"As it was the design of God, that the true church should be Catholic; so it was also his design, that the true church should always be distinguished by the honorable appellation of Catholic:-as it was the will of Jesus Christ, that the establishment which he formed, should extend through every nation, and subsist through every age; so also it was his will, that this establishment should be dignified by a aume corresponding to these great characteristics. "I believe," the aposties commarded the faithful in every age to say, "in the holy CATHOLIC Church, by this name CATHOLIC," says St. Austin, “I am retained in the Cathone church," "my name," adds St. Pacian, "is Christian; my surname CATHOLIC; and BY THIS SURNAME, I am distinguished from all the sects of heresy. Sermon on the catholicity of the church, page 195, vol. ii. Baft. edit. 1830.

It is certainly, my beloved friends, a very animating circumstance, to view the immensity and the long duration of our church; to see it stretching out its empire through every climate; consoling by its benefits, and enlightening by its doctrines, the remotest corners of the universe: to see it existing through the long lapse of so many ages, unmoved, while the strongest empires sink to ruin; and unshaken, while all things fall in decay around it. It is animating to remark it triumphant over all the powers of darkness, and the exertions of human malice; combating often, it is true, with the storms of persecution and the artifices of heresy; yet combating, always, to come off with victory; riding through the tempest, and exalted by the very means which had been levelled at its depression. Ibid. page 198.

From this contemplation, my christian friends, we may derive the consoling assurance, that happen or befal what may, though the billows of persecution swell and the tide of error rage; every effort to destroy the church shall turn out fruitless. The church, these scenes assure you, is an edifice protected by the hand of the Almighty, a rock fixed on the basis of the divine power amid the sea of human life. The billows of persecution shall swell, the tide of error dash against in vain. They will no more move it, although they may, indeed, sweep away many of its unguarded members, than the gentlest spray will move the firmest mountain that the ocean laves. I should be sorry to see the misfortune happen, yet could I behold the most furious tempest gathering without one feeling of anxiety for the stability of the church. As the Psalmist says, "it should come to nothing, like the running water," (Ps. Ivii.) It would prove but the preparation for fresh conquests. The security of the church amid storms, during the long interval of eighteen centuries, is alone sufficient assurance of its security, amid the fury of future tempest. Ibidem, page 198.

If it can be proved that the Catholic church had not these characteristics, we admit she is not the church of Christ. I shall go to trial on this point. If she has ever ceased to teach the whole doctrine of Christ, to diffuse over all nations, the true christian precepts, or if she has not had a larger body of professors, than any of the sects, that separated in every successive age from her communion, then will I yield the question. But it will try the ingenuity of the gentleman to prove any such thing, and still more, to show in that case, what church was catholic. This difficulty meets him at the very threshold. [Time expired]

Mr. CAMPBELL rises—

Three o'clock, P. M.

My earned and worthy opponent commenced his forenoon speech, saying that he found before him a more easy task than he had expect ed. Were it a question of rhetoric rather than of logic, I confess I should have more to fear. He has been more accustomed than I, to the display of that art. I am rather a matter of fact man, and logic more than rhetoric has occupied my attention.

I apprehend, however, before this discussion is ended he may find his task not quite so easy as he would seem to anticipate. And to me the good book has suggested a caution which I hope always to remem

ber. It is happily couched in these words," Let not him that buckleth on his armor boast as he that taketh it off."

But to examine his defence, so far as in it there is reference to my speech, has he not made in the very first effort an unfortunate admission? The name Catholic he admits is generic and the name Roman specific, and that the term Roman only indicated the church in which this catholic communion is to be enjoyed that the universal church is found in the particular, the genus in the species. Thus we can have Greek catholic, English catholic, American catholic, as well as Roman catholic. These particular universals are susceptible of indefinite multiplication. And so the catholicity of Rome is specifically the same with that of England!!

His second admission is equally unfortunate. He did not seem to perceive that he argued for me rather than against me, on the word father. He said that it could not be understood literally." So said I. How then must it be used but religiously? Call no man your religious or ecclesiastic Father. He has then fully conceded all that I ask. It is then an absolute prohibition of the Roman Catholic notion of a supreme holy father. To designate any person pope is then a violation of Christ's command.

The gentleman has admitted, somewhat reluctantly however, that the Doway catechism is a standard work, and that the definition of the church is infallibly correct. My argument hitherto has been to shew that the supreme head called pope, being of the essential elements, nay the chief element of the Roman Catholic church, and not found either in the bible or ecclesiastic history for ages after the christian era, the church of Rome is a sect in the true import of that word, and not the mother and mistress of all churches, for she cannot be older than her head, unless a body can exist without and before its head, which is impossible. It is not the nature of that head, whether political or ecclesiastic or both, but the simple fact of its existence concerning which we enquire. The nature and claims of the head may hereafter be the subject of examination. That the Roman sect is divided into four, parties, touching the supremacy-one affirming that the pope is the fountain of all power political and religious— another teaching that he has only ecclesiastic supremacy-a third party affirming that his ecclesiastic dominion is over all councils, persons and things spiritual, and a fourth party limiting his jurisdiction to a sort of executive presidency-is a proposition susceptible of ample proof, and of much importance, but we wish it to be very distinctly stated that the question now before us is the fact that a head, or universal father, pope or patriarch, is not found in the Roman empire, east or west, for six hundred years, and consequently that during that time that church did not exist, whose four essential elements, are a pope or supreme head, bishops, pastors and laity.

