One class

divinity of Christ an important or an unimportant article ? of Bible-reading Protestants admit the doctrine; another reject it with horror: pretty unity this! The Episcopalians believe in the necessity of submission to the bishops; and eloquently have I heard the authority of the church advocated by them. They do not say that the church is infallible, and in this they are inconsistent. But will they allow that the difference between them and Presbyterians is unimportant? Is the doctrine of a hell, with endless torments there for the wicked, unimportant? One class of Bible-readers hold this also, and another class reject it! Alas! for the declaration of my friend, that he can prove whatever he states to be a fact. I strongly suspect a man who makes such asseverations.

He is loud in his panegyrics on the unity of Protestants in essential acts of worship: they pray together, &c. If this were even so, of what avail is it, when they differ in essential doctrines. But, is not my friend aware, that this is by no means a fact? And what reliance can we place on his statements of what occurred centuries ago, when here, at home, and refutation nigh at hand, he makes such curious assertions? Did not a case occur, last summer, within sixty miles of Cincinnati, at Dayton, when the Episcopalian minister, the Rev. Mr. Allen, forbade the Rev. Mr. Peabody, a Unitarian clergyman, of irreproachable morals and great amiableness of disposition, to preach in his church? Did not the bishop reprimand the vestry, and Episcopalian minister, for having previously allowed him to preach there? I think the Episcopalian bishop acted, in this respect, as he should have done. I blame none of the parties concerned, but I state an incontrovertible fact. Again, at Pottsville, Pennsylvania, another case occurred. A Unitarian minister died there, and the Episcopal clergyman refused to say prayers at his funeral, because of his religious belief. What, then, becomes of my friend's vague and general assertion, about unity among Protestants in essential acts of worship? Will he, then, excommunicate the Unitarian? and, if he once begin, how many more sects must be put out of the pale ?

Let him shew me that a Jesuit or a Dominican, a Franciscan, or a Benedictine, or an Augustinian ever refused to let a member of either of these orders preach in his church, or to say prayers over a corpse because of the difference of orders? Such a thing has never been heard of; so that we have unity, and Protestants have none, neither in doctrine, nor in worship; neither in essentials nor in non-essentials, themselves being judges.

If my hearers wish for a practical and convincing proof of Catholic uniformity of faith, they have only to enquire of the emigrants from the various countries of Europe, who have fled from the oppression of their rulers at home, to find free and happy homes amongst us here, and I promise them that however awkward their appearance, however broken their language, or uncouth their apparel, they will all answer the same on doctrinal points. America, Asia, Europe, Africa, New Holland, our faith is every where the same, like our God and our church. Who can make void the prayer of Christ for unity? Who can disturb the church's union? As well might he pretend to make the harmony of heaven to sleep. Is this union exemplified among Protestants? The very contrary is true. And why? Because the apple of discord is flung among them. The seeds of disorganization and

death were thickly sown in Protestantism from the birth. Sects multiply without end—their name is Legion. My friend was quite witty, about the 135 ponderous folios which, according to him, a Catholic must read to understand the doctrines of his church. But does he not perceive that a Protestant is infinitely worse off? For he must read languages in which the fathers of the.church have not written-Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic; as well as those in which the fathers did write, Greek, Latin, &c. before he can form a prudent judgment that he has acquired the elementary knowledge necessary to understand his rule of faith. He must read folios of commentators and learned dissertations on controverted texts. He must decide for himself what books of scripture are genuine and what apocryphal, or spurious. For this purpose he must explore the archives of the ancient churches, all the dusty tomes and ponderous folios of the ecclesiastical writers, to ascertain what books were regarded in their times as canonical, and what as uncanonical. And when he has, if ever, accomplished this herculean task, he will be no better off than when he began, for he can never rely on the testimony of those fathers, whom he considers just as liable to have been mistaken as himself! Thus he can never be sure that he possesses objective truth, or the revealed will of God: he can never be sure that he possesses subjective truth, that is, that he has a perfect knowledge of what that will is. Thus he can never be sure that his rule of faith is inspired, authoritative, perfect. I call on my learned friend to prove the contrary of this argument, if he can. And if he cannot, I have clearly established the contrary of his proposition, viz: that Protestants are not uniform in their faith, neither can they be. Now mark the difference on the Catholic side of the argument. We go for the Bible and tradition-the whole word of God, written and unwritten. We take the Bible and the church; the Bible and the testimony. This renders for us assurance doubly sure. We believe that Christ established a church on earth which he made the guardian of the divine deposite. From that church, that divinely appointed guardian we receive the heavenly gift. She vouches for its accuracy, and on her testimony we receive the Bible, as an inspired, authoritative, perpetual, Catholic, perfect, and, explained by her, intelligible volume. But as we know on the authority of St. John xviii. 21, 25, that the world itself could not, as he thought, contain all that Christ spoke, and he always spoke to instruct or edify-as we know that Peter" with many other words" not recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, convinced the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah-as we know moreover that St. Paul commanded the Thessalonians, 2d. Ep., 2d. ch., 14. v. to hold the traditions which they had learned, whether by the word, or his epistle; and ordered Timothy to hold the form of sound words which he had heard from him, in faith; we therefore place the word of God, so conveyed to us, by the side of Scripture, and in this, as I have just shewn, the Scripture itself is our guide. Our traditions do not, like those of the Pharisees whom Christ reproached, make the Scripture void. We believe nothing contrary to the Bible-nothing that the Bible does not clearly approve. The same God that revealed the Bible, established the church. They do not contradict, they mutually sustain each other. I did not say that the pope is inspired, that the council is inspired, or that the church is inspired; but I do say that the church, whether assembled in a general council, or diffused throughout the world, is as

