aware what sad pranks have been lately played off before high Hea ven by men styling themselves Protestants, which all classes of Protestants unite in deprecating, which they all condemn. I know not whether there be not some Protestants here, who will not admit his gratuitous advocacy of their principles-who will not believe that the principles of Protestantism which he volunteers to defend will be fully or fairly represented by him. For one, I think the Episcopalians, a numerous and respectable class, will not consent to be represented by him; for he denies, if I am rightly informed, that there is properly any ministry in the Protestant church so called-that a divine call should precede the assumption of the sacred office. [Here the moderators interrupted, by requesting the speaker to confine himself to the question.]

Well we are so far even, [a laugh.] The gentleman, then, began by the assertion that the term Roman Catholic was an incongruity.— But I deny it to be an incongruity. Terms, we all know, are used the more clearly to designate the idea or object which they represent. "Catholic" is the name of our church; and we only prefix the word Roman to signify that she is in communion with the see of Rome. We acknowledge there a primate of superior, ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and in his communion we do abide.

He says the word Roman is incongruous; yet his own authority, Du Pin, says it was synonymous with Catholic. It was so understood formerly. And here I may observe that I deny the authority of Du Pin to be competent to the settlement of questions to be called up for decision in the course of the present controversy. Du Pin was a Jansenist, removed from his place of Regius Professor at the Sorbonne for his doctrinal errors, by Louis XIV. to whom Clement XI. addressed a brief on this occasion, commending his zeal for the truth. The claim of Rome was undisputed in the early ages, and it was only when her preeminence was contested that the term "Roman" was used before the word Catholic. Hence it was no incongruity, but a clearer designation of the see in whose communion were all the churches. He has stated an inaccuracy in saying that the word catholic was not found in the bible. Is not the epistle of St. James called catholic? And will he presume to say the word was not placed there in the very first age of Christianity?

The gentleman says he will use no words that may convey an opprobrious meaning. God forbid that I should set him the example. I shall debate this question with earnestness, but not with passion. As soon as the discussion closes, I can meet the gentleman without a single unkind or unfriendly feeling.

But in enumerating various doctrines of the Catholic church, I was shocked to hear him use the language "some being called the mother of God." Great God! didst thou not send into the world thy Son, Jesus Christ, to save perishing man, and didst thou not select one of all the daughters of Eve, to be the mother of that child of benediction, and was not Mary this holy one, to whose care was committed his infancy, and to whom he was subject? Was she not the chosen one of heaven, to whom its archangel was sent with the communication-"Hail, full of Grace," or as it is in the Protestant version"thou that art highly favored-the Lord is with thee," and do we now hear her stigmatized in such language, and designated as "some being called the mother of God?"

The gentleman then contests the doctrine of a hierarchy in the church; and says what he asserts is proved by the scriptures. I would ask-has he read the bible? Has he read the book of Leviticus? Does he not find there the example set of a distinction of orders in religious affairs? Did not the Lord speak to Moses, saying,666 Take Aaron with his sons, their vestments and the oil of unction,' and he poured it on Aaron's head-he put also the mitre on his head And after he had offered his sons, he vested them with linen tunics and girded them with girdles," &c. &c. "And Nadab and Abiu were consumed with fire for opposing them, and they died before the Lord." Did not Moses lead? Did not Aaron assist? Were there not councillors appointed by the Lord, to divide the burden of their ministry? Did not king Josaphat send Zachariah and Nathaniel and Michael, and with them the Levites, Senneias, &c., to teach the people? Paralip. 17. 7. What is this but a distinction of orders and of authority in the Jewish dispensation?

We

He says there was no distinction of orders in the early christian church; and he refuted himself by appealing for a solution of the difficulty to St. Paul. Were there no orders, no hierarchy? What says St. Paul in 4th Ephesians? "And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors, and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; until we all meet unto the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ." must here remark a gradation of authority in the church of God. For what? For the work of the ministry. There never has existed a social body without subordination, or distinction of rank. The church of Christ is a social body. It needs to be subjected to order, even more than a political body; and as if St. Paul anticipated the objection, which we have, not without surprise, heard this day urged, he expressly states the object of the institution of a hierarchy by him, who ascending on high gave gifts to men, to be the perfecting of the saints the unity of faith. "Are all," he asks, (what my friend would make them) "prophets? Are all pastors?"-He elsewhere asks, “How can they preach unless they be sent ?" By whom? By an ecclesiastical superior.-So much for the evidence of the Old Testament, and the New Testament. They both teach a head, a hierarchy and subordination among the people of God.

