every atrocity has left deep and lasting ravages on the face of the moral world. Their zeal to extend the jurisdiction of the court of Rome over every civil government, gave currency to tenets respecting the duty of opposing princes who were hostile to the Catholic faith, which shook the basis of all political allegiance, and loosened the obligations of every human law. Their indefatigable industry, and countless artifices in resisting the progress of the reformed religion, perpetuated the most pernicious errors of popery, and postponed the triumph of tolerant and christian principles. Whence, then, it may well be asked, whence the recent restoration? What long-latent proof has been discovered of the excellence, or even the expedience, of such an institution? The sentence of their abolition was passed by the senates and monarchs, and statesmen, and divines, of all religions, and of almost every civilized country in the world.

Almost every land has been stained and torn by their crimes: and almost every land bears on its public record the most solemn protests against their existence. The evils of Jesuitism arise not from the violation of the principles of the order; on the contrary, they are the natural and necessary fruits of the system; they are confined to no age, place, or person; they follow like the tail of the comet, the same disastrous course with the luminary itself; and, in consequence, not this or that nation, but humanity, is startled at the re-appearance of this common enemy of man." [Encyclopædia of Religious Knowledge, p. 685. Remember, my friends, that one of the cardinal principles of Jesuitism is, that "the end justifies the means." This maxim justifies every crime in our criminal code! if the cause of the Roman church can be thereby promoted.

The gentleman asked "Why has this order been so often restored, if it be not good?" I answer, For the same reason that the Inquisition has been restored, and by the same persons too. Whenever the power of the papacy and the state of the community would tolerate it, it has been revived; and I presume so long as the papacy lives, it will, being infallible, pursue the same course. Does the restoration of the Inquisition prove it to be good?

The gentleman would trace to the hatred of Christianity, the opposition of Voltaire and other sceptics in France, to the order of the Jesuits. This is a non causa. The infidels hated the Jesuits, not for Christ's sake, for no one could hate them on that account: but because they supported the political despotism of this pretended vicar of Rome. This was the true reason of that mortal hatred of the Jesuits by all the republicanism of France, and throughout the world.

The bishop has confessed that he would have the legislative, judicial, and executive powers in the same hands, and quotes Deuteronomy xvii. to prove that it is right, even now. What an admirer of American institutions! Certainly, he has forgotten himself: and the Jewish institution too! It was a theocracy. God himself was lawgiver the priests kept and expounded the law-the judges and kings executed it. Where, then, were all these powers accumulated in one and the same dynasty! It is a mistake of the case, as well as of the nature of the government. The very elements of a just and pure government will be found in separating these powers; the very essence of a despotism in uniting them in one and the same person.

The gentleman, I am glad to observe, understands my discovery of the elements of all tyranny in the supreme judge of controversy, or, councils of the Roman church. But he fails in vindicating it. The council is "the church representative;" consequently, it is the church judging for herself against the heretics or reformers. She is always a party in the case of which she is judge. Most controversies are on points affecting the priesthood. All disputes, more or less affect the standing or temporal interest of the clergy. Now the councils are

composed only of clergy. Is it not then the clergy judging in their own case? And such is the model of a Roman Catholic Republic! Will the bishop please

A word or two more on transubstantiation. inform us whether the bread and wine are transubstantiated into the natural body of Christ, or into his glorified body? If into the natural body, in which he said "this is my body," "this is my blood;" of what profit to eat it? and how dare christians to eat it, according to the decrees of the apostles? and if it be his glorified body, how can there be flesh and blood in it? for flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven!

The allusions of my opponent to the Episcopalians and Unitarians, in vindication of his gross interpretations of the eucharistal words, is unworthy of a serious reply. Besides, their opinions are not the subject of controversy here. It is transubstantiation, and not consubstantiation, or any other theory of the presence of the Lord in this ordinance, which I assert, and which he is bound to defend, if he can. The Episcopalians would abhor the comments and interpretations which the bishop dares append to their words. He treats them as he treated Luther!

One of the most unfortunate references I recollect to have heard in debate, was that of the bishop to the unbelief of Thomas. The Savior's answer to Thomas fully expresses his sophistry on transubstantiation for Jesus said, "reach hither thy finger,"" handle me""thrust thy hand into my side." So we reason: "Take this loaf into your hands, feel it, taste it, smell it,-Is it flesh, or is it bread? Test it by your senses. Believe not, contrary to your senses. Jesus made his appeal to the senses. So do we. Why has my opponent quoted this passage? Is he turning Protestant?

