lignant spirit which had fixed its seat there, his attempts were soon so far successful, as to be honored as a god, with the erection of a statue by the inhabitants of that city. This, however, did not continue long; for immediately under the reign of Claudius, by the benign and gracious providence of God, Peter, that powerful and great apostle, who, by his courage took the lead of all the rest, was conducted to Rome against this pest of mankind. He, like a noble commander of God, fortified with divine armor, bore the precious merchandise of the revealed light from the East to those in the West, announcing the light itself, and salutary docrine of the soul, the proclamation of the kingdom of God."Book II. chap. 14, page 64.

OF LINUS.

After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, Linus was the first that received the episcopate at Rome."-Book III. chap. 2, page 82.

ANACLETUS.

"After Vespasian had reigned about ten years, he was succeeded by his son Titus; in the second year of whose reign, Linus, bishop of the church of Rome, who had held the office about twelve years, transferred it to Anacletus."-Chap. 13, page 100.

CLEMENT.

"In the twelfth year of the same reign, (Domitian's,) after Anacletus had been bishop of Rome twelve years, he was succeeded by Clement."—Chap. 15, page 100. EUARESTUS.

"In the third year of the above mentioned reign (Trajan's,) Clement, bishop of Rome, committed the episcopal charge to Euarestus."-Chap. 34, page 120.

ALEXANDER.

"About the twelfth year of the reign of Trajan, after Euarestus had completed the eighth year as bishop of Rome, he was succeeded in the episcopal office by Alexander."-Book IV. chap. 1, page 128.

XYSTUS.

"But in the year of the same (Adrian's) reign, Alexander, bishop of Rome, died, having completed the tenth year of his ministrations. Xystus was his successor."-Chap. 4, page 130.

TELESPHORUS AND HYGINUS.

"In the first year of this (Antonine's) reign, and in the eleventh year of his episcopate, Telesphorus departed this life, and was succeeded in the charge of the Roman church by Hyginus."-Chap. 10, page 137.

Prus.

"But Hyginus dying after the fourth year of his office, Pius received the episcopate."-Chap. 11, page 138.

ANICETUS.

"And Pius dying at Rome in the fifteenth year of his episcopate, the church there was governed by Anicetus."—Ibid. page 138.

SOTER.

"It was in the eighth year of the above mentioned reign, viz. that of Verus, that Anicetus, who held the episcopate of Rome for eleven years, was succeeded by Soter."-Chap. 19, page 156.

ELEUTHERUS.

Soter, bishop of Rome, died after having held the episcopate eight years. He was succeeded by Eleutherus, the twelfth in order from the apostles."-Book V. Prelim. page 168.

VICTOR.

"In the tenth year of the reign of Commodus, Eleutherus, who had held the episcopate for thirteen years, was succeeded by Victor."-Chap. 22, page 206.

ZEPHYRINUS.

"But after this author (Victor,) had superintended the church, Zephyrinus was appointed his successor about the ninth year of the reign of Severus."-Chap. 28, page 214.

CALLISTHUS AND URBANUS.

"In the first year of the latter (Antonine's reign,) Zephyrinus the bishop of Rome, departed this life, after having charge of the church eighteen years. He was succeeded in the episcopate by Callisthus, who survived him five years, and left the church to Urbanus.-Chap. 21, page 242.

PONTIANUS.

Whilst this was the state of things, Urban, who had been bishop of Rome eight years, was succeeded by Pontianus."-Chap. 23, page 243.

ANTEROS AND FABIANUS.

"Gordian succeeded Maximus in the sovereignty of Rome, when Pontianus who had held the episcopate six years, was succeeded by Anteros in the church of Rome; he also is succeeded by Fabianus."-Chap. 29, page 248.

CORNELIUS.

"Decius. . . . raised a persecution against the church, in which Fabianus suffered martyrdom, and was succeeded as bishop of Rome by Cornelius."Chap. 39, page 254. LUCIUS AND STEPHEN.

"After Cornelius had held the episcopal office at Rome about three years, he was succeeded by Lucius, but the latter did not hold the office quite eight months, when dying he transferred it to Stephen."-Book VII. chap. 2, page

271.

STEPHEN AND XYSTUS II.

"But after Stephen had held the episcopal office two years, he was succeeded by Xystus."-Chap. 5, page 273. DIONYSIUS.

"Xystus had been bishop of Rome eleven years, when he was succceded by Dionysius."-Chap. 27, page 302.

FELIX.

