you a definition of her pretensions, from an authentic source, one of her own standards. The Douay catechism, in answer to the question-" What are the essential parts of the church?" teaches "A pope, or supreme head, bishops, pastors and laity.” p. 20.

These, then, are the four constituent and essential elements of the Roman Catholic church. The first is the pope, or head. It will be confessed by all, that, of these, the most essential is the head. But should we take away any one of these, she loses her identity, and ceases to be what she assumes. My first effort then shall be to prove that, for hundreds of years after Christ, she was without such a head; the most indispensable of these elements; and consequently, this being essential to her existence, she was not from the beginning. Because no body can exist before its head. Now, if we can find a time when there was no pope, or supreme head, we find a time when there was no Roman Catholic party.

By referring to the scriptures, and to the early ecclesiastical records, we can easily settle this point. Let us begin with the New Testament, which all agree, is the only authenticated standard of faith and manners-the only inspired record of the christian doctrine. This is a cardinal point, and I am thankful that in this we all agree. What is not found there, wants the evident sanction of inspiration, and can never command the respect and homage of those who seek for divine authority in faith and morality.

I affirm then, that not one of the offices, I have enumerated, as belonging to the Roman Catholic church, was known in the days of the apostles, or is found in the New Testament. On the contrary, the very notion of a vicar of Christ, of a prince of the apostles, or of a universal head, and government in the Christian church is repugnant to the genius and spirit of the religion. We shall read a few passages of scripture, from the Roman version, to prove that the very idea of an earthly head is unscriptural and anti-scriptural. The version from which I am about to quote was printed in New York, and is certified to correspond exactly, with the Rhemish original, by a number of gentlemen, of the first standing in society. If it differs from any other and more authentic copy, I will not rely upon it. I am willing to take whatever bible the gentleman may propose. I read from the twentieth of Matthew. "Jesus said to his disciples, You know that the princes of the Gentiles overrule them, and those that are the greater exercise power against them. It shall not be so among you, but whosoever will be the greater among you, let him be your minister!" Does this convey the idea of a prince among the apostles, a vicar of Christ, a lord over the people of God? Does it not rather say there shall not be any lordship amongst you! This command is express, that there shall not be a pope, a supreme lord of the christian church. Again, Matt. 23. 8." Be not you called Rabbi, for one is your Master

B

and all ye are brethren and call none father (i. e. pope) for one is your father, be that is in heaven. Neither be you called masters, for one is your master, Christ. He that is the greater of you shall be your servitor!" If the very question about a pope had been before the Messiah at this time, he could not have spoken more clearly. This expression indicates the most perfect equality of rank among the apostles and disciples of Christ, and positively forbids, in a religious sense, the assumption of the title of father or pope. The commandment which says "thou shalt not steal," is not more clearly laid down than the command "call no man father."

Now will the gentleman deny that "pope" (in Greek “ pappas," in Latin, "papa") means "father?" and that the case clearly comes within the command. Jesus Christ says, "call no man pope;" yet they ordain a bishop and call him pope; and this pope claims the title of "universal father"-supreme head and governor of the church of Christ. He is sometimes called Lord God the pope.

This testimony of Christ will outweigh volumes. Put all the folios and authorities, which the gentleman may bring, on one side, and this text of Jesus Christ on the other, and the former, in comparison, will be found light as the chaff which is blown away by a breath.

Can any one, then, who fears God and believes in the Messiah, call the pope, or any human being "father" in the sense here intended. The Lord anticipated the future in all his precepts, and spoke with an eye to it as well as to the men of his own time. He had the pride and assumptions, of the Rabbis of Jerusalem, in his eye, who coveted renown, who loved such greetings in the market place, and received such compellations in the synagogues. Describing these men to his disciples, he cautions them against their example, and teaches them to regard each other as brethren. I hope the gentleman will pay particular attention to this point in his reply to these remarks.