I am the more diffuse on this point because my learned opponent feems to mistake the question or to confound it with another of a different category. He seems to be squinting at infallibility, authority, order in the ministry, rather than looking in the face the simple question, was there a pope in any church for the first six centuries? Authority is not infallibility, nor is order, supremacy. I go for authority in the president of the United States, but who infers thence that I hold the president to be infallible! I go for order in the christian church, but what has this to do with the supremacy of the bishop of Rome?

Why, I emphatically ask, does the bishop of Cincinnati confound the question of fact before us with that concerning the Levitical priest. hood. I have not agitated such a question.

And what have my views of church order and government to do with the question before us. Why drag these matters into discussion. Did I not distinctly say that I came not here to defend the tenets of any party of Protestants, but the great principles of Protestantism? And what have my views of church order to do with the questions at issue! Of these however the gentleman is wholly misinformed. I am the advocate of order, of a christian ministry, of bishops and deacons in the church. Without order no society can exist, and therefore no reasonable man can object either to order or authority in the church But again I ask what is this to the question in debate!

He gave us too a dissertation on the passage, "lovest thou me more than these." This is certainly gratuitous at this time. I am glad however the gentleman has delivered himself on this text. But this is not the question now. We are seeking for a head for the church, a papal head for the church in the first ages, while our friend is expounding scriptures on other themes.

To the authority of Du Pin the gentleman seems to except. But on what authority does he object? His works are certified by the doctors of the Sorbonne and by the guardians of the Catholic press. Will he say that he is not an authentic historian? Du Pin was born and educated, lived and died and was buried in the Roman Catholic church. The gentleman proved, two or three months ago, that general La Fayette was a Roman Catholic because he was baptized in the church of Rome and buried in consecrated ground. Certainly then Du Pin was all this and more! It matters not whether he was a Jansenist or Jesuit. Both orders have been at different times in good and bad repute. Jansenists have sometimes been proscribed, and Jesuits have been suppressed. But the question is not, was he a good Catholic, but was he an authentic historian? For a good Catholic is one thing, and a good historian is another. I wish the gentleman to answer. (Bishop Purcell. I answer emphatically, he was not an authentic historian.)

Then this gentleman and the bishop of Bardstown are at variance. The latter gentleman, if I mistake not, admitted in a discussion published in the Catholic paper of that place, that Du Pin was an authentic historian. I have seen this work repeatedly quoted in discussions between Romanists and Protestants, and I do not recollect to have seen any thing advanced against his authenticity. Mr. Hughes of Philadelphia, but on different grounds than those stated by my opponent, did indeed object to him as a faithful witness in his controversy with Mr. Breckenridge. However while I wish it to go to the public that bishop Purcell has objected to Du Pin as an authentic historian, I will distinctly state that I rely upon him in this controversy only so far as he is sustained by other historians, and therefore I will only quote him in such matters as I know can be sustained from other sources. Other historians record the same fact, and many of the works which Du Pin quotes are not only extant but accessible.

The word catholie the gentleman has stated that it is of high antiquity and found at the head of some books of the New Testament. But how came it into the New Testament? Was it Robert Stephens of Paris that placed it there in the 16th century as a sort of general

heading to certain epistles, or was it placed there by the apostles themselves?

Touching the council of Nice and whether Sylvester had any thing to do with its convocation, may hereafter be worthy of discussion; at present this is not before us. The decree of the council and its convocation are distinct things.

Of the texts relied on by me to dispose of the pretensions of supremacy, the gentleman has taken special exception to Ep. iv. 11. and would have different orders of ecclesiastic powers, rather than gifts for the edification of the church and the fitting of saints for the work of the ministry, to be contained in that passage. But the text says gifts and not lordships. Of these gifts vouchsafed by the ascended Savior the first was apostles. "He gave first apostles, secondarily prophets," and here again "he gave some apostles and some prophets." No supremacy is expressed of an individual. It is not ranks of authorities like civil or military functionaries, such as magistrates, aldermen, constables, &c., but gifts of light and knowledge and grace, the splendid gifts of the Holy Spirit; gifts of teaching, preaching, exhorting, and setting up the tabernacle or church. The apostles had all authority and all gifts themselves; but they needed assistants and a distribution of labor, and not an hierarchy, in laying the foundation and in fitting saints for the work of the christian ministry.

Having now touched all the relevant points in the Bishop's opening speech, Ihasten to my argument.

