was proposed to compel those who had not voluntarily returned to singleness of life, to separate from their wives. Paphnuicus, an unmarried bishop, in consequence of the abuse of the Manichæans, who considered marriage as coming from the evil principle, dissuaded the council from this course, and so the bishops agreed, for all past marriages. So generally, however, was the celibacy of the Greek clergy then established, that even Protestant historians-Mosheim, 1st vol. p. 65,-complain of the melancholy, morose and unsocial institution, in the second century. "The sensual man," says St. Paul, "perceiveth not the things that are of the Spirit of God, for it is foolishness to him." 1st Cor. ii. 14. But of the many curious things which my friend has said, most unwittingly, in my favor, in the course of this debate, the most curious of all is that he should have, himself, informed us, that for the first six hundred years, one half the canons were occupied with the regulation of the clergy as to this affair of celibacy!! And why, if the clergy were allowed to marry? Is not this, independently of the acts of these councils, which have reached us, irresistible proof of the care taken to obtain an unmarried, a pure clergy? This is not immorality.

Confession is not an immoral doctrine. It is a holy institution. This I shall prove in due course of time. I agree with the venerable bishop Trevern, the learned author of the "Amicable Discussion,” and of the "Answer to Faber's Difficulties of Romanism." Let my friend but study these pages with sincerity, and he, too, will become a Catholic. How different the doctrine of the Catholic bishop of Strasburgh, and of the Protestant bishop Onderdonk, of Philadelphia. The former shews clearly how the most humble Catholic can have a divine assurance for the truth of his religion; the latter, as I have myself heard him declare, in St. Paul's church, Philadelphia, in the year 1832, (and his pastoral charge has been since published, and it will prove what I here say,) teaches that not even the most learned Protestant can ever be positively sure that either himself or his church is right! And yet, St. Paul says, without faith it is impossible to please God. By faith, he of course means true faith-and yet the Protestant bishop says we never can be sure that we have that faith! What becomes now of the Protestant infallibility, for which my friend so strenuously argued to-day? The bishop's conclusion, on Protestant grounds, is more reasonable than Mr. C.'s. As long as two pious and able men, of different denominations, after all their efforts at truth, come to different and opposite conclusions upon essential matters, how can either say "I am right," and "my neighbor is wrong?" What, I am asked, is the course I would pursue with one who is not yet a christian, but anxious to be instructed in the evidences of christianity? Why, the course I would pursue is this: I would address his reason alone, as long as he has no better guide-convince him that the bible is, at least, authentic history-and that he can rely upon the truth of the facts recorded in it, as he would on human testimony. I would introduce him to Jesus Christ, whose character is there' portrayed, whose miracles are there recorded. I would tell him why he came on earth; how he founded a church to explain whatever was difficult in the bible, after having collected all its books together, what no man could do for himself; how he established that church as the pillar and ground of the truth, and said of its pastors, "He that heareth you, heareth me;" and when 1

had convinced him of the authority of the church, I would not require of him to abjure reason, but I would consign him to a higher and safer guide, that church, herself the immaculate bride of Christ.

Now my friend's allusion to the Jew, brings a story to my mind, and I cannot answer his queries better than by relating it. A Protestant and a Catholic clergyman walking together, met a Jewish Rabbi, "Well, Solomon," says the Protestant minister, "here we three are met, and all of different religions, which of us is right?" "I'll tell thee," says the Israelite, "If the Messiah has not come, I am right; if he has come, the Catholic is right; but whether he has come or not, you are wrong." (A laugh.)-[Time expires.]

I shall respond to such matters as have a bearing on the question, as soon as I have finished my exposition of the immoral tendency of the Romish rule of faith.

That common cursing or damning, which offends our ears in all the lanes and streets and highways, is authorized in the following words:

"To curse insensible creatures, such as the wind, the rain, the years, the days, fire, &c., is no blasphemy, unless the one who curses, expressly connects them in relation to God, by saying, for instance, cursed be the fire of God, the bread of God," &c. Ligor. Prax. Conf. N. 30.

Again: the Roman Catholic rule of faith sanctions a violation of the third commandment.

