ways of detecting error-Du Pin has told you of them. "A third class," says he, "forge for their diversion." You have all heard of the late prodigious humbug at Exeter Hall, England. The king suppresses the Orange lodges. The bigots of the nation rally. They invite a general convention of their brother bigots throughout the empire; a champion, it was the notorious Dr. McGhee, is invited from Ireland. He professes to have discovered a document penned by the reigning pontiff, and addressed to the clergy of England and Ireland, that recommended all the crimes that could be thought of to be committed against the Protestants. The crowd is gathered. The conquering hero comes. The air is vexed with the cries of "down with the Catholics,"" long life to McGhee!" He opens his mouth, but he cannot speak. His emotions overpower him-some broken accents-the title of the document is heard. "Simpleton," says a tremulous voice from the crowd, "the Rev. Mr. Todd, of Trinity college, Dublin, forged and published that document for his own diversion and that of his friends, just to see how he could imitate the pope's Latin, but never dreaming that any man of sense could believe that he intended to impose it on the world as a genuine production of the pope !" McGhee was thunderstruck-the meeting horrified, and one by one they slunk away to their homes, muttering benedictions upon Irish bull-makers! This was diverting; but the consequences of such diversions were not always as harmless to the poor Catholics; in fact they had frequently cost them torrents of blood. The celebrated Dr. Parr, Dr. Johnson, Nix, Whittaker, all agree that the Catholic is the most calumniated society on earth.

My friend should know that the Latin translation of Irenæus is good authority, according to the soundest rules of criticism. It was made in the lifetime of Irenæus, who wrote the preface to it himself; by birth a Greek, he was bishop of a Latin see, (Lyons,) and he says he hopes the reader will excuse the roughness of his style, for he had been so long among the Celta that he had lost the purity of his native tongue. His proximity to the apostles is proof of the clearness of the testimony in his day. Polycarp was converted in the year 80— and St. John lived to the close of the first century-so that John

taught Polycarp, and Polycarp taught Irenæus. We all know why Jacob (supplanter,) Sara (Lady,) Isaac, (laughter,) Peter, (a rock,) were so called-was there a reason for the giving of these names to all but Peter? The reason my friend alleges is not it; Peter was not the first convert, it was his brother brought him to Christ. John i. 41, 42. The word head is figurative; this remark cuts up the web of sophistry my friend has spun around it. The pope is Peter's successor without being all and every thing that Peter was, without being a fisherman, a swordsman, a man of impulsiveness, a martyr. He succeeds to all the power necessary to guide the church. The other apostles were infallible, as my friend admits, and yet their successors claim not to be so, individually; it is enough for every purpose of good government that they are so when they abide in the doctrine of the entire church. Liberius never erred in faith; and Du Pin himself is proof of his orthodoxy. He defended the faithful Athanasius against Constantius and the Arians his accusers! And yet Mr. C. would have us believe Liberius an Arian! He preferred, he said, to go into exile rather than break the ecclesiastical laws against his own conscience. Is not this one of the most heroic sayings recorded of popes? The formula he signed in exile at Perea, in Thrace, was not heretical,

but when this act was abused by the Arians, Liberius wept bitterly for the violent interpretation the document was made to bear. The clergy of Rome appreciated the pontiff's magnanimity, they had no doubt of his faith; they would have no other pope-Felix, the creature of the emperor Constantius, they justly despised; and, as in every similar instance, the righteous cause prevailed; God was stronger than the emperor, truth than error. So did the synod approve Damasus, and reject his rival.

Tertullian was quoted about the Eucharist, and prayers for the dead; I will show you how his testimony is in our favor. Talking of Corinth, Ephesus, and other cities, he says to the inquirer, if you want to find the established doctrine and live near Corinth, go to Corinth to find it out; if near Ephesus, to Ephesus; if near to Rome, go to Rome, and so on. This only proves that the doctrine at all these places was exactly the same; but what is the argument? Does it prove that all these churches were equal in authority to Rome? Suppose a man in New York writes to me to know what the Catholic doctrine in any point is-I tell him he must apply to the bishop or clergy of the churches of New York for information. Does it follow from this that I question the preeminent authority of Rome? Does it prove any thing whatever? It is so far in our favor that it proves a uniformity of doctrine-like the unity of that light which proceeds from a common fountain.

