year 381, wrote so smartly to him, that he banished Ursicinus forever, and left Damasus in peaceable possession of the see of Rome, in which he continued until the year 384." Du Pin. Vol. I. p. 226, 227.—[Time expired.]

BISHOP PURCELL rises

Half past 3 o'clock, P. M.

In the 2nd. century lived Tertullian-a priest in Africa. He showed how clear was the chain of tradition-he says distinctly that Peter was bishop of Rome. I am going to quote another splendid passage from his testimony. But first let me ask, how could a massive, an enormous volume like this (holding it up) of which the zeal of the early Christians, has made so many copies; and a portion of which, the admirable apologetic, or defence of our Christian ancestors, was addressed to the Pagan Emperors, have been vitiated? It was spread over the whole world-it was read with avidity by Christians and heathens. It is authentic history and based on testimony far more credible than we possess of the genuineness of Homer, or Horace, of Tacitus, or Cicero. We could not believe any fact of history, not even our title to our houses and other goods and chattels, without admitting it. How else but by such records, do we know with certainty of events of which our senses have not taken cognizance, of which we have no personal knowledge, that a few years ago we fought a hard battle with England and gained our independence? That our general was named Washington, and that he was aided by La Fayette? Comparatively recent as these events be, they are matters of tradition! and tradition is but another name for history. Admit my learned opponent's principle, and the world will be turned topsy-turvy. We cannot be sure of any thing. I now cite Tertullian; and mark, I pray you, the clearness and force of his reasoning in the following syllogism, for apostolical succession.

Tertullian de præscriptione adversus hæreticos, lib. p. 394. "If the Lord Jesus Christ sent his apostles to preach, no other preachers are to be received than those whom he commissioned for no one knows the Father but the Son, and they to whom the Son hath revealed him, nor is the Son seen to have revealed him to any others than the apostles, whom he sent to preach what he revealed to them. Now what they preached, that is to say, what Christ revealed to them, I will here lay down as a principle (hic præscribam) cannot be otherwise proved than by the same churches which the apostles, themselves, founded, by preaching to them, themselves, both by word of mouth, as they say, and, afterwards, by their epistles. If this be so, it is therefore plain that all the doctrine which agrees with these apostolic churches, the matrices and originals (or exemplars) of faith, is to be reputed true, as undoubtedly, holding that which the churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God but that all other doctrine is to be prejudged false, as teaching contrari ly to the churches and to the apostles, to Christ and to God. All, therefore, that remains now to be done is to demonstrate that the doctrine we preach, as already explained, has been handed down to us from the apostles, and thus convict all other doctrines of falsehood....." They, (the heretics) object that Peter was reprehended by Paul.. But let those who make this allegation shew that Paul preached a different gospel from what Peter preached and the other apostles. If.Peter was reprehended for withdrawing, through human respect, from intercourse with the Gentiles, with whom he previously associated, this was a fault of conduct (conversationis) not of preaching. He did not, on this account, preach a different God from the Creator, a different Christ from the son of Mary, a different hope from that of the resurrection-and, (to refute these heretics,) I will answer as it were for Peter, that Paul, himself, said that he made himself, all things to all men, a Jew to the Jews, and no Jew to those who were no Jews, that he may gain all. So that Paul reprehended, under certain circumstances, in Peter, what he, himself, under certain circumstances, did."

But I might read the whole book of prescriptions by Tertullian against heretics.

The fish story again-here is Henry's exposition of the Bible. The principal meaning, in his view, is that which I have given.

Could Paul, my friends, claim to be the chief of the apostles? He had probably done more than any man then living against Christianity, until prostrated by anger and mercy, on the road to Damascus. "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me" changed him from a wolf to a lamb, from a persecutor to an apostle.