"To curse the living is a mortal sin, when it is formal; that is, (as Cajetan explains it,) when he who curses intends and wishes a grievous evil to befall the one he curses: but it is no mortal sin to curse the living, when the curse pronounced is merely material; that is, when it is pronounced without any evil intention. And why is it not a mortal sin?-because he who curses a living man does not always intend to curse the soul, or to despise its substance, in which, in an especial manner, the image of God shines forth, but he curses the man without considering, or reflecting about his soul, and therefore, in cursing him he does not commit a grievous sin." Id. ib. 29.

License is given to violate, in some way or other, every precept of the Decalogue. The Sabbath as a divine institution is thus set aside: "As to the obligation of hearing

the HOLY THING," (which is the popish epithet for attending mass,) "let the penitent be questioned in regard to whether he has omitted that HOLY THING?" (to attend mass.) "As to servile works, let him be asked how long he has worked? and what kind of work he did? for, according to the doctors generally, those who work two hours are excused from grievous sin; nay, other doctors allow more, especially if the labor be light, or if there be some more notable reason. Let him also be asked, why he labored; whether it was the custom of the place, or whether it was from necessity? Because poverty can excuse from sin in working on the Sabbath; as the poor are generally excused, who, if they do not labor on the Sabbath, cannot support themselves or their families; as they also are excused who sew upon the Sabbath, because they cannot do it on other days." Id. ib. N. 32, 33. [Synopsis, pp. 52, 53.

"Merchandising, and the selling of goods at auction on the Sundays, is, on account of its being the general custom, altogether lawful." "Buying and selling goods on the Lord's day and on festival days, are certainly forbidden by the canonical law-but where the contrary custom prevails, it is excusable." Id. ib. N. 293. [Synopsis, p. 192.

"He who performs any servile work on the Lord's day, or on a festival day, let him do penance three days on bread and water. If any one break the fasts prescribed by the church, let him do penance on bread and water twenty days."-[Synopsis, p. 115.

"The pope has the right and the power to decree, that the sanctification of the LORD'S DAY, shall only continue a few hours, and that servile works may be done on THAT DAY." Id. ib. [Synopsis, p. 188.

Custom, indeed, is fast becoming, as St. Ligori teaches, an excuse for any thing. The traditions of fathers, the canons of councils, the decrees of popes-all wear away by the attrition of custom. Hence, in a Roman Catholic population, pure and unmixed, there is a degree of grossness of immorality, that Romanists themselves could not endure in Protestant countries. Even the morals of New Orleans could not be endured in Cincinnati. There, it is custom to go to mass in the morning, to muster at noon, and to go to the theatre in the evening on the Lord's day. This is indeed, the custom, or something very like it, in all Roman Catholic countries.

On stealing, in general the casuist directs as follows:

"In respect to the seventh commandment," says the saint, "let the confessor ask the penitent if he has stolen any thing? and from whom, whether it was from one person, or from different persons? whether he was alone, or with others, and whether it was once or oftener? Because, if at each time he stole a considerable amount, at each time he sinned mortally. But on the contrary, if at each time he stole a small amount, then he did not sin grievously, unless the articles stolen came to a considerable amount; provided, however, that in the beginning, he had not the intention of stealing to a large amount; but when the amount already stolen has become considerable, although he did not sin grievously, yet he is bound under a grievous sin, to restitution; at least, as to the last portions that he stole by which the amount became considerable. It is to be observed, however, that a larger sum is required to constitute a heavy amount in small thefts, and more is required if the things are stolen from different persons, than if they were stolen from the same person; hence, it is said, that in small thefts, which are made at different times, double the sum is required to constitute what is to be considered a large amount. And if a considerable time intervene between the thefts, for instance, two months, then the theft probably does not amount to a grievous sin." Id. ib. N. 42. On stealing to pay masses:

"If the person is unknown," continues the saint, "from whom another has stolen, the penitent is obliged to restitution, either by having masses said, or by bestowing alms on the poor, or by making presents for pious places," by which the saint means churches, nunneries, &c.; "and if the person himself is poor, he can retain the amount stolen for the use of his family. But if the person on whom the theft has been committed, is known, to him the restitution is to be made; wherefore, it is wonderful, indeed, that there are to be found so many confessors so ignorant, that, although they know who the creditor is, enjoin upon the penitent, that, of the stolen goods, which they ought to restore, they bestow alms, or have masses said. It is to be observed, that if any one takes the property of another, or retains it, under the presumption, that if he were to ask it of the owner, he would willingly give it to him, he ought not to be obliged to make restitution." Id. ib. N. 44.