Mr. C. is stricken with the authority of Peter-it haunts him like a spectre throughout this discussion-it meets him at every turn and corner of his argument, well! The Greek word Пciuave means rule, guide, govern, as well as "feed." See Homer, passim. "Пoíμeví λxwy” was the epithet applied usually to Agamemnon. Feed my lambs means all the flock, with the subordinate pastors spread over the universal fold. The evangelist takes care to tell us, in the parable of the temple, that he spoke of the temple of his body. He explained, as St. John says, more than all the books of the whole world could contain, to his disciples, during the forty days from his resurrection to his ascension, spent, as the scripture assures us, in speaking to them of the kingdom of God, as he every where called his church. Mr. C. says there is no priest since Christ. I grant it, in the sense that the high priest holds the place of Christ, derives his power from Christ. In this sense Christ employs the priest as his agent, and exercises by him his own priesthood, in which God the Father hath (Ps. 109) confirmed him by an oath for ever. But in the sense that no such priest now exists, I cannot agree with the gentleman, for St. Paul says, thirty years after Christ's ascension, "For every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men, in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacri>fices for sin. Who can have compassion on them that are ignorant and err, because he himself also is compassed with infirmity, and therefore he ought, as for the people so also for himself, to offer for sins; neither doth any man take the honor to himself, but he that is called by God as Aaron was.” Heb. ch. 5, v. 1, 2, 3, 4. Does not all this prove a priesthood distinct from the body of christians, thirty years after Christ, as it exists at present? Does not St. Paul say, we have an altar of which they cannot partake who serve the tabernacle? Heb. vi. 13, 10. And what was that altar for but for the sacrifices which the priests were taken from among men to offer ?-[Time expired.]

M

TUESDAY, JANUARY 17TH, Half-past 9 o'clock, A. M.

MR. CAMPBELL rises

I intend if possible, to sum up this argument on my second proposition this forenoon. I could wish that my friend, the bishop would reply to me instead of anticipating propositions in advance, and of reading or speaking of matters which are wholly irrelevant. He is even now occasionally on my first proposition; anon, on the second; and instantly, on subjects which we have not agreed to debate. He talks about my getting into thickets and circuitous labyrinths, without seeming to perceive, that I am in pursuit of him. He makes propositions and assertions for me which I never uttered, and spends his time in descanting upon his own misapprehensions.*

I must however, intimate to him and my audience, my purpose of ceasing to respond to any thing he may introduce not in reply to my speeches. If I must lead the way; he must follow. I cannot be decoyed into all the minor and remote points he may originate. I must go on to sustain my propositions, whether he respond to them or not; and shall appropriate half an hour occasionally to such matters in his speeches as may call for my notice.

I cannot, therefore debate the priesthood, or any foreign topic. But as the gentleman has again reiterated the charge, "feed my sheep," and seems to make the whole merits of the question depend on the meaning of the word sheep; I will once more, and I think only once more advert to it. It is universally admitted by Protestants and Catholics, that it is the duty of pastors to feed the flock of their charge. If there be a common duty in the ministry of the old and new law, it is this. But it is essential to his argument to make the word Kanpos signifying sheep denote clergy. This is an extraordinary assumption. It would be a waste of time to argue against it. But that you may see its absurdity, I will read from the Catholic version a part of the 10th chap. of John, substituting the bishop's definition for the term.

"He that entereth not by the door into the fold of the clergy, but climbeth up some other way, he is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth by the door, is the pastor of the clergy. To this man the porter openeth, and the clerhear his voice; and he calleth his own clergy by name, and leadeth them forth. And when he hath let forth his own clergy, he goeth before them, and the clergy follow him, because they know his voice. I am the door of the clergy; And how many soever have come are thieves and robbers, but the clergy heard

gy

them not.

11th verse.

I am the good pastor. The good pastor giveth his life for his clergy. But the hireling and he that is not the pastor, whose own the clergy are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the clergy and fleeth; and the wolf raveneth and disperseth the clergy. And the hireling fleeth because he is a hireling; and he hath no care of the clergy. I am the good pastor, and I know mine, and mine know me. As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father; and I yield my life for my clergy. And other clergy I have that are not of this fold." I submit this without comment to the good sense of my audience. The gentleman may find it more to his account, or he is more accustomed to speak to the prejudices of that part of the community

The other day the bishop asserted that I affirmed, the apostles wrote only to Greek cities. This is not found in my speeches; for it is so gross an error that I could not have uttered it, even in a dream. I request the reader to examine my speeches for my own assertions; for he will frequently find the bishop instead of meeting his opponent, demolishing men of straw of his own creation.

who rely on the authority of the Roman church without asking questions, who are told not to think or reason for themselves; but to believe in the church-to them he may hold up his map triumphantly. The face of Tertullian or Irenæus on paper is as good to them as ten arguments. But I speak to Protestants as well as Catholics; and, therefore, I must reason, for they are a reasoning population. I expect them to decide by evidence, and not by authority.

Reference has been made to Waddington, on the papal succession. His words were not correctly quoted by the gentleman. His interpretation is rather an evasion of the question. It is to the succession itself he alludes. He cannot make it out: he acknowledges he cannot; nor can any living man.

To resume the history of the schisms. I will read a few extracts that I have marked in a chronological table of the popes, which will exhibit a bird's eye glance of the fortunes of the Roman see, for little more than a single century.

1261. Alexander IV. dies June 24. The holy see vacant 3 months and 3 days. The cardinals who proceeded to the election, not being able to pitch on one among themselves, chose Francis, patriarch of Jerusalem, who takes upon him the name of Urban IV. and is consecrated Sept. 4.

1265. After a vacancy of four months, cardinal Guy, the Gross, born in Provence, is elected pope, Feb. 5, and consecrated March 18, under the name of Clement IV.