Eusebius informs us that Paul of Samosata, was deposed by a council in consequence of the heresy introduced by him at Antioch, of which a detailed account had been rendered by the council to Dionysius, bishop of Rome. Paul being unwilling to leave the building of the church, "an appeal was made to the emperor Aurelian, who decided most equitably on the business, ordering the building to be given up to those whom the christian bishops of Rome and Italy should write." Another Pagan, Ammianus Marcellinus, giving an account of the persecution raised by the emperor Constantius against the famous patriarch of Alexandria St. Athanasius, tells us that this emperor strove hard to procure the condemnation of Athanasius by Liberius, on account of the supreme authority enjoyed by the bishops of the Roman see." "Even from the mouths of babes and sucklings," says the Scriptures," hath God made perfect praise." I may observe, that he has extorted testimony from Pågan kings and historians, to prove the authority of the bishop of Rome throughout the Christian world.

My friend has introduced the subject of unity, in connection with tradition. We shall argue that, if he pleases, from the Bible; but in the mean time let us hear Cyprian, a bishop of Carthage, in Africa, on this subject, in the 3d. century. I am bold to say, you have never heard argument stronger, illustration more apposite, or language more beautiful, than what this father employs.

Cyprian. de Unitate Ecclesiæ Catholicæ, p. 181, and De Simplici Præs. The primacy is given to Peter that the church and the chair of Christ may be shewn to be one. And all the apostles and shepherds, but there is seen but one flock, fed by all the apostles with unanimous consent; can he who holdeth not this unity, believe he holds the faith? Can he who resists and opposes the church, who forsakes the chair of Peter, on which the church was founded, flatter himself that he is in the church, while the apostle Paul teaches the same thing and shews the sacrament of unity, saying, "ONE BODY AND ONE SPIRIT, ONE HOPE OF YOUR VOCATION, ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM, ONE GOD." Let no man deceive the brotherhood by a lie; let no man, by perfidious prevarications corrupt the truth of faith! The episcopacy is one, each separate part being consolidated in one. The church too is one, with luxuriant fertility extending her branches throughout. As there are many rays of light, but no more than one sun, many branches, but only one trunk, held fast in the earth by its tenacious root, many streams gushing from one fountain, but all blended in their source. Sever a ray from the sun, the unity of light suffers no division; break a branch from the tree, the broken branch will bud no more, cut off a stream from the source, the severed stream will dry up. So likewise the church, irradiated with the light of the Lord, diffuses her rays throughout the universe. The light, however, which is every where diffused is one, nor is the unity of the body separated. She spreads her copious streams, but there is one head, one origin, one blessed mother with a numerous progeny. We are her offspring, we are nourished with her milk, we are animated with her spirit, He can no longer have God for his father, who has not the church for his mother. If any one out of the ark of Noe could escape, so likewise he that is out of the church may escape. The Lord says, I and the Father are one: again, it is written of the Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost: "and these three are one."

and can any one imagine that the unity which proceeds from divine strength, and which is maintained by divine sacraments, can be torn asunder in the church, and destroyed by the opposition of discordant hearts?"

I will now go over the ground, my friend travelled this morning. He said we allowed that we had two high priests on earth. I protest against the gentleman's saying for me what I have not said. One high Priest we have in heaven, God. He has a vicar on earth, But that vicar wields no authority but from God.

the pope. I have, again, been reprehended for endeavoring to gain friends by expressing a liking for the English people, the Irish, and the Americans. But, my friends, have I done them more than justice? Have I swerved from the truth? Have I not said that the English had a thousand faults?-[Time expired.]

MR. CAMPBELL rises

Four o'clock, P. M.

We have had a learned discussion on the unity of the church. We can sit and patiently hear my opponent while he fills up his time by reading the views of the saints on unity or any thing else he may deem edifying. But as this is not the business now before us, we shall be glad he would choose some other time for it. On this subject we have no controversy at the present time: and that the church should be one, and that she is one virtually and in fact, we doubt not. All that has been read by my opponent on this subject is wholly a free will offering, instead of that argument which the occasion demands. Was Peter ever bishop of Rome? That indeed was a question: but is it a standing question? How often will my opponent recur to it without proving it? He says, indeed, that Irenæus says that he was: but I say, not a line can be shown from Irenæus nor any other writer of the first two centuries affirming in so many words that Peter was bishop of Rome! Let him then refute me at once, by producing the passages. He might have heard so. He has produced Tertullian as a commentator or a retailer of traditions. That you may know something of Tertullian as a theorist, and commentator, I will read you by way of offset a sample or two, simply to show how much these opinions are worth. He speaks very advantageously of custom and tradition, and relates several remarkable examples of ceremonies which he pretends to be derived from tradition.