This takes me to the examination of the title, assumed by the Catholic church, of mother and mistress of all the churches. He says Jerusalem was the mother church at first-and then the Samaritan, and so on, I need not follow him. I will explain what we mean by the term. We call her mother because she guides, she cherishes us. We call her mother, because we feel a filial reverence for her—just as an orphan calls her who protects her, educates her, and guides her wandering feet, by the same tender appellative. There is no blasphemy in this comparison. It is the Son of God that established the authority of that church. The name is its designation.

But the word 'mistress' is never used in speaking of the church, in the sense of lordship, or queenship. It is the way in which children address their teacher. They frequently use the expression, as we read in Cordery's Colloquies, "salve magister." Magistra here is addressed to her in her capacity of teacher, and such she is, and, as I

shall prove, by the appointment and the express institution of Jesus Christ.

He next referred to the Doway catechism to show from the definition of the Catholic church, that she consisted of four elements, viz. the pope, bishops, pastors, and laity.

Now the catechism of this diocese defines the Catholic church to be the congregation of all the faithful, professing the same faith, receiving the same sacraments, and united under one visible head, the pope, or vicar of Jesus Christ, on earth.

It is defined to be the congregation of all the faithful. This is the definition which most authors give. It is that of the catechism from which my friend has quoted.

But let us adopt his definition, and I am prepared to show that the idea of a supreme head has its origin in the bible, and is supported by the earliest ecclesiastical authority. I must here take notice of the promise he gave to put his finger on the precise day and date when the church called the Roman Catholic church, ceased to be the church of Christ. He has left us as much in the dark as ever on this most important of all events. It is a point which has puzzled the world, and will for ever puzzle it, to fix that date. It will, I am sure, puzzle my friend. The whole world has never been able to state at what particular moment the Catholic church lost her prerogative and the favor of God-when she ceased to be in the true sense the Catholic Church. The reason of this is obvious. She has never forfeited her prerogative. But to the matter before us. It is opposed to scripture What did to assert that the church in apostolic days had no head. Christ say to Peter when he addressed him the mysterious question"Lovest thou me more than these"? Peter says he does love him. A second time he asks Jesus gives him the order, "feed my lambs."

the question, and receives the same reply. The third time he repeats the same question. Peter, troubled that his Lord should doubt his affection, replies, "Oh Lord, thou knowest all things-thou knowest that I love thee," and Jesus repeated the command-" feed my lambs" "feed my sheep."

Thus Christ establishes the headship of the church in Peter, and him he makes his vice-gerent, or common pastor, to feed both lambs and sheep-both clergy and laity.

Mr. Campbell quarrels with the doctrine of the pope's headship. because it carries a power and an authority with it: and he quotes the New Testament to prove no such power to have been exercised in the days of the apostles. I have disproved his argument upon this point already. Christ did institute a body of leaders, a ministry to guide his people," that henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive. But doing the truth in Christ, we may in all things grow up in him who is head, even Christ; from whom the whole body being compacted and fitly joined together, by what every part supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in charity." Must not the body have a head, the house a foundation? He objects that we call the sovereign pontiff-Pope, or father, whereas Christ says, "call not any man Father." But is this prohibition of our Savior to be taken literally? Is there any guilt or impiety in calling a parent "Father?"

Is

Many of Christ's commands are similar. He commands us to call no man good for God only is good. But do we not, in saluting a friend in common life, say "Good Sir," "my good friend ?" &c. there any impiety in this? It is the using these terms in that sense in which they are peculiar to the divinity, which Christ forbids. And the pope when he corresponds with the bishops, does not assume these proud titles, but addresses them as an elder BROTHER. We do not call him "Lord God the Pope."

Mr. C. says, St. Paul did not lord it over the clergy. Neither does the pope. He is to govern the church according to the canons. He can make no articles of faith. He cannot, he does not act arbitrarily in proposing articles of belief unknown to Catholic antiquity. But neither will he suffer innovation. His language is like St. Paul's, "Were I or an angel from Heaven to preach to you any other gospel, than what has been preached, let him be Anathema!" This expressed the sense the great apostle entertained of his own responsibility, and the danger of novelty in religion. He would not suffer altar to be raised against altar, on the ground of private interpretation of the bible. He would not suffer the wolves of heresy and error to prowl around the fold, and tear, and scatter the sheep entrusted to him by Jesus Christ.

