150 years, about fifty popes deserted wholly the virtue of their predecessors, being APOSTATE rather than APOSTOLICAL!'

And to crown the climax, Barronius, under the year 912 adds: "What is then the face of the holy Roman church! How exceedingly foul it is! When most potent, sordid and abandoned women, (Meretices,) ruled at Rome: at whose will the sees were changed; bishops were presented; and what is horrid to hear, and unutterable, FALSE PONTIFFS, the paramours of these women, were intruded into the chair of St. Peter, &c." He adds,-"For who can affirm that men illegally intruded by bad women, (scortis) were Roman pontiffs !" Again: "The canons were closed in silence; the decrees of pontiffs were suppressed: the ancient traditions were proscribed; and the sacred ceremonies and usages of former days were WHOLLY EXTINCT. See his Annals A. D. 912.'*

Again: he relates that pope Alexander was elected by cardinals, some of whom were bribed, some allured by promises of promotion, and some enticed by fellowship in his vices and impurities to give him their suffrages. He refers to various authors who complained that he was famous for his debauchery; he tells us of his vile example in keeping a Roman strumpet Vanozia, by whom he had many children; that he conferred wealth and honors on them, and even created one of them, Cæsar Borgia (an inordinately wicked man) archbishop of the church. Vid. Bar. Annals, vol. xix. p. 413 et seq.

'The same writer (vol. ix. p. 145) records the election of Benedict IX. at the age of twelve years, which he says was accomplished by gold, and he calls it ("horrendum ac detestabile visu") "horrible and detestable to behold ;" and yet he adds that the whole christian world acknowledged Benedict, without controversy, to be a true pope!

STEPHEN VII. The unparalleled wickedness of this pope is conveyed in a single line: [Ita quidem passus facinorus homo quique ut fur et latro ingressus est in ovile ovium, laqueo vitam adeo infumi exitu vindice Deo clausit.] Thus per ished this villanous man, who entered the sheepfold as a thief and a robber; and who in the retribution of God, ended his days by the infamous death of the halter." (Bar. vol. x. p. 742.)

Again, Barronius says of the 10th century:

"What then was the face of the Roman church? How very filthy, when the most powerful and sordid harlots then ruled at Rome, at whose pleasure sees were changed and bishoprics were given, and-which is horrible to hear, and most abominable-their gallants were obtruded into the see of Peter, and made false popes; for who can say they could be lawful popes, who were intruded by such harlots without law? There was no mention of the election or consent of clergy; the canons were silent, the decrees of popes suppressed, the ancient traditions proscribed,-lust armed with the secular power, challenged all things to itself.

*

*

*

*

*

*

What kind of Cardinals, do you imagine must then be chosen by those monsters, when nothing is so natural as for like to beget like? who can doubt, but they in all things did consent to those that chose them? Who will not easily believe that they animated them and followed their footsteps? Who understands not, that such men must wish that our Lord would have slept continually, and never have awoke to judgment to take cognizance of, and punish their iniquities." Ann. Vol. x.912.

Now if the gentleman objects to any of these quotations which I have hastily, but I believe most correctly made: the originals are

* Brownlee's Letters on Rom. Cath. controversy, pp. 36, 37, 38.

here and let them be examined: For, these being admitted it is useless to object to Du Pin, who never uses so severe language against the popes as Baronius and Genebrand, Platina and others.

Finally on this subject. For seventy years, there was no pope in Rome, besides all the other interregnums. The pope resided at Avignon in France and left St. Peter's chair empty. For almost half a century there were two popes, and two lines of popes existing at one time-one reigning in Italy, and one in France. And at last there were three popes-Benedict XIII. the Spanish pope, Gregory XII. the French pope, and John XXIII. the Italian pope. Then the council of Constance met-A. D. 1414, and made a fourth, or true pope, and deposed the three anti-popes. Such was the 29th schism in the papacy! Is there, may I not ask with all these facts before us,-Is there any man on earth that can have the least confidence in any pope as the successor of Peter? A thousand questions the most learned and intricate, which no living bishop has time or means to examine, must be decided before he could rationally or religiously believe that the succession from Peter has any existence at all: or, in truth, it cannot be believed but upon mere authority!

We now proceed to show that there has been no fixed and uniform method of electing the popes. Indeed history and tradition furnish us with no less than seven different methods.

1. Irenæus says, 'that tradition said, that Peter appointed his successor.' And if he did, why do not all the popes follow his exam ple? for Irenæus is as good authority for this, as for that concerning the founding of the church of Rome.

2. The priests and people are said to have often elected the first popes; or, rather the bishops nominated and the people elected.-I ought to have observed distinctly, that there is as much sophistry in the word pope as ever was played off on earth. The word pope, in the east was first applied to all bishops, and is so used in Russia to this day. It was in the 5th century applied to the senior bishops and metropolitans of the west. But it was not until the time of Gregory VII. that it was exclusively appropriated by his own innovation, to the bishops of Rome.

