that the custom should be reasonable." Custom has a threefold state. In the beginning all those persons who introduce a custom contrary to law, sin. In process of time, those who follow a custom that has already been introduced by their ancestors, do not commit a sin in following the custom, but they can be punished for it by the prince. In fine, those who follow a custom after it has become a rule, neither sin, nor can they be punished for it." Id. ib. N. 107.

"THE TIME REQUIRED ACCORDING TO THE CANONS OF THE ROMISH CHURCH, FOR A CUSTOM TO BECOME A LAW. In order that custom should obtain the force and obligation of law, it is required,

"3dly," continues the saint," that it should continue a long time with repeated acts. In regard to the time that is sufficient to render a custom lawful, one opinion is, that it is to be left to the judgment of the prudent, according to the repetition of the acts, and the quality of the matter. The second opinion is, that ten years are required, and are sufficient; for this is the length of time required for the introducing and legalizing of a custom by the canonical law, unless it be in some place where the contrary is sanctioned." Id. ib. Lib. i. N. 107. [Synopsis, p. 183.

"Merchandizing, 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. 286. "He who makes use of the knavery and cunning," says the saint, "which is usually practised in gambling, and which has the sanction of custom, is not bound to restore what he wins, since both parties know that such tricks are customary, and consequently they consent to them." Id. ib. N. 882.

Gambling consecrated for priests and people by the law of custom : "We will now show, however, the canons to the contrary, notwithstanding, that all sorts of gambling are allowed. This we prove from Ligori's own concessions. He teaches as follows;-"The canons," says he "which forbid games of hazard do not appear to be received except inasmuch as the gambling is carried on with the danger of scandal. Be it known," continues he, "that the above mentioned canonical law is so much nullified by the contrary custom, that not only laymen, but even the clergy do not sin, if they play cards principally for the sake of recreation, and for a moderate sum of money." Id. ib. N. 883. [Synopsis, p. 235.

A new way of sanctifying the sabbath:

"BULL FIGHTS AND PLAYS ALLOWED. "On the entrance of a prince or nobleman into a city, it is lawful on a Sunday to prepare the drapery, arrange the theatre, &c., and to act a comedy, also to exhibit the bull-fights; the reason is, because such marks of joy are morally necessary for the public weal." Id. ib. N. 304. [Synopsis, p. 193.

The Roman Catholic rule of manners makes it even lawful to sin: "It is lawful," says Ligori, "to induce a person to commit a smaller sin, in order to avoid one that is greater." Id. N. 77. [Synopsis, p. 255.

"Let the confessor," says the saint, "enjoin upon those scrupulous, who are afraid of sin in every action, that they act freely, despise their scruples, and do contrary to what they dictate, where sin is not evident. [Synopsis, p. 173. This law licenses drunkenness :

"It is no sin to get drunk, by the advice of a physician, if one's health cannot otherwise be restored." Id. N. 76. [Synopsis, p. 254.

Hence drunkards may be acceptable communicants!

"It is lawful," says Ligori, "to administer the sacraments to drunkards, if they are in the probable danger of death, and had previously the intention of receiving them." Ligor. vi. N. 81. [Synopsis, p. 260.

Ignorance is the mother of devotion, even yet:

THE SINNER MUST BE LEFT IN IGNORANCE.-The doctrine is as follows: (I take it from the saint verbatim.) "If the penitent (says he,) is in inculpable ignorance, in regard to those things concerning which, it is possible to be invincibly ignorant, although this ignorance be of the law of God,' and the confessor prudently thinks that to admonish the penitent would not correct him, then, and in that case, the confessor must abstain from admonishing the penitent, and must leave him in his ignorance." Id. ib.

Heretics are still to be punished, not only by virtue of the general

council of Lateran, A. D. 1215, which says, "Let the secular powers be compelled, if necessary, to exterminate, to their utmost power, all heretics denoted by the church:" but according to the moral theology, as reported by the saint.