I wish the Roman Catholics would hear Paul in this case. He has positively said, that it is bread that is eaten in the act of celebrating the supper. "As often," says he, "as you eat this bread, and drink this cup, you do show forth the Lord's death till he come." To "drink a cup" is certainly a figure as much as "this is my body;" and goes to show that words are not to be taken literally in this passage. If then, Jesus called it the fruit of the vine, after consecration, and Paul, the bread and the cup, in the very act of communicating, I ask, What foundation is there for the miracle of the mass?!

My learned opponent tells you a story about a mouse. It may, indeed, have a good argument in it; but I do not use such arguments, on so grave a subject. He did it, he said, to anticipate me. He did not however anticipate me: for I had no intention of telling such a story, or any other of the same type. I think it would be more apposite for him to show how a person can believe against his five senses, that a priest can, by a few words create the body, soul and divinity of the Son of God out of a little "paste," than to relate such mouse stories, how true soever they may be. Surely, before they kneel down and adore a wafer, they ought to be fully assured that the priest has converted it into a divinity!

I must return to my last proposition. This concerns him and his party more, than any other one of the seven. We will soon be able to judge, whether he is determined to evade or canvass it. I would emphatically tell him, the community expect him to discuss this subject above all others. They are much excited and interested on this

point. Many who have no antipathy against Roman Catholics have some fears of them. I belong to that class. I have no antipathy: but I have my fears. I do honestly think, (and I avow it here, that I may give my ingenious opponent an opportunity to remove the impression if he can.) I say, I do sincerely believe and think, that Roman Catholicism, in any country is detrimental to its interests and prosperity: and in a republic, directly and positively tending every moment to its subversion. Such is my conviction. I avow it, that if possible, it may be removed. I always distinguish between a system and those who profess it,-between a creed, and the people. And therefore I war against principles and not men. I am not singular in these sentiments. They are possessed by a large portion of the most intelligent of this community. I have, indeed, been asked, perhaps, a hundred times, since October last, in different places, and by different persons, of all religious parties and by persons of no sect: Are you not afraid to meet the Catholics in debate ?"-Afraid of what?" Of your life -of being killed," was the reply. "Are you not afraid that they will lay violent hands on you?" No; was my answer. I met the infidel Owen and feared nothing; and certainly I have no more to fear from "the Mother and Mistress of all christians" than from infidels !

It gives me pleasure to say, that there are some Roman Catholics, to whom I could trust my life and my all as confidently, as to any Protestant. To such men, as Fenelon, as Paschal, as Rollin, as Du Pin, as St. Pierre, as Thomas à Kempis, I could commit my life, as freely and as cheerfully as to any Protestants. In such cases the man rises above the system. I state this fact to interest my opponent in discussing my seventh proposition; and to assure him that it will give me pleasure, and I have no doubt the whole community, to learn that all such fears are perfectly groundless; and to see that he is able satisfactorily to remove them. Let the public mind be disabused: for as present advised, Protestants generally think that civil liberty and the papacy are wholly incompatible with each other: and that the introduction of large numbers of Roman Catholics into this community, would inevitably subvert this government; and place us under a spiritual and political despotism, intolerant and cruel as those, which the see of Rome has established in every country on earth, where she has obtained a majority.

Let the gentleman, then, turn his attention to this subject, and improve the opportunity in wiping from his escutcheons those foul stains that have associated with the name Roman Catholic every thing that is intolerant, inhuman and tyrannical. Let him show us here in what manner the decrees of councils, the bulls of popes, the oaths of the clergy, and the infallibility of the church are to be disposed of, if we could promise ourselves that the prevalence of his party in this country would not be an end of all those free and equitable institutions, which have made these United States the wonder and the admiration of the world.

Is it of the essence of this superstition to root out and destroy every antagonist principle, tenet, and party; or is it merely accidental, that Rome can endure no living rival? Has not the Roman see even when a foreign empire always sought to be above all gods or magistrates: and does it not now bind every bishop on earth under the most heart searching and conscience binding oaths and anathemas, to defend and

keep the Roman papacy, and the royalties of St. Peter, saving his own order against all men? Is not my opponent thus sworn? Has he not bound himself as he shall answer to God in the great day, by the most solemn imprecations to preserve, defend, increase and advance the authority of his lord the pope, and his successors canonically coming in ?—He has so sworn-just as certainly, as he has sworn "to persecute and oppose all heretics and schismatics," as we read from an oath which he has not yet had the courage to deny. It is, indeed, a part of the same oath.