The third testimony on which we rely will be found in Ephesians iv. 11. This passage sums up all the officers or gifts which Jesus gave the church after his ascension into heaven. "And says Paul

"he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors, and doctors" or teachers. In this enumeration, which contains the whole, there is no pope. The highest or first rank is given to apostles.

In every other enumeration found in the epistles, there is the same clear reference to the apostles as the first class. 1 Cor. xii. 28. But let Peter himself speak as to his rank. We see that in his own 1st Epistle, ch. 1, he calls himself an apostle, not the apostle of Jesus, not the prince of apostles, not the supreme head of the church. Peter had no idea of such headship and lordship.

Again in addressing the "seniors" or elders, chap. v. 1. he says, "I myself am a fellow senior." They were all co-elders, co-bishops, co-apostles, as respected each other; and as respected all other offi cers the apostles were first. The thought of a supreme head amongst them is not found in the New Testament; only as reprobated by our Savior.

I will not, at present, advance any more scriptural authority upon the point, but shall proceed to examine what foundation this element of the Roman church, has in ancient history. But I would here say distinctly, once for all, that I will not open a single document to prove any doctrine, tenet, or principle of Protestantism, other than this holy

record of the prophets, and apostles, the holy men of God, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. On these I rely, and I affirm that these contain no authority for the assumption of the doctrine of a universal father, pope, or head of the church. There was no such person mentioned-no such idea cherished until hundreds of years after the death of the apostles.

I will read the following general remarks by this learned historian The title page is as follows:

A New History of Ecclesiastical Writers, containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testaments; of the lives and writings of the primitive Fathers: an abridgment and catalogue of their works; their various editions, and censures, determining the genuine and spurious. Together with a judgment upon style and doctrine. Also a compendious history of the Councils; with Chronological Tables of the whole, written in French by Lewis Ellies Du Pin, doctor of the Sorbonne, and Regius Professor at Paris. 3 vols. Folio. The Third Edition corrected, Dublin, printed by and for George Grierson, at the Two Bibles in Essex Street, MDCCXXIV.

I am happy to find, appended to the preface, the seals and signatures of men high in the church, which I cannot now stop to read."

From this work I will proceed to read some passages in proof of the proposition I have advanced, that there is not a vestige of evidence in favor of the cardinal idea, of the Roman Catholic religion, that there was a pope in the first ages of the church. At the close of the third century the highest advance yet made towards any supremacy in the church on the ground of metropolitan standing, is thus described by Du Pin.

"The bishops of great cities had their prerogatives in ordinations, and in councils; and as in civil affairs men generally had recourse to the civil metropolis, so likewise in ecclesiastical matters, they consulted with the bishop of the metropolitan city. The churches of the three principal cities of the world were looked upon as chief, and their bishops attributed great prerogatives to themselves. The church of Rome, founded by St. Peter and St. Paul, was considered as first, and its bishop as first amongst all the bishops of the world; yet they did not believe him to be infallible: and though they frequently consulted him, and his advice was of great consequence, yet they did not receive it blind-fold and implicitly, every bishop imagining himself to have a right to judge in ecclesiastical inatters." p. 590.

Observe the bishops of the principal cities attributed to themselves great prerogatives. And Rome, the chief city, began to assume the chief prerogatives. But the general character of the clergy as detailed by this writer was not yet favorable to such assumptions-for, says he,

"The clergy were not distinguished from others by any peculiar habits, but by the sanctity of their life and manners, they were removed from all kind of avarice, and carefully avoided every thing that seemed to carry the appearance of scandalous, filthy lucre. They administered the sacrament gratis, and believed it to be an abominable crime to give or receive any thing for a spiritual blessing. Tithes were not then appropriated to them, but the people maintained them volantarily at their own expense."

"The clergy were prohibited to meddle with any civil and secular affairs. They were ordained against their will and did not remove from one church to another out of a principle of interest or ambition. They were extremely chaste and regular. It was lawful for priests to keep the wives they married before they were ordained."

Nothing indeed like an ecclesiastical establishment was yet in existence for says Du Pin, speaking of these times,

After all, it must be confessed, that the discipline of the church has been so