Hence, in this variety of acceptation, popes many were always in the church, and were elected by the people. But the persons first called popes and those now wearing the title, have no other resemblance than the common name.

3. The emperors nominated and bishops elected, and the emperors appointed on their own responsibility.

4. Leo VIII. transferred the whole power of choosing the pope to the emperor, being tired with the inconstancy of the Romans.

It was

5. Barronius in his Annals, 112, 8, and sect. 141, 1, says, 'They. (the popes) were introduced by powerful men and women. frequently the price of prostitution!"

6. By the decree of pope Nicholas II. in his Læteran Synod: The whole business was given over to the cardinals, an order of men, not heard of for 1000 years after Christ. The popes now make the cardinals, and the cardinals make the pope. What a glorious republic! My friend, a staunch republican, agrees that a few men in Rome should elect a head for the universal church! But sometimes7. General councils (as that of Constance, Pisa and Basil) took upon themselves the making of popes, and, as we have seen, made a

fourth pope, when there were already three acknowledged by different parts of the church. Can these facts be denied? They CANNOT and presume, WILL NOT.

I

It is now affirmed that the intrigues of papal elections incomparably surpass the intrigues of any court on earth. The politics of France, of Italy, of Austria, are so incorporated with the schemes of the cardinals, or so bias or bribe them, that on the election of a pope, it is usually said, "Austria has succeeded" or "Spain," or "France has prevailed this time!" In one word, the papal chair is the most corrupt and corrupting institution, that ever stood on earth. The Roman Cesars, or the Egyptian dynasties, were pure and incorrupt, compared with this mammoth scheme of iniquity. On the whole premises, I ask, would the head of the church so jeopardize all the interests of his kingdom as to make the popes of Rome, or faith in them essential elements of his system of redemption, or necessary to the salvation of any human being?!—

To recapitulate. This being a fundamental and primary essential element of the Roman church, I have labored it more than any other; and yet I have not said a tithe of what may be said, or even what I have to say on the subject. But I have aimed at establishing four points in demonstrating this proposition. And to adopt the positive and dogmatic style of my learned opponent, may I not say that I have fully proved

1. That the office of pope, or supreme head on earth, has no scripture warrant or authority whatever. Indeed, that the whole beau ideal of a church of nations, with a monarchical head, (which, in the estimation of the bishop, is equivalent to the word church of Christ,) is as gratuitous an assumption as ever graced a romance, ancient or modern.—

2. That it cannot be ascertained that Peter was ever bishop of Rome -nay, indeed, it has been shown, that it is wholly contrary to the New Testament history, and incompatible with his office.—

3. That Christ gave no law of succession.—

4. That if he had, that succession has been destroyed by a long continuance of the greatest monsters of crime that ever lived; and by cabals, intrigues, violence, envy, lust, and schisms, so that no man can believe that one drop of apostolic grace is either in the person or office of Gregory XVI. the present nominal incumbent of Peter's chair! It would be now as easy to prove that Solomon's mosque built by the Turks, is Solomon's temple, in which Jesus Christ stood; as that the popes or church of Rome is a christian institution.

On what, now, rests Roman CATHOLICISM?! If the foundation be destroyed, how can the building stand? I need not tell my opponent that this is a blow at the root of his apostolic tree. He feels it, and I am glad to think that if any American bishop can sustain these pretensions, my learned opponent is that man. He has asked, and he may again ask, where was the Protestant church before Luther's time? In reply, I ask, where was the pope before Constantine's time? He brought Mosheim to offset Waddington and Jones on the subject of the Novatians. And what did Mosheim prove contrary to these historians? You have heard with what success my opponent seeks to tarnish the reputation of Novatians, Waldenses and Protestants. As a general offset to all his declamation on this subject, I will give you the testimony of a good Roman Catholic: for he was an Inquisitor -I mean Rienerius Saccho, one of the most inveterate enemies of

these old fashioned Protestants. I have the original before me, but shall not read it unless it be required: The translation reads:

Among all the sects" (there were sects, you perceive, before the Reformation)" which still are, or have been, there is not one more pernicious to the church than that of the Leonites;" (a name by which the Waldenses were sometimes called,) "and that for three reasons. The 1st is, because it is the oldest, for some say it hath existed from the time of pope Sylvester; others from the time of the Apostles. The 2nd, because it is more general, for there is scarce any country where this sect is not. The 3rd, because when all others sects beget horror by their blasphemies against God, this of the Leonites hath a great show of piety because they live justly before men, and believe all things rightly concerning God and all the articles contained in the creed. Only they blasphemed the church of Rome." Rein. Sanho. edit. Gritzer, O. S. J. cap. 4: page 54.