certainly assisted by the Holy Ghost to teach all truth, as the evangelists and other writers of the Holy Scriptures were inspired by the same divine Spirit to WRITE the special truths which they were commissioned to reveal to particular churches, and on particular occasions. A Catholic is under no necessity of knowing every thing that has been ever said or done by the doctors and fathers of the church, before he can understand what are the articles of his faith. He knows that, in regard to doctrine they unanimously agree in receiving the Apostles' creed. Hence he is sure that, "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth" is an article of faith which none of these fathers contradict, and he has the same absolute certainty with regard to all the remaining articles, viz: I believe in Jesus Christ, in the Holy Ghost, the holy Catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins. So far for the doctrine; besides which articles he is in the habitual state of mind to believe implicitly whatever God has revealed and proposed by his church. Then for the natural and moral law he has an equally comprehensive epitome, viz: the Ten commandments of God; with respect to which he knows that there has never been the slightest difference of opinion.

Neither the pope, nor a general council, nor the whole church has now, or ever had, the power to change, or suppress an article of the creed, or a precept of the decalogue. Is there any thing vague in this? any thing indistinct? any thing unscriptural or antiscriptural?

My friend does not hear, or correctly state what I say. I did not say that the body ruled the head. It would be a contradiction in terms; because the body supposes a head and a heart, which every body ought to have. There must be no schism in the body. He has made some very eloquent observations on the impossibility of determining where the infallibility resides, whether in the head or in the body or both &c. in the pope, or in a general council, and argues that we may therefore as well have none at all. Now, let me illustrate this point. Has not my friend a mind and one too highly endowed by nature? Well, does he know where it resides? Is it in his head; or in his heart, or in his stomach? (a laugh) Does he know where to put his hand upon it? There are various theories upon this subject among scientific men. But who denies that he has a mind? I repeat, who denies the existence of mind? Does it affect this belief to say that we cannot tell whether it is here or there-in the body or around it? So it is with the heavenly mind that guides the church. Even if we did not know its exact place of residence, we could easily judge of its influence and guidance by its effects. But we do know where it evinces its presence, as I have more than once explained to the gentleman. What has Adrian's opinion to do with the question? It was but his personal, private opinion, and no article of faith. Whether this opinion was right, or wrong, all I said stands good. The witty conceit of my friend was a sophistry suggested by the pagan oracles, who could respond in such ambiguous terms, that it might be interpreted in favor of the oracle's foreknowledge according to the event; for instance a king going out to battle would be told, "You will destroy a great city;" but whether it was his own, or his enemies', depended on the issue. The idea is borrowed from Pagan craft.

[I am now admonished to dilate a little longer on the decision of the council of Constance with regard to the 'Cup.' I have frequently,

in my intercourse with persons not Catholic, heard this difficulty proposed; and I am glad of the opportunity, once for all, of explaining it. Why does the Roman Catholic church withhold the cup from the laity? In the early ages, the holy eucharist was communicated to the faithful under either species; often under both. When the eucharist was carried, as it was the practice of primitive christians to carry it with them in all their sojournings, by sea and land, as wine was exposed to sour in tropical climes, they consequently carried, on their travels, only the species of Bread. Did they believe that the virtue of the eucharist was thus destroyed? No. They knew with St. Paul that Jesus Christ, rising from the dead, dieth no more. Death shall no longer have dominion over him. They knew therefore that his flesh was living flesh, not dead and bloodless; and that, consequently, in the eucharist, under either species the flesh and blood are inseparably united.

