Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, (the plural) that he may sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for THEE, that THY FAITH fail not: and thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren." St. Luke xxii. 32. And he gratuitously asserts that "Confirm" here means only "Comfort." But will any man say that such an interpretation has weakened the force of my argument from the text, or destroyed the avowed effect and object of the Savior's prayer, namely that the faith of Peter should never fail, and that, in it, he should confirm his brethren? Let him shew that Christ addressed a special prayer, for any similar purpose, in favor of all, or of any of the other apostles, and then he may summon Christ's appointed chief of the apostolic band, to surrender his preeminence. If he cannot do this, Peter must for ever retain his supremacy-not of age, nor of talents, nor of priority of call, nor of conversion, but of OFFICE.

He again asserts, for Mr. C. seems to think we must grant every thing to his assertions, that I cannot find a solitary proof in Irenæus, or in any other author of christian antiquity, that Peter was ever bishop of Rome. Now in p. 169 of this Protestant edition of Irenæus we find that warrant. It is in chap. I. book 3, "against heresies." He speaks as follows:

"For we have not learned the disposition, or economy, of our salvation from any others than those through whom the gospel came unto us, which, indeed, they first preached, and afterwards, by the will of God, delivered to us in writing, to be the pillar and ground of our faith. Nor is it lawful to say, as some do, who pretend to correct the apostles, that they preached before they had had perfect knowledge. For after the Lord had arisen from the dead, they were clothed with virtue from on high by the Holy Spirit who came down upon them, and they were filled with all knowledge and attained to perfect understanding; they went to the ends of the earth announcing to us the good things which are from God, and proclaiming heavenly peace to men, having both all and each of them the gospel of God. Thus Matthew, in their own language, wrote the gospel scripture in Hebrew, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing and founding the church of Rome. After their departure, Mark, a disciple, and Peter's interpreter, likewise announced to us the prescribed doctrines; next John, the disciple of the Lord, who also reposed on his breast, published likewise a gospel, residing at Ephesus, in Asia. And all these delivered to us the doctrine of One God, the Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the Lord and the prophets, and one Christ, the Son of God; to whom, he who assenteth not, despiseth the partakers of the Lord, despiseth Christ the Lord, despiseth the Father, and is condemned by himself, for he resisteth and opposeth his own salvation, which all heretics do."

Tracing the succession of bishops in the same chair, he always make Peter the first bishop, as I have already shewn from the very next page-170, of this

volume.

There is Irenæus, a writer of the 2d century-year 150. I shall follow the devious track of the gentleman as well as I can.

My friend denied that I could adduce a solitary testimony to prove that the legate of the pope presided over the first great general council of the church, after the council at Jerusalem. Now I am going to adduce Baronius, p. 295, year of Christ 325, year of Sylvester 12, Constantine 20: (how faithful and exact our Catholic histories are!) "Before we proceed to narrate the history of the acts of the Nicene council, I pray you, friendly reader, to pause with me, to notice the most eminent prelates of that illustrious company of saints, that most flowery crown of fathers, and most distinguished assemblage of holy bishops, whose names shine forth from amidst the obscurity of so ancient a period, He who first attracts our attention, conspicuous for having been twice legate, is Osius, bishop of Cordova, in Spain, representing the bishops of Spain, and, as we have already said, holding the place (the Latin is still stronger-personam gerens-personating) Sylvester, bishop of

Rome, and chief of the legates, his colleagues. Now, continues Baronius, what good ground could there have been for Osius' signing before his colleagues, the legates, before the bishops of the second and third sees of the christian world, viz. Alexandria and Antioch, and before Caecilian, the primate of all Africa, not to speak of others, unless he held the place and represented the person of the highest power of all? He then quotes the commencement of the letter which the legates, immediately after the council, addressed to the pope: "To Sylvester, most blessed pope of the city of Rome, and entitled to all reverence, Ösius, bishop of the province of Spain and city of Cordova, Victor and Vincentius, priests of the city of Rome, appointed by your direction," &c. &c. So far Baronius.

Nat. Alex. says, vol. vii. p. 68, "The synod of Nice, first of the cecumenicals, was convoked by the emperor Constantine, with consent of the Roman pontiff, Sylvester-the president of the council, in the name of St. Sylvester, and his le gates were Osius, bishop of Cordova, Vitus or Vito, and Vincentius, priests," &c. &c. It was the custom of the bishop of Rome to send a bishop and two inferior ecclesiastics to represent him in the councils. Ósius was legate and Victor and Vincentius were his two assistants.

Natalis Alexander says the same, p. 68, 7 vol. Fleury, another most authentic historian, a man of prodigious learning, a contemporary of Bossuet, and one who has been very severe against the popes, so that we have quarreled with him for it, says the same, p. 107 and 108. He adds: "St. Athanasius says that Osius presided at all the councils, and it is certain that he presided at the council of Sardica, twenty two years later."

