but neither he nor his successors would accept it, lest by giving something pe culiar to one bishop only, they should take away the rights which belong to all the bishops.—That it belongs to the emperor to reduce by his authority him who despises the canons, and does injury to the universal church by assuming this singular name." B. 4. Ep. 32.

But at this time the patriarchs of Constantinople and Rome were contending for the supremacy, and while it appeared to Gregory that his rival of the east was likely to possess the title, he saw in it, every thing anti-christian and profane. When a new dynasty, however, ascended the throne and offered the title to a Roman bishop, it lost all its blasphemy and impiety, and we find the successor of Gregory can wear the title of universal patriarch when tendered him by Phocas, without the least scrupulosity.

It is then a fact worthy of.much consideration in this discussion, that John bishop of Constantinople first assumed the title of univer sal head of the whole christian church, and that the bishop of Rome did in that case oppose it as anti-scriptural and anti-christian.

Concerning the reputation of Saint Gregory I need not be profuse. Of the Gregories he is deservedly called the Great. Renowned in history as one who stamped his own image on the Roman world for a period of five hundred years, yet he could not brook the idea of a pope, especially when about to be bestowed on his rival at Constantinople.

St. Gregory, be it remembered, says Du Pin, did not only oppose the title in the case of John the Faster, as proud, heretical, blasphemous, &c. but could not agree to its being assumed by any other bishop; he affirmed that the bishops of Rome ought not, dare not, cannot assume this pompous and arrogant title.

Thus stood matters as respects a supreme head up to within 14 years of the close of the 6th century.-[Time expired.]

BISHOP PURCELL rises

Eleven o'clock A. M.

I thought it likely, my respected and beloved fellow citizens, that I should have to day a difficult task before me. But I perceive that I shall have an easy one. I expected from the reputation of my antagonist as a debater, that he was going to argue so closely, and to press me so hard, that he would, to use a common expression, make minced meat of me, and not leave one bone of me unbroken. I thought that my creed, so ancient, so venerable, so holy, was to be torn into tatters and scattered to the four winds of heaven-I was mistaken!

The gentleman occupied ten minutes of his time in endeavoring to bias the judgment of his hearers in favor of the idea, that this controversy originated not with himself, but that I was the aggressor, in doing which he was called to order. I will not trespass more than two or three minutes on your patience in answering his preliminary observations.

I am willing to let that matter rest on its own merits. As to the question of assailant and defender in this controversy, the public have the data, and it is for them to judge. My worthy opponent began the present debate by representing himself as the staunch defender of Protestantism, endeavoring thereby to enlist the sympathies of Protestants in his favor. And what, I would presume to inquire, are his principles? What are his claims, his pretensions, or his right to appear before this assembly as the defender of Protestantism? We are all

aware what sad pranks have been lately played off before high Hea ven by men styling themselves Protestants, which all classes of Protestants unite in deprecating, which they all condemn. I know nót whether there be not some Protestants here, who will not admit his gratuitous advocacy of their principles-who will not believe that the principles of Protestantism which he volunteers to defend will be fully or fairly represented by him. For one, I think the Episcopalians, a numerous and respectable class, will not consent to be represented by him; for he denies, if I am rightly informed, that there is properly any ministry in the Protestant church so called-that a divine call should precede the assumption of the sacred office. [Here the moderators interrupted, by requesting the speaker to confine himself to the question.]

Well we are so far even, [a laugh.] The gentleman, then, began by the assertion that the term Roman Catholic was an incongruity.But I deny it to be an incongruity. Terms, we all know, are used the more clearly to designate the idea or object which they represent. "Catholic" is the name of our church; and we only prefix the word Roman to signify that she is in communion with the see of Rome. We acknowledge there a primate of superior, ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and in his communion we do abide.

He says the word Roman-is incongruous; yet his own authority, Du Pin, says it was synonymous with Catholic. It was so understood formerly. And here I may observe that I deny the authority of Du Pin to be competent to the settlement of questions to be called up for decision in the course of the present controversy. Du Pin was a Jansenist, removed from his place of Regius Professor at the Sorbonne for his doctrinal errors, by Louis XIV. to whom Clement XI. addressed a brief on this occasion, commending his zeal for the truth. The claim of Rome was undisputed in the early ages, and it was only when her preeminence was contested that the term "Roman" was used before the word Catholic. Hence it was no incongruity, but a clearer designation of the see in whose communion were all the churches. He has stated an inaccuracy in saying that the word catholic was not found in the bible. Is not the epistle of St. James called catholic? And will he presume to say the word was not placed there in the very first age of Christianity?