What was the reason of the abolition of the practice? When the deacons distributed the consecrated elements to the faithful, there were many infirm, decrepit, and palsied communicants, from whose trembling hands, or lips, it was feared, as it had frequently occurred, the cup might fall, and thus might the holy elements be trodden under foot and profaned. A contrary usage was therefore instituted, and it has since prevailed. The dislike, indeed disgust, which many persons feel for wine, the unwillingness to drink from a chalice which had passed from mouth to mouth, &c. &c. are causes which, in all probability, prevent a change in the present disciplinary regulation, but the church could to morrow reestablish the abolished practice of giving the cup to the laity, if she please. She did so, since the Protestant reformation, in favor of the Bohemians.

The subject of oaths and perjuries was quoted. Any man in his sober senses must discern that my friend has mistaken the meaning of the pope. Examine the circumstances. He supposes the truth that the church neither can nor does require any thing contrary to justice and judgment, and truth, which, in all her standards, and in all her catechisms, she teaches as the essential conditions, for every lawful oath. Again, she every where teaches, with St. Paul, that an oath, contrary to conscience, is a sin.

The pope knew that the church could not-that God himself, who founded her as the pillar and ground of the truth, could not be pleased with sin, or served by a lie. Let me illustrate this matter and set it at rest for ever. An infidel, swears that he will write against the utility of the bible, deny its authenticity, undermine its evidences, cast it into the flames. Is his oath an act of religion? Is it not rather a perjury? Again-a man swears to take away the life of another man, justly or unjustly, he boots not. Is not his oath a perjury, rather than an oath, since it is manifestly against the utility of socie ty and, consequently, against the order of God? It is remarkable that the pope speaks too of an oath against the teaching of the fathers, "contra instituta patrum," than whose sermons against all grievous crimes, and in an especial manner, against perjury, nothing can be conceived more denunciatory, more truly terrific. Is it fair is it logical, to draw from the premises a conclusion so vituperative?

To force a shadow of uniformity, the thirty-nine articles were drawn up by the church of England, and the clergy of that church, by a cruel tyranny over conscience, compelled to swear to them. Many eminent

divines of that church have taught that the articles are not to be sworn to with unqualified assent, but that the mental reservation, as I understand them, is allowed: while the sovereign lord, or lordess, of church and state, and many no less eminent divines, have insisted that the articles must be sworn to with the most entire and unqualified submission. Is this, in my friend's estimation, the reverence due to the solemnity of an oath? or is it not taking the holy name in vain? Catholic priests in this country take no oath. I took none. The first oath I took was one of allegiance to the United States, abjuring all foreign potentates, &c., as the oath is couched. This oath I took in the hands of Judges John and Thomas Buchanan, in Frederick, Maryland. I also took an oath, several years afterwards, when consecrated a bishop, to testify my belief in a faithful adherence to the doctrines of my church. This was a further confirmation of the oath which I had previously taken. This is no immorality.

66

We are again referred to a change in the 'doctrine' of the church. "The second council of the Lateran," so says Mr. C. "forbade the marriage of the clergy, whereas nothing was more common in the first eight centuries than for priests to marry.' Now, in the first place, celibacy is no part of Catholic doctrine, at all. It is not an article of faith. The pope could, to-morrow, change that law, and allow the Roman Catholic clergy, as the Greek priests do, to marry. It is one of the bright features of our ministry, that the time and means, which the care, and support of a family would engross, are devoted by a priest to the advantage, spiritual and temporal, of his flock. Marriage is a good, wise, and noble institution. "Increase and multiply," is the command of God. But we hold that it is more perfect, or as St. Paul says, IT IS GOOD " for the "Priests of the Lamb" to abstain. God, for whose sake they make the sacrifice, will sustain them through temptation. Keep thyself chaste, says St. Paul to Timothy, 1st Ep. ch. v. 21. Again, St. John says: "And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of harpers harping on their harps, and they sung as it were a new canticle, before the throne, and before the four living creatures and the ancients; and no man could say the canticle, but those hundred and forty-four thousand, who were purchased from the earth. These are they who were not defiled with women: for they are virgins. These follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were purchased from among men, the first-fruits to God and to the Lamb: and in their mouth there was found no lie; for they are without spot before the throne of God." What does all this mean? Is it not evidently the highest eulogy that could be pronounced on the state to which their holy functions, as priests of the spotless Victim of our altars, daily summon the clergy of our church? I glory in this feature of our discipline. Death before dishonor to a virginal priesthood!

In the second place it is a wide mistake, to say that nothing was more common, for the first six hundred years, than for priests to marry. The general council of Nice enforced, by a special enactment, the celibacy of the clergy. This was the first general council of the Catholic church; and the practice, it enforced, was no innovation. The councils of Neo Cæsarea and Ancyra had, several years previously, made laws to this effect for priests and deacons. How was the circumstance introduced into the council of Nice? Several bishops, priests and deacons, had been married before their ordination. It