HERETICS TO BE PUNISHED." A bishop is bound," says Benedict XIV. "even in places where the tribunal of the holy inquisition is in force, sedulously and carefully to purge the diocese that is committed to his care, from heretics; and, if he find any of them, he ought to punish them according to the canons; he should however, be cautious, not to hinder the inquisitors of the faith from doing their duty." Ligor. Ep. Doc. Mor. p. 378. [Synopsis, p. 294.

From the influence of all these laws, why should it be thought strange that the clergy are exceedingly corrupt? Listen to the saint: How many relapsing sinners are involved in eternal ruin by following the directions of bad confessors! "The saint has told us, that, AMONG THE PRIESTS, WHO LIVE IN THE WORLD, IT IS RARE, AND VERY RARE, TO FIND ANY THAT ARE GOOD." [Synopsis, p. 180.

Yet according to these assumptions, under the sanction of Christ, all are bound to hear them on peril of damnation: for, "he that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me: and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me. So, to despise these priests, is to despise God!

Once more, from Ligori, and I shall have given almost a specimen of the immorality and impiety of the Roman Catholic rule of faith, on general points of religion and morality. There is no one subject on which we could be more copious than this one: but from respect to our audience we shall give but the remotest hint.

"A bishop, however poor he may be, cannot appropriate to himself pecuniary fines without the license of the apostolical see. But he ought to apply them to pious uses, which the council of Trent has laid upon non-resident clergymen, or upon those clergymen who keep nieces." Ligor. Ep. Doc. Mor. p. 444. [Synopsis, p. 294.

Now, if a priest should keep a niece, it is a very expiable and trifling offence; but should he marry a wife, he must be excommunicated forever! Thus the Roman Catholic rule of faith treats the Bible, and annuls, at pleasure, every law and institution of heaven! Have ĺ not, then, my respected auditors, fully proved the fallibility and immoral tendency of the doctrine and rule of faith, of the bishop's church -to say nothing of that system upon the clergy themselves, who expound and inculcate it?

One word, before I sit down, on the unanimous consent of the Greek and Latin fathers. I have said before, and I repeat it, if they agree on any two points, they are, in giving testimony to the scriptures, and that it is the duty of all to read them. So far they are all Protestant, and not Roman Catholic.-[Time expired.]

The extract from Chillingworth will be viewed by men of intelligence, as one of the strongest arguments advanced in this debate on the Catholic side of the question. And it may be as well to observe, that my friend has probably first seen it in the Catholic work, the Amicable Discussion, from which he has quoted. Chillingworth was distinguished as a controversialist. He had a public disputation, like the present, with some Jesuits, by whom he was not only defeated but converted to the Catholic faith. But yielding, like Gibbon, to the solicitation of friends, the importunities, the livings presented to him,

or to which he was presented, by Laud, archbishop of London, he recanted, and finally, as it is on good grounds asserted, he died a Jew. The only apology he could offer for his versatility was, that he found every one of these religions in the bible-it was the only resting place for the soles of his feet-that is to say, he trampled upon it, to subserve the purposes of base, worldly interest! But I have now, thank God, something more tangible to offer in the way of proof, that nothing can be conceived more inexcusably unfair, than the arguments employed against the Catholic religion. I now pledge myself to shew to every man of honor in this city, that the last allegation read by the gentleman, purporting to be from the works of Liguori, is not to be found in the works of that writer. It is all a base fabrication, I will not say of Mr. C.; but of somebody. I will meet this charge with a complete and an overwhelming refutation. We have now come to an important crisis in this debate. My worthy opponent reduced to the desperation of defeat, like a drowning man, is induced to grasp at anything and to resort to abuse. But this will not sustain him. He cannot now quote from Du Pin, or send his readers back to the dark ages, and draw a grossly exaggerated picture of the personal frailties of a few popes and then ask if there can be a drop of apostolic grace in the whole world. I have three editions of the complete works of Liguori, in my library, or in this city, to refer to; and in none of them can this vile doctrine be found. Mark, then, the proposition, my friends. It is this. That priests are allowed to keep mistresses, upon payment of a fine, but that, if they marry, they are excommunicated! I now call upon Charles Hammond, Esq. Judge Hall, General Harrison, Judge Este, Judge Wright, or any other five equally learned and honorable citizens of Cincinnati-for I only mentioned the first that came to my mind-to decide this issue of fact. I pronounce the whole charge a base, unfounded assertion, and I again thank Heaven, that I am in a city, where justice will be done to the truth, and where falsehood will be triumphantly defeated.

