age than this, was not afraid of Catholics. They stood by his side in the battles for freedom. They never flinched, even at the cannon's mouth. When he drew his sword for this republic, they followed its beaming to victory or to death. La Fayette, and hosts of others, whose chaplains had said mass for them in the morning before the engagement, bled or conquered in the trenches of liberty. And never was greeting more cordial, or triumph more glorious, than theirs, when they mingled their salutations and tears with those of their American companions in arms, at the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, in York-Town. Witness, too, those noble poles, (Kosciusko! may his shade rise up, and rebuke this spirit of intolerance!) the Irish, the South Americans, all fighting for liberty, all Catholics. Look at William Tell, a Roman Catholic. Go to Venice, for five hundred years a republic, though surrounded by absolute governments. Look at the little republic of San Marino, of which John Adams has related the remarkable history. There is not such a people for liberty, on the globe, as the Roman Catholics. Look nearer home, at Maryland, where the CATHOLICS WERE THE FIRST THAT PROCLAIMED FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE!! LET THIS BE OUR ANSWER TO A THOUSAND SLANDERS.

I come now to the oath of bishops. I have taken the oath of allegiance to the United States. It was the first I ever took. So have all my brethren in the episcopacy taken it. The head of the Catholic church in the United States, is an American; so is a large number of our clergy. The rest preferred this country, believing there was here, what their own country denies, what our constitution guarantees, lib erty of conscience. The oath that the bishops take, is not a recognition of any temporal power of the pope, out of his own territory, called the States of the Church, in Italy. We would never take the oath in the odious sense, which my opponent would force upon it. This solemn and authentic abjuration should, alone, be sufficient to settle this account; for I surely know what I swear to, and that what I here state will be seen and read by those, whom no human fear could deter from denouncing me for error, if I could be guilty of any, on a point with which I ought to be so well informed. The arms of our warfare are not carnal, but spiritual. He that takes the sword, we believe with Jesus Christ, will die by the sword. Hence, we assume no obligations by that oath, but such as God imposes; and those to be discharged in his own divine spirit of meekness, charity, and good will. It is cruel to impute to us crimes, and to insist that we hold doctrines, which we disavow. Suppose I were so base, as to suborn two or three wicked men, to calumniate my friend Mr. Campbell, and to pretend that he was in active correspondence, for treasonable purposes, with some foreign king, ought my opponent to be condemned unheard? And, in the absence of proof, should we, in spite of all his protestations to the contrary, condemn him on suspicion? And, if any family had their reputation blasted by some base miscreant, ought this to destroy their estimation in society, where his baseness is known? All the ministers in the world may exert their talents and influence, to preserve and promote peace and love among mankind; but as long as differences in religion are suffered to create jealousy, distrust, and hatred between brethren; and certain men make it their trade, to go from town to town, for the express purpose of fanning these embers

of discord, fomenting this hatred; so long will the purest and best men continue to be the victims of the malevolent, and our religion, and our constitution, prove to be no more than the idlest day-dream. All the kings and states of Europe, Protestant and Catholic, know that the bishops take that oath, and yet, in none of them is a bishop looked upon with distrust. In Prussia, Sweden, Denmark, England, the government never molests a bishop about an oath, which is known to contain nothing at which the most captious statesman could justly take exception. Is not this sufficient proof, that there is in that oath nothing of what my friend attributes to it. I assure him, Catholic bishops are not the enemies that this republic needs to fear.

Every argument my friend employs against the Eucharist, only proves him an inconsistent reasoner, or a deist, as far as the argument goes. The paschal lamb was a figure of the eucharist, and the figure was surely nobler than the reality, if we have nothing better than a bit of bread in the eucharist. But the apostle tells us that the weak and beggarly elements of the Jewish rites, were to obtain their glorious fulfilment in the land of grace-and only in the Catholic church is this verified. We eat the paschal lamb sprinkled with, or in other words, veiled beneath the appearance of bread; and every objection urged against the real presence is equally strong, or weak against the incarnation. Can this paste, says Mr. C. be God? I answer by another question: can this informal embryo.in a virgin's womb be God? We come now to Scotus. The gentleman says he heard or saw him quoted by the Catholics. He says many people quote Zoroaster and Confucius without knowing any thing about them. There is no parallel between them. If a man quotes, as evidence, a writer, like Scotus, he ought to know who he was. I do not blame him for knowing nothing of Chinese theology.. But of Christian theology, it is a shame for a man, who pretends to be, liimself, a teacher in Israel, and a polemic, who challenges. Catholic bishops, to be so grossly ignorant.

My friend says we bow to the pope. In England, Protestants bow to the foot-stool of the throne. I bow to any friend I meet-I do not pay him, nor the pope divine honor. We know the meaning of our own bows, and words, and oaths, and would not pledge them insincerely, much less blasphemously. No wonder that the pope let himself be persuaded to do good, in the case cited by my friend. Should he have preferred a contrary course? Have done evil?