"To begin," says he, "with baptism, when we are ready to enter into the wa ter, and even before we make our protestations before the bishop, and in the church, that we renounce the devil, all his pomps and ministers: afterward, we are plunged in the water three times, and they make us answer to some things which are not precisely set down in the gospel; after that they make us taste milk and honey, and we bathe ourselves every day, during that whole week. We receive the sacrament of the eucharist, instituted by Jesus Christ, when we eat, and in the morning assemblies we do not receive it but from the hands of those that preside there. We offer yearly oblations for the dead in honor of the martyrs. We believe that it is not lawful to fast on a Sunday and to pray to God kneeling. From Easter to Whitsuntide we enjoy the same privilege. We take great care not to suffer any part of the wine and consecrated bread to fall to the ground. We often sign ourselves with the sign of the cross. If you demand a law for these practices taken from scripture, we cannot find one there; but we must answer, that 'tis tradition that has established them, custom has authorized them, and faith has made them to be observed." Tertull. De Corona Militis. When Tertullian asserts a fact, I believe: but when he relates a dream, a guess, an opinion, or reports a tradition, I listen to him as to the speculations of a contemporary. You shall have it both in Latin and English.

Age jam qui voles curiositatem melius exercere in negotio salutis tuæ, percurre ecclesias apostolicas, apud quas ipsæ adhuc cathedræ apostolorum suis locis præsidentur, apud quas ipsæ authenticæ literæ recitantur, sonates vocem, et repræsentantes faciem uniuscujusque. Proxima est tibi Achaia? Habes Corinthum. Si non longe es a Macedonia, habes Philippos, habes Thessalonicenses. Si potes in Asiam tendere, habes Ephesum. Si autem Italiæ adjaces, habes Romam, unde nobis quoque auctoritas præstó est."

"Come now, you who are desirous more fully to devote yourselves to the great affair of your salvation, hasten to the apostolic churches. Still do the very chairs of the apostles yet stand in their own places: still are their authentic letters recited, which sound forth their very tones, and which faithfully exhibit their very countenances. If you are in Achaia, you have Corinth: if in Macedonia, you have Philippi and Thessalonica. If you journey into Asia, you have Ephesus. If Italy be your residence, you have Rome," &c.

On this precious excerpt I will only remark that it fully proves, 1. That the authentic copies or autographs of the apostolic epistles were extant in the time of Tertullian, in those churches to which they were addressed.

2. That the superiority of these churches named above others, so far as salvation was concerned, was, that they had these authentic epistles carefully preserved and read.

3. That as respected authority in the grand affair of salvation, in the judgment of Tertullian, Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, Ephesus and Rome were equal.-Pardon the digression. The extract is worth a volume in prostrating the arrogant pretensions of Rome.

One word on the text, as commented on by Matthew Henry. I have had his work in my library for twenty five years. He is a highly esteemed practical commentator: but is not ranked among critics. But yet he decides nothing for my opponent. He admits that it may be either the one or the other explanation. But mind me. The Roman Catholic doctrine requires the explanation "lovest thou me more than these love me;" because it was on account of a supremacy of love over all the apostles, that it claims for Peter the supremacy. But Henry admits that Christ may have alluded to the nets and boats and occupation of Peter; while he refers to or says, "do you love me more than your companions." The Messiah never, indeed, had any jealousy of that sort. His comment on John xxi. 15, reads:

"Lovest thou me more than these"? Better than James or John thy intimate friends, or Andrew, thy own brother and companion? Those do not love Christ aright, that do not love him better than the best friend in the world, and make it appear, whenever they stand in competition, or, more than these things, these boats and nets! Those only love Christ indeed, that love him better than all the delights of sense and all the occupations and profits of this world. Lovest thou me more than these? If so, leave them to employ thyself wholly in feeding my flock." Henry's Commentary.

