6

podes than the two Indies.

Two men of different sects will meet: says one, "Do you believe in Christ?" "Yes." "But you do not believe in him as God?" "No." "No matter, we are both good believers." Again, two others "Do you believe in Christ ?" "Yes?" "But you do not believe in a hell?" "No." "No matter, we are both sound orthodox christians." Or again, "Do you believe in Christ?" "Yes." "But you don't believe in baptism"-and so it goes.

Now Jesus Christ cannot contradict himself: he cannot say things incompatible with each other, as that two and two make four; and two and two make five. My friends, I come here not to attack other sects. I come only to defend the truth. Of all religions, all teaching, as they do, contrary doctrines, one only can be right. If one only can be true, all others must be untrue. Have you ascertained which is that true one? And if so, how have you ascertained it? To whatever denomination you may belong, your Protestant neighbor, as enlightened, as conscientious and as pious in his own opinion as you are, thinks you have embraced dangerous error, and Jesus Christ sounds in your ears the dreadful words, "He that believeth not". not what he thinks is right, but what is right" shall be damned." Mark xvi. 16.—[Time expired.]

MR. CAMPBELL rises

Four o'clock, P. M.

I hope we shall better understand each other. The question be tween Protestants and Roman Catholics, on the subject of infallibility as respects the faith, is usually propounded in the following form: Is there an infallible rule of faith?" Both parties, answer in the affirmative. Then, Where shall it be found? Each party then sets about defining and wrestling about this said infallible rule. The Protestant says, the bible alone is his infallible rule; and the Romanist says the church, or the bible explained by the church, is his infallible rule! Thus the Protestant rests upon the bible and the Romanist upon the church-neither of which make men infallible. We apprehend there is a sophism some where in the phraseology: for both parties have exhausted folios on this subject and seem often to have retired from the arena equally perplexed. My antagonist seems to be much in advance of me, and sometimes so far in my rear as to be out of sight. Meanwhile, he will please not to forget that it is my province, at least, to sketch out my own method of discussion, and lead the way. My last speech is certainly yet unanswered.

I do not choose the phraseology which has been popular in some discussions, on the subject of the rule of faith. There is too much ambiguity, too much room for logomachy in some of these definitions. There is, in strict propriety, no infallible rule of faith. Nor is it possible there can be: for men and angels have erred under all rules. I wish to be understood. The terms fallible and infallible do not at all apply to things: they only apply to persons. We may have a perfect and complete or a sufficient rule: but we cannot have an infallible one. The fallibility, or the infallibility is in the application of the rule-not in the rule itself. The mechanician may have a perfect rule; and yet err in measuring any superficies. It is not possible in mechanics, nor in morals, nor in religion, to have a rule which will prevent error: so long as those who use it are free and fallible agents. As Paul said on an occasion, not exactly similar, we may here say

If there could have been a law given to free agents, which would have precluded error, verily God would have given it. But as he has not given any such law, therefore, there has been error in heaven as on earth. Angels fell and Adam apostatized. I own, it may be said, that in common parlance, we figuratively talk of an infallible rule. I admit that we do, and that is the reason, when we come to debate the matter, the parties are confounded: for the bible alone, or the bible on the table; and the church alone, or the church and the bible together, have made no one free from error. Therefore, there is no infallible rule in truth: but we have a perfect rule, and if we apply it perfectly, it will make us perfect. So far, then, as infallibility is concerned, if there be truth in these remarks, both parties are again equal. OUR RULE IS The bible alone. The Roman Catholic rule contains ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FIVE LARGE FOLIO VOLUMES SUPERADDED TO THE BIBLE, and the APOCRYPHA! These are composed of the following parts and parcels: 1st Apostolical Fathers 35 folios, 2nd Eight volumes of Decretals, 3rd Ten volumes of Bulls of the Popes; 4th Thirty one volumes of Canons and Decrees of Councils; 5th Fifty one folios of the Acta Sanctorum-Acts of the Saints, amounting in all to,-one hundred and thirty five volumes folio. Our rules, then, differ exceedingly in point of length, breadth and thickness. The Roman Catholic rule is exceedingly unwieldy. It requires a whole council to move it, and apply it to a single opinion. Ours is, at least, portable. But still the phrase rule of faith is not Protestant. The bible is the faith; and that testimony is the rule and measure of our belief: for in logical truth testimony is the only proper rule of faith. However, the question is not strictly, what is the rule of faith?