The volume from which the gentleman has been all day reading, is one of those books of abomination and falsehood; put forth, in the city of New York, by Smith, Slocum and Co. and it is a fair specimen of their fashion of circulating truth. Does it not furnish strong presumption to the reflecting mind, that there must be something divine in the religion which such men and women combine to abuse? It was the monster Nero, notorious for parricide and lust, who first drew the sword against the christian religion. Forget not then, I pray you, my friends, the proposition that is before us. I am determined not to slumber or sleep on this matter, but to probe it thoroughly and expose its rottenness to the world. Mr. CAMPBELL's allegation against the Catholic church, is that Liguori, a standard moralist in that church, teaches, that priests may keep concubines by paying a fine, but that if they marry, they must be excommunicated. Whereas I distinctly deny that Liguori has ever taught any thing so abominable, and that all who say so, are guilty of a most flagrant violation of the commandment of our God, which says "THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOR. ." Exod. xx. 16.

The charge of suppressing the 2nd commandment, while proof to the contrary, from the Catholic catechisms every where in use in the U. S. and from every Catholic bible in the world, was staring him in the face, may be placed along side of the foregoing! Add to these, the hardi

hood with which the plainest words of the Redeemer, the emphatic declaration of St. Paul, and the highest eulogy of the Apocalypse, on the superior sanctity of the unmarried state, have been violently tortured by my opponent, and a fair estimate may be made of the respect he entertains for the bible. Even his jests are but little help to his argument, for error was never genuinely witty. And when he affects to laugh at St. Paul. for his having been a bachelor, I shall content myself with replying, yes! St. Paul was a bachelor: but would he not have looked well, with seven little squealing children trotting after him, visiting the churches of Asia! The remark of St. Paul, "have I not a right to lead about a sister?" has reference to the practice then early introduced, of entrusting in some cases, the instruction of females, to persons of their own sex, and to the greater facilities afforded in this respect, to the apostles and preachers of christianity, to convey the knowledge of true religion to promiscuous society, whether Jewish or Pagan. I consider marriage a holy, nay, a divine institution. I respect the sanctity of the union, and pay a willing tribute of praise to the eminent virtue of persons engaged in that state; but I must reason and judge with Christ and St. Paul, that if, "he who marries does well, he who does not does better." A priest assumes the obligation of celibacy, at mature age, and voluntarily. God's grace is sufficient for him, as it was for St. Paul, and his virtuous struggles against the evil spirit, that dared to tempt even the Savior, in the desert, and Paul, who had been rapt up even to the third heaven, can make virtue perfect in infirmity, without the priest's being as foolish as the thief, who cut off his hands, to keep himself from stealing. I hope however that my opponent, or his auxiliary, Smith, will not be tempted to cut off his hands, for stealing from Liguori, what is better to any man than trashy gold, his good name. One word more. If marriage were as pleasing in the sight of God, as celibacy, why did God and St. Paul direct abstinence from marriage privileges as a preparation for seasons of greater devotion? According to my friend, should they not have commanded the contrary?