I could give much more Roman Catholic testimony in proof that the doctrines of Protestantism continued from the days of the first Roman schism till now: but this at present would seem superfluous. Nor will I speak now of the old English and Irish churches which the Roman bishops sought in vain for many centuries to bring into their fold. There is nothing betrays a less discriminating regard to the facts of ecclesiastical history, than to ask where was the church before the days of Luther?-But I hasten to the point yet before me, which, like some others, I may not remember, was reserved for a more convenient season. It was an objection drawn in part from Eph. iv. 11, and from the alleged difficulty of obtaining a ministry but through the popes of Rome.

This passage, viewed in common with Matth. xxviii. 18, 19, seems to me, rather to remove all difficulty on the subject. Matth. xxviii. gives all authority to the apostles to set up the christian church, and promises them miraculous aid, till the work was done. "I am with you continually till the conclusion of this state-ἕως της συντέλειας του αἰῶνος. Οι which I must here speak more particularly. At present it suffices to repeat the fact of such a commission, and such a promise to the apostles.

Now let us hear Paul. When Christ ascended, "he gave gifts to men."-What, let me ask, were they?" He gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers"—all miraculously endowed. They were not raised up, out of the church; but given directly from heaven to the church, or for building a church! What, again, let me ask Paul, were they given for? For the perfecting of the saints:" or, according to the Douay bible, "for the consummation of the saints unto the work of the ministry, unto the edifying of the body of Christ." And for how long, let me ask, still more empnatically?"Until" (it is Maxg in Greek, donec in Latin, adverbs expressive of the time how long)"Until we all come into the unity of the faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man" (not men-that is, to a perfect body) "into the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ."The Roman church being judge, then, these officers were given to the church after the ascension, for a special work, and for a limited time.-Till, out of Jews and Gentiles, they had made one PERFECT MAN, or CHURCH. Now, these apostles acted in exact accordance with the nature of the case. They preached, baptized, and congregated disciples, in particular places. These disciples had, from the nature of the case. to receive from them the whole christian institution. They knew neither what to believe or do, but as they were taught by these inspired men.-Hence, the apostles preached, baptized, taught, served

tables, and dispensed all ordinances, and performed all offices among them, till the body of the church had learned its duty. Then they taught them to select from among themselves certain officers-gave them the qualifications, and showed them in their own persons how they were to be set apart and ordained to these offices.-For example, the deacons, or public servants of the church of Jerusalem, the mother church. Again, they taught them to send out missionaries or evangelists, as in the church of Antioch; and finally, to ordain elders or bishops over the flock, as soon as they had persons qualified for that office. They taught the church, then, to have bishops and deacons, and evangelists (or general missionaries, as the case may be). They gave the law, the qualifications, and the mode of inducting them into office. They never taught any one church to depend always upon Jerusalem, or Antioch, or Rome, or Corinth; but they taught the necessity of all these offices-gave the qualifications of the officers, and assisted in ordaining them in many particular congregations, of which congregations with the same laws, authority, and order, there never have been wanting thousands from that day till now.

Order has its foundation in nature. The highest officers were called seniors or elders; because of their age; and bishops or overseers, because of their office. Deacons, not having so much authority and glory, and not having a salary, like bishops, there never has been among them any controversy about succession! But had there been any great honor or reward in that office, we should doubtless have had as much ado about an unbroken line; and could as easily find one in this case as in that of the bishops of Rome, or Constantinople. The same order obtained in the christian church-I mean, substantially, that obtained in the synagogues of the Jews. The same word CUTV or presbytery, is found in the New Testament in reference to both the synagogue and the church. "Stir up the gift," office" that is in thee, by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." Indeed, the synagogue, much more than the tabernacle or temple, was the archetype of the order, which the apostles set up. In every case the question was put to the people, "Look out, choose out, select from among yourselves,” &c.

My friend is almost a Protestant on some points. He occasionally recommends the bible to his flock, and he says that the ordinances of religion do not receive their virtue from an unholy or holy pope-that he has his authority to administer from Christ rather than from the pope.

Indeed, I know not why the spirit of God should be promised through such a wretched and polluted channel as the popes of Rome, rather than to operate from heaven in all its holy influences upon those, who by its appointment, are chosen and ordained by prayer, fasting, and imposition of hands, as deacons or bishops of the christian congregations. We lose nothing then, in abandoning the leaky and sinking ship of pontifical authority in the Roman Catholic church.[Time expired.]

My friend has set me the example of recapitulating. I shall not fail to do so in due time. He has talked around one of the invincible texts of Scripture which I had adduced for Peter's headship: "Simon,