Thus we see theft can be made available to the behoof of priests in saying masses-what they ought to say, and by the old canons, are bound to say gratis.

On lying. There is a way of making lying no lying:

"Relatively to the ninth commandment, of popery the eighth, the saint proceeds as follows:-"In regard to the reparation of the character of a person, if the fault of which he has been accused, is false, he who defames him is bound to retract. But if the fault is true, the defamation that is given ought to be looked upon in the most favorable light that it can be without lying: let the penitent say, for example, [by way of excuse,] "I was deceived, I erred." Others also admit that he can equivocate, by saying, I lied, since every sin is a lie, as the scripture says. Again, by an equivocation, he may say 'I only made this up in my head,' since all words which proceed from the mind may be said to come from the head; since the head is taken for the mind." Id. ib. N. 46. Synopsis, p. 56.

The difference between insulting or dishonoring one's parents and a spiritual father, bishop or pastor:

"He who curses his parents, let him do penance, on bread and water, forty days. He who insults his parents, three years. If any one rebel against his bishop, pastor, and father, let him do penance in a monastery, during his whole life." [Synopsis. p. 116.

Rules given to confessors:

"The saint continues: "The confessor ought to be extremely cautious how he hears the confession of women, and he should particularly bear in mind what is said in the holy congregation of bishops, 21, Jan. 1610. Confessors should not, without necessity, hear the confessions of women after dusk, or before twilight." In regard to the prudence of a confessor, he ought, in general, rather to be rigid with young women in the confessional than bland; neither ought he to allow them to come to him before confession to converse with him; much less should he allow them to kiss his hands. It is also imprudent for the confessor to let his eyes wander after his female penitents, and to gaze upon them as they are retiring from confession. The confessor should never receive presents from his female penitents; and he should be particularly careful not to visit them at their houses, except in case of severe illness; nor should he visit them then, unless he be sent for. In this case he should be very cautious in what manner he hears their confessions; therefore the door should be left open, and he should sit in a place where he can be seen by others, and he should never fix his eyes upon the face of his penitent; especially if they be spiritual persons, in regard to whom, the danger of attraction is greater. The venerable father Sertorius Capotus says,that the devil, in order to unite spiritual persons together, always makes use of the pretext of virtue, that, being mutually affected by these virtues, the passion may pass from their virtues over to their persons. Hence, says St. Augustin, according to St. Thomas, confessors, in hearing the confessions of spiritual women, ought to be brief and rigid; neither are they the less to be guarded against on account of their being holy; for the more holy they are, the more they attract." And he adds, "that such persons are not aware that the devil does not, at first, lance his poisoned arrows, but those only which touch but lightly and thereby increase the affection. Hence it happens, that such persons do not conduct themselves as they did at first, like angels, but as if they were clothed with flesh. But, on the contrary, they mutually eye one another, and their minds are captivated with the soft and tender expressions which pass between them, and which still seem to them to proceed from the first fervors of their devotion: hence they soon begin to long for each other's company; and thus, he concludes, the spiritual devotion is converted into carnal. And, indeed, O, how many priests, who before were innocent, have, on acccant of these attractions, which began in the spirit, lost both God and their

soul!"" Id. ib. N. 119.

The saint proceeds: "Moreover, the confessor ought not to be so fond of hearing the confessions of women, as to be induced thereby to refuse to hear the confessions of men. O, how wretched it is to see so many confessors, who spend the greater part of the day in hearing the confessions of certain religious women, who are called Bizoças," (a kind of secular nuns,) "and when they afterwards see men or married women coming to confession to them, overwhelmed in the cares and troubles of life, and who can hardly spare time to leave their homes, or business, how wretched it is to see these confessors dismiss them, saying, I have something else to attend to: go to some other confessor" hence it happens, that, not finding any other confessor to whom to confess, they live during months and years without the sacraments, and without God!" Id. ib. N. 120. [Synopsis, p. 78.