But I would like to read what this commentator says about the rock: Matthew xvi. 18. "And say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock, I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Peter's confession contains that fundamental truth, respecting the person and offices of Christ, upon which, as on a rock, he would build his church. Nor could the powers of death or the entrance into the eternal world, destroy the hope of those who should build on it. Nothing can be more absurd than to suppose that Christ meant that the person of Peter was the rock, on which the church should be builded; except it be the wild notion that the bishops of Rome have since substituted in his place! Their rock is not as our rock, our enemies themselves being judges. Without doubt, Christ himself the rock-and tried foundation of the church, and woe be to him who attempts to lay any other. Ib. If then, Matthew Henry is good authority on one point he is good on the other.

Bishop Otey of Tennessee has been unceremoniously dragged into this controversy. He is a gentleman for whom I entertain a very high regard and while we differ on some questions, concerning diocesan episcopacy, we perfectly agree on the import of 'legus (Hierus) a priest, as applied to christians. He has no idea, more than myself of a christian hierus, or priest offering sacrifices for sins on earth. He has not answered, indeed, seven letters addressed to him by myself on bishop Onderdonk's tract on diocesan episcopacy: but yet it is not too late. We expect one of these bishops to reply to them.

The Roman Catholics alone contend that priests, by which they mean an order of clergy, can offer sacrifice for sins. Nay, indeed, Mr. Hughes in his controversy with Mr. Breckenridge, says, "To offer sacrifice is the chief official business of the priests." p. 288. Hence, we learn that even in this enlightened land and 19th century, there are persons amongst us claiming the power of making sin offerings and expiating and forgiving sins!!

We now resume the history of schisms in the succession:

We last read you the contentions and havoc of human life on the succession of Damasus. The emperor at that time decided the controversy by banishing Ursinus, and on the decision of that emperor now rests the faith and salvation of the Roman church-themselves being judges. And yet, my learned opponent, in some of his speeches, affects to tell you that emperors have nothing to do, no right to interfere in councils, or with church officers; and here, and on numerous occasions, we find them filling Peter's chair, making vicars of Christ, and heads for his church!!

We cannot rehearse all the schisms, and shall therefore give only a specimen. We take another instance of an imperial pope-one of an emperor's creation.

"After the death of pope Zozimus, the church of Rome was divided about the election of his successor. The archdeacon Eulalius, who aspired to the bishopric of Rome, shut himself up in the church of the Lateran, with part of the people, some priests, and some deacons, and made them choose him in Zozimus' room. On the other side a great number of priests, several bishops, and part of the people, being assembled in the church of Theodora, elected Boniface. Both were ordained; Eulalius was ordained by some bishops, among whom was the bishop of Ostia, who used to ordain the bishop of Rome. Boniface was likewise ordained by a great number of bishops, and went to take possession of St. Peter's church.

Symmachus, governor of Rome, having tried in vain to make them agree, writ to the emperor Honorius about it. In his letter of the 29th of December, 418, he speaks in Eulalius' behalf, and judges Boniface to be in the wrong. The emperor believing his relation, sent him word immediately that he should expel Boniface and uphold Eulalius. The governor having received this order, sent for Boniface to acquaint him with it, but he would not come to him, so that the governor sent to him to signify the emperor's order, and kept him from returning into the city. The bishops, priests, and the people that sided with Boniface, wrote immediately to the emperor to entreat him that he would order both Eulalius and Boniface to go to court, that their cause might there be judged. To satisfy them, the emperor sent to Symmachus an order of 30th of January, 419, signifying that he should enjoin Boniface and Eulalius to be at Ravenna about the 6th of February. Honorius convened some bishops thither to judge of their cause; and that they might not be suspected of favoring any one side, he commanded that none of those who had ordained either of them, should be a judge in the case. The bishops that were chosen to judge this cause being divided, the emperor put off the judgment till May, and forbade Eulalius and Boniface to go to Rome; and sent thither Achillius, bishop of Spoleto, to perform the Episcopal functions during the Easter holydays; in