1268. Clement IV. dies Oct. 29. The holy see lies vacant for two years, nine months, and two days.

1271. The cardinals after a long debate on Sept. 1, by way of compromisal elected Thibald, arch deacon of Liege, native of Placenzia, who was then at Ptolemais.

1276. Gregory X. dies Jan. 10. Peter of Tarentaise, cardinal bishop of Ostia, is elected the 21st. under the name of Innocent V. After his death, which happened June the 2d. cardinal Ottobon, a Genoese, is elected in his place, July the 12th, and takes upon him the name of Adrian V. He dies at Viterbo, Aug. 18. without having been consecrated. Twenty-five days after, cardinal John Peter, the son of Julian, a Portuguese, is elected and consecrated, Sept. 15, under the name of John XXI.

1277. John XXI. is crushed by the fall of the ceiling of the palace of Viterbo, and dies May the 20th. Nov. 25, John Cojestan is elected, and takes the name of Nicholas III. and consecrated Dec. 26.

1280. Nicholas dies Aug. 22. The holy see is vacant six months.

1287. Honorius IV. dies on April 5. The holy see vacant till April of the next year.

1292. Nicholas dies on April 4. The holy see vacant two years three months and two days.

1304. The death of Benedict July 8. The holy see remained vacant till the

next year.

1305. Clement V. is chosen pope June 5. He is crowned at Lyons Nov. 11, and resides in France.

1328. Lewis of Bavaria causes Michael Corbario to be chosen anti-pope, who takes the name of Nicholas V. and is enthroned May 12. He was driven out of Rome, Aug. 4.

1378. Gregory XI. died March 27th. The cardinals entered the conclave at Rome, April 7th. The Romans required a Roman or an Italian pope. The arch-bishop of Paris is chosen in a tumultuous manner, April 9th, and crowned the 17th. under the name of Urban VI. The cardinals fly into Anagnia in May, and protest against the election of Urban. They came to Rondi August the 27th, enter the conclave, and chose, September 20th, the cardinal of Geneva, who took the name of Clement VII. which caused a schism in the church.

1379. Clement VIII. flies to Naples, and from thence goes to Avignon, where he arrived June 10. The competitors for the papacy condemn one another. Du Pin.-Vol. ii.

Touching all that the gentleman has said or may say of the authenticity of Du Pin, I observe that the reporters have recorded my defence of his reputation. They will also have stated the fact that I only quote him as authentic on such matters as all other historians testify. I will not then repeat the same defence again and again.

I know, indeed, that what is authentic with Jansenists may be heterodox with Jesuits, and vice versa. When the Romanists are hard pressed, they have no English authentic historians. And when we quote a Latin one, we are sure to err in the translation. Bellarmine is repudiated by one party; even Barronius is sometimes disallowed. Still being in Latin, he is more authentic than any other. We shall therefore take from him a few words in eonfirmation of what we read from the Decretals of Du Pin. Barronius, vol. vi. p. 562, A. D. 498, tells us that the emperor's faction sustained the election of Laurentius to the papacy. In this struggle "murders, robberies and numberless evils, were perpetrated at Rome." Nay such were the horrible scenes that, says Barronius, "there was a risk of their destroying the whole city." In the schism between popes Sylverius and Vigilius in the sixth century, the latter, though an atrociously wicked man, "implicated," says Barronius, "in so many crimes" that all virtuous men opposed him, was raised to the papal chair. Yet this man was pronounced a good pope. Barronius says he is not to be despised though a bad man. Let every man recollect, "says he, that even to the shadow of Peter, immense virtue was given of God!" (Bar. vol. vii. p. 420.)

'In the midst of contentions which rent the Roman Catholic church, pope Pelagius I. was chosen. This pope approved the council which pope Vigilius had condemned. This increased the flames of ecclesiastical war to such a degree that the pope could not find a bishop of Rome, who could consecrate him; and he was constrained to beg a bishop of Ostium to do this service; "a thing," says Barronius, "which never had occurred before." (Vol. vii. p. 475.)

The popes Formosus and Stephen lived in the ninth century. The latter, says Barronius, was so wicked, that he would not have dared to enroll him in the list of popes, were it not that antiquity gives his name. In the exercise of papal infallibility, he not only rescinded the acts and decrees of his infallible predecessor Formosus; but collecting a council of cardinals and bishops as bad as himself, he actually had the old pope taken out of his grave; and he brought him into court, tried, and condemned him; cut off three of his fingers; and plunged his remains into the Tiber. See Platina's life of Stephen VI. and Barronius do.'

'Barronius under the year 1004, names three rival popes, who perpetrated the most shameful crimes, and bartered the papacy, and sold it for gold. He, though a Roman Catholic writer, calls them Cerberus, the three headed beast which had issued from the gates of hell!'

Hear his words in his life of pope Stephen VII. A. D. 900. The case is such, that scarcely any one can believe it, unless he sees it with his eyes, and handles it with his hands, viz. what unworthy, vile, unsightly, yea, execrable and hateful things the sacred apostolic see, on whose hinges the universal apostolical church turns, has been compelled to see, &c.'

'Ĝenbrard in his chronicles, under the year 904 says, ❝ for nearly