Now we cannot see why a simple bishop of Cordova should have presided, by any right of his, over all the bishops of the world, even those of Alexandria and Antioch, who were present in person-Gelasius of Cyzicum says expressly that Osius held the place of Sylvester, bishop of imperial Rome, with the priests Victor (or Vito, as he was also called) and Vincentius: and his testimony should not be suspected, as he was a Greek and writing the acts and records of Greeks. Subsequent usage is conformable to what is here observed. In the cecumenical councils whose acts have come down to us, we see the papal legates at the head, and they are commonly, a bishop and two priests."

Here are Baronius, Noel Alexander, Fleury.-The gentleman says that I deal in rhetoric, but he may say what he pleases; I deal in nothing but stubborn facts. These are the irresistible arguments by which Catholic truth is upheld.

As for Peter's executing the decrees of the council of Jerusalem, I said no such thing. He acted with the rest-but he did, I maintain, lead, and his authority was wanting to give sanction to every decree. When he spoke, the "much disputing" ceased. He spoke humbly, but authoritatively. James and Paul and Barnabas acquiesced. The opposition to his gentilising was wrong and much in the spirit of more modern opposition, but Peter's authority then as it has ever done prevailed; for if any thing is certain in historical testimony, it is proved that his authority was acknowledged to reside, in ancient days, in his successors. So is it now acknowledged. We were referred to 10. John, where Christ speaks of the fold and the sheep; and objections were made to my interpretation of the words "lambs" and "sheep," as contradictory and absurd. But now mark, my friends. the signal difference between the two passages. In 10. John, the Savior speaks of sheep alone. He says the sheep are scattered, and never mentions lambs. When therefore Christ says in the other passage, feed my lambs, do we not remark that he afterwards changes the passage and says, feed my sheep! and as I observed yesterday Christ means pastors, by the sheep whom the lambs, follow. fold-and there are over its va

Wide as the world, is Chany shepherds, but one above the

rest, whose duty it is to watch over them all, to see they do their duty. -This is Peter, this is reasonable, it is as it ought to be. Thus, the rock, the keys, the charge to confirm his brethren, the acknowledgement of Paul that he went to see Peter, lest he might have run in vain, the acknowledgment of the authority of Peter's successors, the very necessity of such an office to keep order, &c. All this is proof positive from scripture and history and reason, of the supremacy of the chair of Peter, and not rhetoric-or if so, it is logical rhetoric. Let not scripture, history and reason be thus dismissed in the nineteenth century, with a wave of the hand.

That eternal Du Pin, my friends, you have had my reasons against his authenticity as a Catholic historian: certainly he is no testimony against the Catholics. All my friend can adduce to prove that the authenticity of Du Pin was ever recognized in this country, is that some Catholic paper in Kentucky, as he says, allows his authenticityWho the editor of this paper is, I know not. He may be a respectable Catholic. The bishop of Bardstown has nothing to do with it, the editor is liable to be deceived. His opinion ought to have no weight whatsoever in this controversy.

What led my friend into such an error respecting the book itself, was, probably his seeing prefixed to it the censor's license for its impression; but he should have known that the king of France appoints such persons as he thinks fit, to examine whether publications contain any thing dangerous to the state. And Louis Philip is more strict in this respect than ever Charles X. was, who was exiled from France for the same thing.

The Doctors of Sorbonne, to whom the work was submitted, may have said the book contained nothing against faith and morals. They do not say that he is an authentic Catholic historian. We apply criticism to every work, and our maxim is nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri. The opinions of two or three Doctors of Sorbonne form no rule of faith for Catholics, although, in this instance, they say nothing, I presume, to which we may not very safely assent, while we describe Du Pin in his proper colors. After all Du Pin says nothing that does not go to prove my views, if considered fairly, although he was expelled the Sorbonne for heterodox opinions!

Now there were vacancies, breaks, in the chain; but the lapse of... a few years, before binding together the links of the apostolic succession, does not affect the great principle for which I am contending. We are no believers in metempsychosis: or that, like the supposed divinity of the Lama of Thibet, the soul of a deceased pope goes by a hop, skip and jump, right off, into his successor. We will wait six months, or six years, to find a good pope. Time is taken for this, since so much depends on the result. Now in this chain were some bad popes; we weep over the fact, my friends, and lament it. Mr. C. ought to have thrown the mantle over his shoulders and walked backwards with me and covered these frailties, for the sake of our common christianity. The mass of the succession is sound. But there were some bad points. It is not the name, but the religion they represented, that we regard. Whether the stream of testimony came to us through conduits of gold, of silver, or of brass, it is not the channel of communication we regard, but the pure chrystal and transparent waters of celestial doctrine, of divine truth. Men are liable to err-Jesus Christ said there must needs be scandals. We look for them; we expect them to occur