It would be horrid blasphemy to apply to man the title Father, in the sense in which it is addressed to God. We never call the pope in any sense God. When the pope writes to the bishops, he begins by "Dilecti Fratres" "BELOVED BRETHREN,"-a republican, and if you please democratic address. The bishops are all brethren under one common father. The pope is accused of letting himself be worshipped. This is not so. But when the Pope comes before the altar he bows down like the humblest of his people. "I confess," says he, "to Almighty God, to the blessed Virgin Mary, the holy Apostles, and to all the Saints," the least of whom he therefore acknowledges to be greater than himself, “that I have sinned ;" and this is what is called setting himself up to be a God! See how you have been deceived by the invidious representations you have had of the pope, and of our doctrine, my friends.

I assert again that the authority quoted by my friend, Mr. C., viz. Du Pin, is no authority. He was the rank enemy of the Roman see, a Jansenist, reproved and censured by the Catholic church. Mr. C. knows this, for I have read to him the documents that prove it, and he was confounded by them. It is neither good faith, nor good logic, to quote him as an authority against my argument. As for the signatures appended to the English translation, I care not for them; they may have been wrongfully placed there, or those certificates suborned. This makes nothing for the authority of the book, and no argument can be drawn from them. But, my friends, I am sure you discovered his discomfiture when he appealed to Du Pin. There was a stumbling block in his way, something he could not get over. Did you not notice how with the rapid speed of a rail-road car dashing suddenly on an obstruction, he fled the track, when he found to his astonishment that the testimony adduced by his author, was not unfavorable to the supremacy of St. Peter, and his successors! I will examine his writings to show that even in the third century, the bishops of Rome claimed this prerogative, and Du Pin tells you that this was acknowledged. He says there were three principal bishops.

This is a great admission, and I am thankful for it. He says that even then, bishops came from inferior sees, and laid their conflicting claims before the see of Rome; and submitted to the chair of Peter, doubts in religious matters; and urged it to proclaim a solution of their difficulties; but he says, they did not believe the pope of Rome infallible. This is granting to the Catholics the whole mooted question. The question is clearly settled by this admission. Appeals were lodged before the bishop of Rome, though he was not believed to be infallible. Neither is he now. No enlightened Catholic holds the pope's infallibility to be an article of faith. I do not; and none of my brethren, that I know of, do. The Catholic believes the pope, as a man, to be as liable to error, as almost any other man in the universe. Man is man, and no man is infallible, either in doctrine or morals. Many of the popes have sinned, and some of them have been bad men. I presume my worthy antagonist will take his brush in hand, and roll up his sleeves, and lay it on them hard and heavy; so will I; and whenever he uses a strong epithet against them, I will use a stronger. But let us return to the gentleman's authority, Du Pin. We come to the council of Nice, which was held A. D. 325, and where 318 bishops were assembled. This council was convoked by the first christian emperor Constantine the Great, at the suggestion, I might have more correctly said the instigation of Sylvester, bishop of Rome, and of course, with his consent. Osius, bishop of Cordova, and two legates, Vitus and Vincentius, presided in it, in the name of the Roman pontiff. The principal doctrine on which the council was assembled to decide, was the divinity of Jesus Christ denied by the Arians. From the manner of the convocation of the council, the circumstance of its having been presided over by the representatives of the pope, or bishop of Rome, the submission of the entire christian world to its decrees, and the authentic records of its transactions which have reached us, we have the most convincing evidences of the reverence which was even then entertained for the successor of St. Peter; and the best practical illustration of the wisdom that established his pre-eminence of rank among his brethren, to watch over the purity of doctrine, the soundness of morals, the uniformity of discipline, and the maintenance of union among the churches. What more direct and satisfactory testimony could we require of the supremacy of the see of Rome, than the distinct recognition of its authority by so venerable an assembly? And what if rival claims were advanced by other sees? This ambitious spirit is as old as Christianity, as ancient as the origin of the human race. The apostles, themselves, strove for the mastery. They contended which of them was the greater. But this rivalry only served, in the end, to establish more firmly the precedency of the claim of St. Peter. In answer to the pretensions of the bishop of Alexandria, the council says to him, "As the bishop of Rome has his primacy in Rome, so the bishop of Alexandria has his primacy in Alexandria." It says to him, "you have no cause to complain-if he has his authority, you have yours; in your respective sees, or churches, you have the chief control; but it is his prerogative, as occupying the place of Peter, to watch over the welfare of all." "Neither," says Du Pin, "DOES IT DISPROVE THE PRIMACY OF ROME. The council offered a sedative to the pride of the bishop of Alexandria, or asserted his authority in his own see, but it does not disprove the primacy of Rome.

99