The gentleman says he will use no words that may convey an opprobrious meaning. God forbid that I should set him the example. I shall debate this question with_earnestness, but not with passion. As soon as the discussion closes, I can meet the gentleman without a single unkind or unfriendly feeling.

But in enumerating various doctrines of the Catholic church, I was shocked to hear him use the language "some being called the mother of God." Great God! didst thou not send into the world thy Son, Jesus Christ, to save perishing man, and didst thou not select one of all the daughters of Eve, to be the mother of that child of benediction, and was not Mary this holy one, to whose care was committed his infancy, and to whom he was subject? Was she not the chosen one of heaven, to whom its archangel was sent with the communication-" Hail, full of Grace," or as it is in the Protestant version"thou that art highly favored-the Lord is with thee," and do we now hear her stigmatized in such language, and designated as "some being called the mother of God?"

The gentleman then contests the doctrine of a hierarchy in the church; and says what he asserts is proved by the scriptures. I would ask-has he read the bible? Has he read the book of Leviticus? Does he not find there the example set of a distinction of orders in religious affairs? Did not the Lord speak to Moses, saying,— "Take Aaron with his sons, their vestments and the oil of unction,' and he poured it on Aaron's head-he put also the mitre on his head And after he had offered his sons, he vested them with linen tunics and girded them with girdles," &c, &c. "And Nadab and Abiu were consumed with fire for opposing them, and they died before the Lord." Did not Moses lead? Did not Aaron assist? Were there not councillors appointed by the Lord, to divide the burden of their ministry? Did not king Josaphat send Zachariah and Nathaniel and Michael, and with them the Levites, Senneias, &c., to teach the people? Paralip. 17. 7. What is this but a distinction of orders and of authority in the Jewish dispensation?

We

He says there was no distinction of orders in the early christian church; and he refuted himself by appealing for a solution of the difficulty to St. Paul. Were there no orders, no hierarchy? What says St. Paul in 4th Ephesians? "And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors, and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; until we all meet unto the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ." must here remark a gradation of authority in the church of God. For what? For the work of the ministry. There never has existed a social body without subordination, or distinction of rank. The church of Christ is a social body. It needs to be subjected to order, even more than a political body; and as if St. Paul anticipated the objection, which we have, not without surprise, heard this day urged, he expressly states the object of the institution of a hierarchy by him, who ascending on high gave gifts to men, to be the perfecting of the saints the unity of faith. "Are all," he asks, (what my friend would make them) "prophets? Are all pastors?"-He elsewhere asks, "How can they preach unless they be sent ?" By whom? By an ecclesiastical superior. So much for the evidence of the Old Testament, and the New Testament, They both teach a head, a hierarchy and subordination among the people of God.

This takes me to the examination of the title, assumed by the Catholic church, of mother and mistress of all the churches. He says Jerusalem was the mother church at first-and then the Samaritan, and so on, I need not follow him. I will explain what we mean by the term. We call her mother because she guides, she cherishes us. We call her mother, because we feel a filial reverence for her just as an orphan calls her who protects her, educates her, and guides her wandering feet, by the same tender appellative. There is no blaspher my in this comparison. It is the Son of God that established the authority of that church. The name is its designation.

But the word 'mistress' is never used in speaking of the church, in the sense of lordship, or queenship. It is the way in which children address their teacher. They frequently use the expression, as we read in Cordery's Colloquies, "salve magister." Magistra here is addressed to her in her capacity of teacher, and such she is, and, as I

shall prove, by the appointment and the express institution of Jesus Christ.

He next referred to the Doway catechism to show from the definition of the Catholic church, that she consisted of four elements, viz. the pope, bishops, pastors, and laity.

Now the catechism of this diocese defines the Catholic church to be the congregation of all the faithful, professing the same faith, receiving the same sacraments, and united under one visible head, the pope, or vicar of Jesus Christ, on earth.

It is defined to be the congregation of all the faithful. This is the definition which most authors give. It is that of the catechism from which my friend has quoted.