The Romanist rule of faith both in word and deed places the Virgin Mary above Christ, in the religious homage of the church. "Nuns," says the saint, "ought to have a special devotion towards St. Joseph, towards their guardian angel, and their tutelary saint, and principally towards St. Michael, the universal patron of all the faithful, but above all towards the most holy Virgin Mary, who is called by the church our life and our hope; for it is morally impossible for a soul to advance much in perfection, without a particular and a certain tender devotion towards the most holy mother of God." Id. ib. N. 171.

"Our life and our hope!" These words are in Protestant faith and Bible propriety due to the Lord alone. We cannot have two lives; and two hopes; and if Mary is our life and hope, the Lord Jesus is not. I before alluded to this person under the Roman name of a being called "the mother of God;" which my opponent, as his manner is, served up rhetorically, as if to produce a sympathy in favor of the superstitious veneration of his party. He had not, however, a Roman Catholic audience. I meant no disrespect to any person. I know that the more intelligent Romanists discard the phrase as too gross and unauthorized. There is no being in the universe, say they, who ought to be called the mother of God. I had in my eye at the moment some wretched designs in some Roman churches, a scandal to any christian people: a sort of family group, in which there is the picture of a venerable old man, said to represent the Father of the universe-next an old woman, the image of the Virgin Mary, and between them the picture of the "holy child, Jesus." It has disgusted the more intelligent Romanists. This family of divinities is much more in the style of the Pantheon, or the poetry of Hesiod, than in the spirit, or letter, or taste of Christianity. While on this subject we shall hear the moral theology of the church on the use of images; and, first, of the use of the virgin Mary's image: "Let him, who is in the habit of blaspheming, be advised to make the sign of the cross [+] ten or fifteen times a day, upon the ground with his tongue: and thrice every morning, to say to the most blessed Virgin: O, my Lordess! give me patience.'" Id. ib. N. 16. Synopsis, pp. 44, 45.

"Daily to visit the most holy sacrament, and the image of the most holy Mary, to beg of them the grace of perseverance." Id. ib. N. 14.

"O my Lordess, give me patience!" Is not this idolatry? To beg of the image of the virgin the grace of perseverance!!! No wonder that these folks find it expedient to expunge the second commandment, which says, "Thou shalt not worship an image"-no, "Thou shalt not bow down to it." But we shall hear the directions given concerning the divine mother:

66

"The saint now proceeds to give instruction to the parish priest how to lead his flock in the way of "salvation." "Let him be watchful," says he," to render his flock studious in their devotion towards the Virgin Mary, by declaring to them how merciful this DIVINE MOTHER is in succoring those who are devout to her." Id. c. x. N. 216. Therefore," continues the saint, "let him intimate to them, that they daily recite, in common with their families, five decades of the Rosary; that they fast upon Saturday, and celebrate Novenas upon the festivals of our Lordess (nostrae Dominæ.) Lastly, and above all, let the parish priest intimate to his flock, that they become accustomed often to commend themselves to God, begging of him holy perseverance through the merits of Jesus Christ and of Mary. Id. ib.

"A certain image of the Redeemer," so says the saint, "once upon a certain occasion, spoke to the venerable brother Bernard of Corlion, who begged of the image to let him know whether it wished him to learn to read? and the crucifix answered, 'What will it avail thee to learn to read? What are books to thee? I am thy book,-this is enough for thee." Id. ib. N. 220.

Now, that this is the very kind of reading that papists, or at least, those who wish to be saints, are addicted to, let us turn to the great Bernard, and hear what he says on the subject of such books. This saint, speaking of the Romish churches, exclaims, "There is so great, and such an astonishing variety of different figures (images) presented on all sides, to the view, that the people prefer reading upon the marble stones, than reading in books, and to spend the whole day in wondering at these things, rather than in meditating upon the Law of God." Bernard, Apol. p. 992. The same saint says, "The bishops excite the devotion of a carnal minded people by corporal ornaments, because they cannot do it by spiritual." Id. ib. The saint does not mean that their devotion is ex