Dionysius, who had been bishop of Rome for nine years, was succeeded by Felix."-Chap. 30, page 303.

EUTYCHIANUS, CAIUS, AND MARCELLINUS.

"At this time Felix, having held the episcopate at Rome five years, was succeeded by Eutychianus, and he did not hold the office quite ten months, when he left his place to be occupied by Caius of our own day. Caius, also, presided about fifteen years, when he was succeeded by Marcellinus."-Chap,32, page:

page 429.

MILTIADES.

310

"Constantine Augustus, to Miltiades bishop of Rome."-Book X. chap. 5 I need only refer to what I have read from this authentic historian for splendid and indisputable proof. Here is the succession equally plain in all the churches, but longest in Rome. Thence it has been faithfully noticed, and regularly perpetuated in an uninterrupted chain of pontiffs down to the present chief pastor, auspiciously presiding over all the church.

Now, my friend, in the name of God what is to become of this controversy, when testimony like this is overlooked? And to close the testimony of Eusebius who has embodied that of the preceding ages, so as to leave no doubt, that the same identical doctrines, the present organization, orders and sacraments of the Catholic church were those of the first ages of Christianity, and heresy too the same then that it now is. I crave your attention for one of the most instructive chapters that could possibly be read on a subject of such absorbing interest to the Christian.

Of Novatus, his manners and habits, and his heresy.

About this time appeared Novatus (Novatian) a presbyter of the church of Rome, and a man elevated with haughtiness against these (that had fallen), as if there was no room for them to hope salvation, not even, if they performed every thing for a genuine and pure confession. He thus became the leader of the peculiar heresy of those who, in the pomp of their imaginations, called themselves Cathari. A very large council being held on account of this, at which sixty indeed of the bishops, but a still greater number of presbyters and deacons were present; the pastors of the remaining provinces, according to their places, deliberated separately what should be done: this decree was passed by all; "That Novatus, indeed, and those who so arrogantly united with him, and those that had determined to adopt the uncharitable and most inhuman opinion of the man,

ing a negative, or showing that Peter never was bishop of Rome. Two considerations may be added to my remarks on this head: 1st. The special commission, which he had to the Jews as Paul had to the Gentiles, precludes the idea of his here devoting himself to any portion of the Gentile world. The "ministry of the circumcision" was committed to him, and therefore not the Roman capital; but rather the Syrian capital or Jerusalem should have been the place of his location. 2d. His commission, as apostle, precludes the idea of his being stationed as bishop at any one place. You cannot place Peter as bishop of Rome, any more than you can make the president of the United States mayor of Cincinnati. The duties of these officers are not more incompatible than the duties of an apostle and a resident bishop. What are the duties of the bishop's chair? Are they not to watch over a particular diocese? What does the apostles' commission say? "Go ye into all the world, and announce the glad tidings to the whole creation." It would be as easy to prove that the bishop of London may be vicar of Bray, or curate of St. Ives, as that Peter was, or could be, bishop of Rome. These two considerations deserve the attention of my friend, and I hope that he will not pass them too in silence.

That every important office, essential to the government of any community, must have a place clearly specific in the constitution is scarcely necessary to prove; yet, as my opponent seems to slur over this matter, I shall read a sentence or two of the Constitution of the United States, to show that in the estimation of its framers, it was necessary to have a distinct assertion of the office and power of the president.

ART. II. SECT. 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term as follows:

SECT. 2. "Each state shall appoint,in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the congress; but no senator or representative, or person holding any office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector." The American's Guide, p. 20.

Now the head of the christian church was, at least, as wise as the convention which framed this instrument, foreseeing all the difficulties of the church in all time, and as he was determined to make all things plain, and certainly he was as capable as they to reveal and express his own will, had he resolved to build his church on the shoulder of St. Peter, he would have unequivocally expressed it. He would have defined the office, appointed the first officer, and legislated the mode of election. The practice of electing popes in the church of Rome is a candid acknowledgment that there is no law in the case: for they have had very different modes at different periods of their history. What would we Americans say, if every few years a new mode should be adopted, without regard to the constitution? Would they submit to such a chief magistrate?

The gentleman proceeded to read and reiterate his remarks on two passages of scripture, often before us: he objects to my criticism on the last chapter of John. His last remarks enable me to give it a more thorough exposition. He says my construction "requires the accusative for these." I say, with more of the philosophy of language, his construction requires the nominative. The question would have been plainly this: "Do you love me more than these love me. 3 Πλείον, it is true, always requires the genitive; but the whole construction of