We both agree that the true reason of infallibility is inspiration. 1 was glad to hear this noble concession from my learned opponent. Jesus Christ was able to give a perfect rule. He therefore inspired twelve apostles to form that rule, and enjoined us to hear them. So far, there is no difference between us. We both have a perfect rule, and that perfect rule is the bible; and the reason of its perfection is its inspiration. But where is the inspiration of the one hundred and thirty five folios? Does it require this immense library to make us understand the bible? However, if my friend can establish their inspiration, and show that Jesus Christ has spoken in these volumes; we will adopt them without controversy. But there is a want of uniformity in the Catholic faith (even with the help of these volumes :) and hence the four sects mentioned just before I sat down, on the question, where shall this infallibility be found: for after all the one hundred and thirty five volumes lying on the table, are no better than the bible lying on the table, the Roman Catholics being judges. They must have an infallible interpreter of these volumes. Where shall he be found? "Some say that infallibility resides in the head of the church: 2nd, Others, that it resides in a general council, in which the church is represented: although such a general council never sat. 3rd, Others argue, that it lies neither in the pope, nor in the council separately: but in the two combined-a 4th party says that it lies neither in the pope, nor in the council, nor in both: but in the whole church, responding to any question. Now might we not call these four parties? Do our controversies about atonement, or election &c. make us more truly sects, than do these different interpretations make parties in the Roman church? But where shall infallibility be found? If this can

not be shown, it is of no more use to us in time of need, than a mountain of gold in the bottom of the ocean; or a field of diamonds in the moon. I hope the gentleman will clearly ascertain this point, and make us all understand where we shall find this infallibility. We would like to know, how the combination of a given number of fallibles will make one infallible being; or, by what laws of neutralization the fallibility of every member of the church is destroyed, and the whole mass becomes infallible. But if the infallibility of a dogma depends on inspiration, what is the use of councils, unless the promise of infallibility be made exclusively to councils?

But I have no necessity for the argument which I had framed on this point. The bishop attributes infallibility to inspiration-not to combination: So do Protestants. Therefore on this cardinal point we seem more likely to agree, than I expected. Protestants have then an inspired creed, and this gives to them all the infallibility, which Roman Catholics claim to themselves: but should any one say that the majority of a council constitutes infallibitity, then we should have to enquire into the reasons of the infallibility of said majority; and for the sake of some of that class, I would here state that these majorities often are very lean minorities of the church. The council of Trent debated eighteen years, during which time she held twenty five sessions. In one session there were but forty eight bishops, and they not the most learned. A majority of these determined that the apocrypha was inspired, and that it with the Vulgate Old and New Testament; was of paramount authority in the church. Twenty five Dishops, a majority of forty eight, represent the whole christian community! The question now is, were these men inspired while they were voting this dogma? I wish the bishop to state his views on this point clearly, if indeed he thinks that inspiration is at all an attribute or a gift promised to majorities however lean.

But, my friends, when you have got this ponderous creed from the decisions of general councils, must it not be interpreted? Must not the dogma of a majority be also interpreted? And who is to interpret them? Every man for himself? Then are you Protestants; or, Romanists working by the Protestant rules. After all, I see nothing gained by all this expensive and ponderous machinery. Is not every Roman Catholic obliged to judge for himself on the meaning of every dogma, and whether he ought to receive or reject it? Then, I ask, are not the inspired verses of the Old and New Testament as easily interpreted, as the inspired decrees of these councils? Did not the Spirit that inspired the apostles, teach as clearly, as the fathers in their coun⚫ cils? I wish to understand the bishop more accurately on these points. The gentleman (I regret to state it) spoke of Protestants as hating the Roman Catholics, from a supposed ignorance of their creed. For myself, and for Protestants generally, I disavow the idea, and the language of hatred towards Romanists, as such. We feel the same humanity and benevolence towards Roman Catholics, as men, as to Protestants. We always discriminate between tenets and men, a system or theory, and those who hold it. With open arms, I would welcome to our shores the oppressed of all nations, Romanists and Protestants. I would extend to the Roman Catholic every facility to improve his condition by immigration into this favored land, provided only I were free from all suspicion, that his faith in the pope and

mother-church, would not induce him or his children to wrest from me or mine, that freedom and liberty which I would gladly participate with him. I oppose his religion; because, I sincerely think it enslaves him, and would enslave me, if it had the power. But, in all this there is no hatred to Roman Catholics as men. We are devoted to American institutions, because they are humane. For the sake of Romanists, as well as Protestants, we desire to see them permanent. We fear the exclusive, proscriptive, and despotic system of Romanism; but we feel nothing but benevolence to Roman Catholics.

My worthy opponent has done us great honor in saying, that he knows many excellent Protestants, whom he esteems highly as good men. Of course, the they may be saved out of the Roman Catholic church. If so, what is the difference between his infallible and our fallible faith? I cannot find time to reply to any remarks of my opponent, not made in reference to my arguments.-[Minus 5 minutes.]