It will require the ingenuity of a Jesuit to show how these duties to the pope can consist with the obligations of the oath of naturalization, or the duties which a citizen of this country owes to its government. But before I comment further on the oath, we will hear it to the end:

"I will come to a council when I am called, unless I be hindered by a canonical impediment. I will by myself in person visit the threshold of the apostles every three years; and give an account to our Lord and his aforesaid successors of all my pastoral office, and of all things any wise belonging to the state of my church, to the discipline of my clergy and people, and lastly to the salvation of souls committed to my trust; and will diligently execute the apostolic commands. And if I be detained by a lawful impediment, I will perform all things aforesaid by a certain messenger hereto specially empowered, a member of my chapter, or some other ecclesiastical dignity, or else having a parsonage; or in default of these, by a priest of the diocese; or in default of one of the clergy, [of the diocese] by some other secular or regular priest of approved integrity and religion, fully instructed in all things above mentioned. And such impediment I will make out by lawful proofs to be transmitted by the aforesaid messenger to the cardinal proponent of the holy Roman church in the congregation of the sacred council. The possessions belonging to my table, I will neither sell, nor give away, nor mortgage, nor grant anew in fee, nor any wise alienate, no, not even with the consent of the chapter of my church, without consulting the Roman Pontiff. And if I shall make any alienation, I will thereby incur the penalties contained in a certain constitution put forth about this matter. So help me God and these holy Gospels of God." Pontif. Rom. Antwerp. Anno 1626-pp. 59, 86. [Time expired.]

BISHOP PURCELL rises

Half past 3 o'clock, P. M.

Mr. Campbell begs me to follow him. I am following him; but the truth is that my learned friend runs away so fast from his own reason, that it is not surprising if he gets ahead of mine. My friends, I promise to satisfy you on the vital question of civil liberty. He will not be able to draw me off from my argument. He is a foreigner, an Irishman, as well as I, and I am sorry to see, that while he breathes, he would infect, the atmosphere of freedom. We are both indebted to America for the liberty which we enjoy, which he as a dissenter, and I, as a Catholic, would not have enjoyed under the Protestant Government of Great Britain, in our native land. For myself, I am an adopted American citizen, having renounced, by oath, all foreign allegiance. It is my only desire to live and act as an American freeman should, and escape the charge which rests on foreigners like my worthy opponent, and those Scotch fanatics in New York, who volunteer to teach Americans how to understand their own constitution. These, and their like, are the men who cause all the excitement about religion. They, and not the Catholics, are the real mischief makers. This, I say, more in sorrow than in anger, and exclusively with the view of doing justice to the truth. Let us appreciate the blessings we here enjoy, and not withhold, or mar them. We have not here imbibed the spirit of controversy, which may be called

the spirit of the world, but the spirit of charity, which is the spirit of God. The former is predicated for another meridian.

66

I will now finish my arguments on the real presence. St. Paul, speaking of the dispositions with which the Eucharist was to be received, seals the proof deduced from the words of the institution and the promise. His words are these: "When you come therefore together into one place, it is not now to eat the Lord's supper." The apostle condemns their partaking of this, as of ordinary food. "What," says he, have you not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God; and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord, that which also, I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. And giving thanks, broke, and said: 'Take ye and eat; this is my body which shall be delivered for you; this do for a commemoration of me.' In like manner, also, the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the New Testament in my blood; this do ye as often as you shall drink it, for the commemoration of me.' For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body, and blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, not discerning the body of the Lord." 1st. Ep. Cor. ch. xi. Here the most virtuous and pious dispositions under the dread penalty, of receiving the body and blood of the Lord unworthily, and thus incorporating, and making our condemnation a portion of our flesh and blood and being, are required of the Catholic communicant, and yet my worthy opponent quotes this sanctifying doctrine among the immoralities of the Catholic church!

6

But my friend objects to transubstantiation. Then let him differ from Luther and the Episcopalians, for the real presence, without transubstantiation, which they teach, is a greater difficulty. If the bible be our guide, let us adhere to it. What was the first miracle which our Savior wrought? Was it not the changing of water into wine? transubstantiation? My friend says that he has never read on this subject, nor studied it. I do not wonder that he says it is so absurd, if he never gave it serious consideration. (MR. CAMPBELL here explained that he had said that he had never read a controversial treatise on the subject, but affirmed that he had reflected on it, and studied it.) Not only the first miracle, but every thing in nature confirms the doctrine. The bread and meat that my friend ate, a week ago, is, this day, flesh and blood and bone of his body. So of trees, the juices they draw from the soil, are converted into branches and verdure. Nature, in fact, is replete with evidences illustrative of the possibility of transubstantiation. If you wish for a human testimony, interrogate christian antiquity. St. Ignatius, the disciple of the apostles, in his Epistle to the church of Smyrna, speaking of heretics, says, "They do not admit of Eucharists and oblations, because they do not believe the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior, Jesus Christ, who suffered for our sins."

Origen says;

"Manna was formerly given, as a figure; but now