while there is yet remaining one single human being on this earth. None but God is perfect and man is good only by divine assistance. I have no special apology to offer for a pope who is a bad man. He should be the pattern of the flock from the heart. He should be the salt of the earth-the light of the world. He should remember that the "mighty shall be mightily tormented;" and that "a most severe judgment shall be for them that bear rule if they walk not according to the law." I should not be surprised if these bad popes were at this moment expiating their crimes in the penal fires of hell. But what is the proper inference to be deduced from their melancholy aberrations? If they like Lucifer have fallen, bright lights from the firmament of religion, do the heavens no longer proclaim the glory of God? Do the praises of God resound there no more? Why it is truly wonderful, that, bad men as they were, they should not only have never severed themselves from the faith but should have been the instru-ments of perpetuating sound doctrine at home and abroad. Nothing, my friends, gives me more faith in the genuineness and truth of our holy religion, than when in reviewing the history of these disgraceful enormities, I find the church, in the very midst of scandal, enough to blacken and overthrow any earthly institution, still supported and upheld by the almighty hand of God. A church that has stood through all that the gentleman has laid to the charge of the merely mortal men who have presided for a season over its destinies. A FEW OF THEM ERRED IN MORALS, BUT NONE OF THEM IN FAITH; sound doctrine and sound morals were seen and admired, during these sad eclipses, and infidel nations were, during that passing obscurity in Rome, rejoicing in the beams of the orient sun of justice, heralded by Cathoic missionaries. Let this be borne in mind when my learned opponent undertakes to prove that the pope is the sea-serpent! And let my Protestant friends understand that the Roman Catholics detest immorality as much as they can, wherever it may be found: and most of all, where superior virtue was required by exalted station. We too had labored for a reformation, not of God's truth, for it needed none, but of men's morals which are always liable to corruption. We may cry out like the apostles, when we behold such scandals, O Lord, save us ere we perish-but we hear the divine answer, "why fear ye, O you of little faith." NO CLOUD HAS EVER YET IMPENDED

OVER THE CHURCH, THAT THE RAINBOW OF PROMISE DID NOT SHINE THROUGH THE GLOOM.

The object of the institution of the church being. no other than to establish the true worship of God, by the overthrow of idolatry, and to sanctify a chosen people for everlasting life, by the purest virtues of religion, we are not to wonder that Satan, the jealous enemy of human happiness, should exert his utmost powers to obstruct the benevolent design. In fulfilment of the Savior's prediction, and from the very nature of man, it was necessary that persecutions, heresies, schisms and domestic scandals should happen; but Jesus Christ had likewise foretold that they should not prevail. The Pagan tyrants of the earth may rage; the courage and patience of our martyrs will triumph and multiply. Heresies may start up in various forms, and for a while seduce thousands into error; they will, at length, sink back again into the dark abyss from which they first emerged. Guided by the spirit of truth, and confirmed into the unity of her belief, the church will ever successfully oppose to their impotent attempts,

the promises of her divine Founder, the antiquity of her faith, the consent of nations, the order of her hierarchy, the holy severity of her discipline, the bright example of thousands of her faithful children, the sacred history of her doctrines, and the decisions of her councils. Schisms may at times perplex and divide the faithful, but the church by her authority will either close the breach, or separate the refractory members from her communion. The vicious lives of some of her children may contradict and disgrace their christian profession, they may violate her laws, they may insult her authority, and invade her sacred rights; they never will be able to overturn her ministry, to shake her hierarchy or to alter her doctrine. She will never cease to warn sinners of their duty, to correct, to instruct, to direct mankind in the way of salvation.

By her persevering zeal for God's honor, by the force of her ex hortations, by the solemnity of her public service, by the morality of her precepts, and by her practice of the evangelical counsels, she will continue to prepare souls for heaven, while she exhibits to the world a rich assemblage of the most heroic virtues. It is thus, that our history attests the care which God has taken of his church.

The whole number of popes has been nearly two hundred and sixty. Of these, the first forty were saints, or martyrs, a small number only, not more than twenty, can be called bad men; the rest were remarkable for eminent virtue, charity, zeal, learning and patronage of letters. Peter was twenty-five years bishop of Rome; and non videbis annos Petri, you will not be pope as long as Peter-is a proverb which every new pope hears. Pius VI. and Pius VII, came nearest to the years of Peter, but they did not attain them. But says the gentleman, the pope transferred his see for some time from Rome, to Avignon. I grant it; but have I not said, were he a wanderer in Abyssinia, he would still retain his title and authority.

We were told of a council which cashiered three popes, and made a fourth! My friends, what sophistry is this? Does my friend think he is addressing people but one remove from barbarism, instead of the enlightened and liberal citizens of the queen of the west? I wish him to understand that we, at least, are equal to the people of Bethany in intelligence. Among these citizens, I thank God, my lot is cast. Does Mr. C.- suppose that they cannot answer his sophistry by the true statement of the fact? The council cashiered three doubtful popes, or rather no popes at all, and elected one true pope. What has become of his logic?

Stephen VI. had the body of Formosus dug up and cut off his fingers. My friend has taken this from Pope and McGuire's discussion, and has seen the answer there. In this unpardonable act of Stephen, we at least discern zeal for the rules of discipline, which forbade the transferring of a bishop from one see to another. For this offence the needless act of severity was done. It shews the popes expose what they think wrong in popes; just as my friend would know nothing of their misdeeds, if Catholic historians had not had sincerity, piety and zeal to denounce them. Genebrard said that the popes were more often apostates than apostles. I am sure that, in this case, truth was sacrificed to wit, and faithful testimony to virtue as well as faithful exposition of vice, for the gingle between the words apostates and apostles. But Genebrard says not, absolutely, they were apos