BISHOP PURCELL rises

Half-past 4 o'clock, P. M.

I shall reply to what has been said, and then pursue my own line of argument. The Catholic church claims to have an infallible rule of faith and an infallible code of morals. The former would be of little use without the latter. So intimate is the connection between sound faith and sound morals, that we hold that if the Catholic code of morals is vicious, she is not infallible in doctrine. If the working of her code of morals is proved to lead, or to have led, into vice, she is not infallible. This never has been proved, nor ever can it be. But the contrary to this has been proved, and its proof is cumulative. The darkest ages furnish some of its brightest illustrations. She does not pretend to be infallible in discipline, in the sense of its immutability. The gentleman confounds discipline with morals, and this want of clearness of ideas is the source of the entire difficulty. Discipline, I think, I have explained. It regulates the dress of the clergy, the liturgical language, the time of singing hallelujah, the mode of shaving the head, or making the tonsure, the giving of the cup to the laity, the use of leavened, or unleavened bread for the sacrament, selection of days for feasts and fasts, &c. &c. The church must have the power of changing in these respects--in other words of adapting her discipline to times, and countries. And all this, so far from being an imperfection is a proof of her perfection, of her having been established by Jesus Christ to teach, and guide, and sanctify all nations for ever. I did not state the crude proposition, which the gentleman has attributed to me, viz. that the pope is as fallible as I am. I would not compare myself thus to him. I occupy an humble station compared to his, and I am conscious of the want of those eminently distinguished qualities of head and heart which compose his character. He has grace and lights which I have not. The gentleman tells Protestants a flattering tale, that they have as infallible a rule, as Catholics. This is keeping the word of promise to the ear and breaking it to the heart. Does he not in the same speech, acknowledge that their fallible opinions, doctrines, traditions make their own rule, the bible, vain and nothing worth? The bible is a dead letterall pretend to find their conflicting tenets in it. Where is then, the infallible rule? Does he not charge Protestants as well as Cath

olics with error. And why? The gentleman said, where is the use of the head, without the body? I ask where is the use of a body without a head? And he said, if the body regulates the head it is anomalous. But what is it that sends vitality to the head? Is it not the heart with its healthful pulses and its quickening current? The pope is the head-the council is the heart-and I have no objection to his calling the laity the members, to continue the figure. While there is no schism in the members, no separation of the head or of the heart, all is soundness and life-so in the church-pope, pastors, and laity. United we stand, divided you fall. The true theory of the church, like that of the human body, is union. Ask not, does the heart, alone, or the head alone, or the members alone contain the vital principle—they sympathize; they live and move and have their being together. God seems to address himself to the head and to the heart in the revealed definitions of his essence. "I AM WHO AM," and "GOD IS LOVE," one of these definitions is for the reason, the other for the affections; one for the Old Testament, the other for the New. Both, however, come from the same source and tend to define Him-LIFE, WISDOM and Love.

The division of truth into objective and subjective is correct-but objective revealed truth is the whole truth revealed by God, wherever found and in whatever manner conveyed. What is the use of this, without subjective truth, or our own knowledge and conviction that we possess objective truth, and that we are sure of possessing it? Of this, the Protestant, who rejects authority in religion, and pretends to find out religion for himself, from a book, which he acknowledges, fallible men handed to him, can never be sure. The fact, the testimony, the belief of the testimony, the feeling consentaneous with the belief, and the correspondent action, are all human faith and natural feeling, struggling, and striving for some higher and better gifts, which it cannot attain without infallible assurance, without the Catholic rule. What is the testimony that might be deceived itself and might deceive me? He says we Catholics have a very bread rule-135 folios. No such thing. We have a quite convenient pocket-rule. It is the pearl of great value-a diamond, with which we cut the brittle glass of mere human creeds in pieces, and with which we solve every difficulty. It is this: "I believe in the Holy Catholic church." They were the apostles-he was Christ who gave it to us. It does not suppose ignorance, or servile acquiescence. It lifts us above error, giving us a divine warrant for every tenet of our faith, and directing our understandings and hearts to GOD, who speaks to us by his church. I hope I did not understand my friend correctly this morning, but if I have he has uttered horrid blasphemy. I understood him to say that God could not have given a perfect rule (to make man infallible, and prevent him from error.)

MR. CAMPBELL explained. He had said that God could not create a hill without a valley-could not make man a free agent and bind him. BISHOP PURCELL. Could not God have created the angels so that they could not fall into. sin?

MR. CAMPBELL. There can be no virtue nor vice, without liberty of choice: neither in man nor in angel.

BISHOP PURCELL. My friend has said that God could not have created angels or men virtuous without making them free to sin. The angels of heaven are not free to do wrong, are they not virtuous?