On examination of the New Testament, the primitive fathers, the councils both provincial and general, down to the close of the 6th century, we do not find in the whole territory claimed by our opponents as yet, the idea or name of a supreme head, pope, or vicar of Christ. My learned antagonist has not produced any such document, and doubtless he knows if there be any such authority now extant, and would produce it.

The strong expressions of Saint Gregory in opposition to the title shew what a singular novelty it was in Rome during "his pontificate," and his bold declaration not only of the arrogance and blasphemy of the title, but of its aspect to all the bishops, as annulling their equality, sufficiently prove that he rightly appreciated its true meaning and its hostility to the genius of that simplicity and humility which comported with the servants of Christ. So far then as we have examined the evidence on hand, the defence of the Bishop, the argument as now developed stands thus:-a pope, or universal patriarch, is the first essential element of the Roman Catholic sect. But there was no such personage in existence for 600 years after Christ, therefore there was no church of Rome, in the sense of the creed, during the first six centuries.

We are now prepared to narrate the circumstances which ushered into being the pope of Rome. Mauritius the emperor of the East died at the hand of Phocas a centurion of his own army. Mauritius favored the pretensions of the bishop of Constantinople, and turned a deaf ear to the importunities of Gregory on the subject of taking from bishop John the title of universal father, so painful to the pride and humility of the great Gregory. For the saint had written to the emperor on the arrogance of John, metropolitan of the great diocese of the east. Mauritius was supplanted and the throne usurped by Pho cas. Gregory rejoiced at his death, and hailed the elevation of his

murderer to the throne. Gregory consecrated him, in the church of St. John the Baptist at Constantinople, and Phocas, as a re ward for his consecration and favorable regards, conferred upon the successor of Gregory, Boniface the third, the title of universal patriarch in the very sense in which it had been repudiated by Gregory. Thus in the year 606 two years after the death of the saint, the first pope was placed in the chair of the Galilean fisherman, if indeed Peter had ever sat in a chair in Rome.

Concerning the consecration of Phocas, Mr. Gibbon thus remarks: "The senate and clergy obeyed his summons, and as soon as the patriarch was assured of his orthodox belief, he consecrated the successful usurper in the church of St. John the Baptist. On the third day, amidst the acclamations of a thoughtless people, Phocas made his public entry in a chariot drawn by four white horses: the revolt of the troops was rewarded by a lavish donation, and the new sovereign, after visiting the palace, beheld from his throne the games of the hippodrome." Gibbon's Decline and Fall Rom. Emp. vol. viii. p. 269. But the infidel has good reason to laugh at the saint, where he records the exultation of Gregory at the death of Mauritius.

"As a subject and a christian it was the duty of Gregory to acquiesce in the established government; but the joyful applause with which he salutes the fortunes of the assassin, has sullied with indelible disgrace the character of the saint. The successor of the apostles might have inculcated with decent firmness the guilt of blood, and the necessity of repentance: he is content to celebrate the deliverance of the people and the fall of the oppressor; to rejoice that the piety and benignity of Phocas have been raised by Providence to the imperial throne; to pray that his hands may be strengthened against all his enemies; and to express a wish, perhaps a prophecy, that after a long and triumphant reign, be may be transferred from a temporal to an everlasting kingdom." Id. ib. p. 211. It looks indeed as if Gregory had permitted the recollection of the conduct of Mauritius towards his rival to mingle with his exultations at the elevation of Phocas. When we recollect that Mauritius, his wife, four sons and three daughters were immolated at the shrine of the ambition of Phocas because he feared a rival, we are astonished that saint Gregory could have called heaven and earth to rejoice in his exaltation to the throne of the Cæsars. His words are:

Benignitatem vestræ pietatis ad imperiale fastigium pervenisse gaudemus. Lætentur cœli et exultet terra, et de vestris benignis actibus universæ reipublicæ populus nunc usque vehementer afflictus hilarescat," &c. Greg. I. xi. ep. 38, ind. vi.

It is not so honorable to the successors of Boniface the third, that the title of pope in its supreme import, was conferred by so mean a wretch as Phocas the usuper and murderer, and rather as a reward for the temporizing and easy virtue of Gregory the first. Boniface, though in the catalogue of popes he stands the 66th in descent from Peter, was in truth the first pope of Rome in the sense which is placed in the Catechisms and standards of the present church of Rome.

As yet the power was only ecclesiastic. But power is naturally cumulative, and especially ecclesiastic. Let any person be imagined to wear at his girdle the keys of heaven, and the sword of spiritual power, let him have kings and princes bowing at his footstool, and we shall soon see him like Napoleon, stretching out his hand not only to grasp the gorgeous crown of ecclesiastic but of political power.

But to complete the story of the origin of the papal power we must add a few words on the assumptions of Saint Zachary, or Stephen the Second. Pepin the father of Charlemagne was in the cabinet of Childeric the king of France in those days. His master was a feeble prince and he was an ambitious minister. He knew the power of the pope, and before he dared to seize the throne of his master he deemed