I pass, in the next place, to relics. The chair in which the signers of the declaration of Independence sat, the pen with which they wrote the glorious document, a bit of the wood of the tree overshadowing the grave of the illustrious Washington, are all treated with respect, and sought for with avidity: shall religious memorials alone be treated contemptuously? What says the scripture, Acts. xix. 11. And God wrought by the hand of Paul more than common miracles, so that even then were brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs, and aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out of them. "The woman, troubled twelve years, with an issue of blood, said within herself, "if I shall touch only his garment, I shall be healed," and she was healed; and Jesus turning and seeing her said: Be of good heart daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole." Even without faith or consciousness, there is a miraculous cure recorded in IV Kings xiii. 21.

"And Eliseus died and they buried him. And the Rovers from Moab came into the land, the same year. And some that were burying a man, saw the Rovers and cast the body into the sepulchre of Eliseus. And when he had touched the bones of Eliseus, the man came to life, and stood upon his feet." I have no doubt that these texts have never been read, or at least reflected on, by learned Protestants, like my friend, who ridicule Catholics in the pious simplicity of their souls, for venerating

dead men's bones. If the corpse of a prophet who had never seen Jesus Christ, could impart such a miraculous virtue, as to resuscitate the dead, why is it considered absurd to invoke the prayers of the living and beatified spirit that knew and loved, and watched over the Savior on earth, and that now reigns gloriously with him in heaven? If Eliseus was good, was not Mary good? If the prophet of the Savior had so much power, had the mother of the Savior none? Having now disposed of celibacy and relics, I resume the subject of con fession.

I shall now proceed to vindicate the scriptural origin, the moral tendency and the immense benefits conferred on society by the theory and practice of the sacrament of penance, as held in the Catholic church, from the weighty charges preferred against it by my opponent. On this subject the council of Trent, ch. vi. teaches: "the penance of a christian after his fall (from the grace of baptism) is very different from that of baptism, and consists, not only in REFRAINING FROM SINS, AND A DETESTATION OF THEM, namely, a contrite and humble heart, but also in a sacramental confession of them, at least in desire and at a proper time, and the priestly absolution; and, likewise, in satisfaction, by fasting, alms, prayers, and other pious exercises of a spiritual life; not, indeed, for the eternal punishment, which, together with the crime, is remitted in the sacrament, or by the desire of the sacrament, but for the temporal punishment, which the scripture teaches is not always wholly remitted as in baptism." Such is, and ever has been, the doctrine of the Catholic church, which thus ascribes the whole glory of man's justification To GOD, through Jesus Christ, our only Šavior. She teaches that God alone can forgive sin, and that without sincere sorrow, which induces us to detest sin more than all other evils together, the words of absolution would be a mockery; and this sorrow may be called contrition, or attrition, the name matters little; it must be true, interior, preter-natural, universal, sovereign; that is to say, it must come from the heart, and from a motive suggested by faith; it must extend to all sins without exception, and be accompanied by a sincere resolution to suffer every evil, even death itself, rather than offend God any more. This is the only idea of penance, as a sacrament, inculcated by the Catholic church, and from this, it appears, how horrid is the guilt of our calumniators, who, when they find us otherwise invulnerable, assail us with the poisonous shafts of slander and misrepresentation, pretending, while they know full well how sincerely we reprobate the doctrine they impute to us, that the pope grants licence to commit sin, and that priests forgive it for money! The power of the priests to absolve the contrite sinner, is based on the texts, John xx. Matthew xvi. where Christ gives the keys of heaven to Peter, and Ch. xviii. 13, when he declares to all the apostles, after breathing on them, and giving them the Holy Ghost, "Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." By these words we consider the priest vested with a judicial power by Jesus Christ, to bind or to loose from sin; and as this power cannot be exercised without a knowledge of the sinner's dispositions, especially as to his sorrow for past sins, and his sincere resolution to refrain from them in future, which knowledge none but the sinner himself can give, we conclude on the necessity of sacramental confession to the the priest, who holds the place of Christ in the spiritual tribunal.