But let us adopt his definition, and I am prepared to show that the idea of a supreme head has its origin in the bible, and is supported by the earliest ecclesiastical authority. I must here take notice of the promise he gave to put his finger on the precise day and date when the church called the Roman Catholic church, ceased to be the church of Christ. He has left us as much in the dark as ever on this most

important of all events. It is a point which has puzzled the world, and will for ever puzzle it, to fix that date. It will, I am sure, puzzle my friend. The whole world has never been able to state at what particular moment the Catholic church lost her prerogative and the favor of God-when she ceased to be in the true sense the Catholic Church. The reason of this is obvious. She has never forfeited her prerogative. But to the matter before us. It is opposed to scripture to assert that the church in apostolic days had no head. What did Christ say to Peter when he addressed him the mysterious question"Lovest thou me more than these"? Peter says he does love him. Jesus gives him the order, "feed my lambs." A second time he asks the question, and receives the same reply. The third time he repeats the same question. Peter, troubled that his Lord should doubt his affection, replies, "Oh Lord, thou knowest all things-thou knowest that I love thee," and Jesus repeated the command" feed my lambs" "feed my sheep."

Thus Christ establishes the headship of the church in Peter, and him he makes his vice-gerent, or common pastor, to feed both lambs and sheep-both clergy and laity.

Mr. Campbell quarrels with the doctrine of the pope's headship because it carries a power and an authority with it: and he quotes the New Testament to prove no such power to have been exercised in the days of the apostles. I have disproved his argument upon this point already. Christ did institute a body of leaders, a ministry to guide his people, "that henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive. But doing the truth in Christ, we may in all things grow up in him who is head, even Christ; from whom the whole body being compacted and fitly joined together, by what every part supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in charity." Must not the body have a head, the house a foundation? He objects that we call the Sovereign pontiff-Pope, or father, whereas Christ says, "call not any man Father." But is this prohibition of our Savior to be taken literally? Is there any guilt or impiety in calling a parent "Father?"

Many of Christ's commands are similar. Hé commands us to call no man good for God only is good. But do we not, in saluting_a friend in common life, say "Good Sir," "my good friend ?" &c. Is there any impiety in this? It is the using these terms in that sense in which they are peculiar to the divinity, which Christ forbids. And the pope when he corresponds with the bishops, does not assume these proud titles, but addresses them as an elder BROTHER. We do not call him " Lord God the Pope."

Mr. C. says, St. Paul did not lord it over the clergy. Neither does the pope. He is to govern the church according to the canons. He can make no articles of faith. He cannot, he does not act arbitrarily in proposing articles of belief unknown to Catholic antiquity. But neither will he suffer innovation. His language is like St. Paul's, "Were I or an angel from Heaven to preach to you any other gospel, than what has been preached, let him be Anathema!" This expressed the sense the great apostle entertained of his own responsibility, and the danger of novelty in religion. He would not suffer altar to be raised against altar, on the ground of private interpretation of the bible. He would not suffer the wolves of heresy and error to prowl around the fold, and tear, and scatter the sheep entrusted to him by Jesus Christ.

It would be horrid blasphemy to apply to man the title Father, in the sense in which it is addressed to God. We never call the pope in any sense God. When the pope writes to the bishops, he begins by "Dilecti Fratres" " BELOVED BRETHREN,"-a republican, and if you please democratic address. The bishops are all brethren under one common father. The pope is accused of letting himself be worshipped. This is not so. But when the Pope comes before the altar he bows down like the humblest of his people. "I confess," says he, "to Almighty God, to the blessed Virgin Mary, the holy Apostles, and to all the Saints," the least of whom he therefore acknowledges to be greater than himself, "that I have sinned;" and this is what is called setting himself up to be a God! See how you have been deceived by the invidious representations you have had of the pope, and of our doctrine, my friends.

I assert again that the authority quoted by my friend, Mr. C., viz. Du Pin, is no authority. He was the rank enemy of the Roman see, a Jansenist, reproved and censured by the Catholic church. Mr. C. knows this, for I have read to him the documents that prove it, and he was confounded by them. It is neither good faith, nor good logic, to quote him as an authority against my argument. As for the signatures appended to the English translation, I care not for them; they . may have been wrongfully placed there, or those certificates suborned. This makes nothing for the authority of the book, and no argument can be drawn from them. But, my friends, I am sure you discovered his discomfiture when he appealed to Du Pin. There was a stumbling block in his way, something he could not get over. Did you not notice how with the rapid speed of a rail-road car dashing suddenly on an obstruction, he fled the track, when he found to his astonishment that the testimony adduced by his author, was not unfavorable to the supremacy of St. Peter, and his successors! I will examine his writings to show that even in the third century, the bishops of Rome claimed this prerogative, and Du Pin tells you that this was acknowledged. He says there were three principal bishops.