Temporal power is inferior to spiritual power, as human power is inferior to divine; just as heaven is superior to earth, in dignity and value, and God superior to creatures, in every divine excellence, but not in the sense that he who has been invested with spiritual power by God, has also been invested by him, in a kingdom which is not of this world, with temporal power. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest scholar of the 13th century, and eminent scholar in the dark ages, read his works, with those of a Kempis, for proofs of Catholic piety, instead of garbled extracts from forgeries, and the works of apostates, whom we discarded from our communion for immoralities, which no Protestant communion would tolerate. They breathe the spirit of devotion, the spirit of God.

My friends, Mr. Kinmont will now tell you whether the pretended quotation of Mr. Smith from Liguori, is correct. You will recollect that Mr. Smith said, that, according to Liguori, the Catholic church

allows priests to keep concubines upon a fine. Upon hearing this I at once said that the charge was an infamous falsehood; and I will now show that Liguori said no such thing; that Liguori says the contrary. If I tell a falsehood Mr. Kinmont will confound me; if I do not, somebody does. Thus truth will triumph and falsehood be confounded.

MR. KINMONT. I am called on in my professional character simply, and have no part or lot in this debate, (Mr. K. is understood to be a Swedenborgian) I sincerely believe they are disputing about shadows, and that both parties are equally in the wrong; but I will do what I can to assist in clearing up the difficulty of fact. I find it stated in Samuel Smith's work and marked as a quotation from Liguori under the article headed "concubines of clergy."

CONCUBINES OF THE CLERGY.-" 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. Much less can he apply those fines to any thing else but pious uses, which the Council of Trent has laid upon non-resident clergymen, or upon those clergymen who keep concubines."-Ligor. Ep. Doc. Mor. p. 444.

And the following is Smith's commentary.

How shameful a thing, that the Apostolical See, as they call it, that is, that the pope of Rome, should enrich his coffers by the fines which he receives from the profligacy of his Clergy! If they keep concubines, they must pay a fine for it; but if they marry, they must be excommunicated! This accounts, at once, for the custom in Spain, and other countries, and especially on the island of Cuba, and in South America; where almost every priest has concubines, who are known by the name of nieces. These abandoned men are willing to pay the fine rather than forego the gratification of their lustful appetites. The "NARRATIVE OF ROSAMOND," who. was once herself one of these concubines, in the island of Cuba, portrays the general licentiousness of the popish clergy, in colors so shocking, that the picture cannot be looked at without a blush. Here we see the doctrine fully exemplified by practice. This keeping of concubines, is a thing so common in the popish West India islands, and in South America, that it is rarely noticed. The offspring of this priestly intercourse are numerous. They are known to be the children of the priests; but, because it is the general custom, it is lawful; and it passes off merely with a joke or sarcasm.

This is the text and commentary as I find it in Mr. Smith's book. This is marked as Liguori, p. 444. If taken from Liguori at all, it is taken from a different edition. The present purports to be a complete copy of the works of Liguori. It bears no mark of being an expurgated edition. It is said to be an edition of what was said and written before with additions. On turning to the place where he treats of fines and punishments inflicted for concubinage, he says that priests guilty of this offence, were, after two ineffectual reprimands, to be degraded from their functions. He refers to the council of Trent, and states what that council decreed, Smith throws us on Liguori, and Liguori on the council of Trent. There is nothing in Liguori relating to that subject but this. The council was called about the year 1542. This edition of the decrees of the council was edited by the council itself. I have had an abstract taken which I will read. It would take some time to read the original, and I have a translation made by one of my scholars. I will read this.

In the records of the decrees of the council of Trent, Session 25th, chap. 14h there is described the method of proceeding in the cases of clergy, who are guilty of concubinage.

After shewing the scandal and enormity of this sin, especially in clergy, whose integrity of life, should recommend and impress the precepts of religion and of

the church; the sacred synod forbids that any individual holding the clerical office shall keep at his house or elsewhere, any mistress or unchaste woman or cohabit with any such, under the penalty of having enforced against him the sacred canons, and ecclesiastical statutes regarding that matter. It is, then, especially enacted that if when admonished by their superiors they shall not desist from all such unlawful and forbidden acts, they shall be deprived of the third part of all their revenues and ecclesiastical dues: and if still persevering in their course, they shall not even heed a second admonition, they shall be deprived of all their ecclesiastical revenue, and suspended from the administration of ecclesiastical functions; and if, during this suspension, they shall continue obstinate and incorrigible, they shall be declared altogether unfit and incompetent to exercise any spiritual office whatever belonging to the church; unless after a clear and unequivocal amendment of life, the church should think proper to withdraw the disqualification, and allow them to resume their former station of honor and trust. But if after the resumption of the duties of their office, they should resort to those impure practices which they had abandoned, besides the infliction of the above named penalties, an act of excommunication with its sword of justice shall cut them off, as dead branches from the body of the faithful and church of the living God. And it is farther enacted that no appeal, or exemption shall hinder the execution of any of these decrees, but that they shall be summarily executed, at the will of the bishop, after he has ascertained the existence of the enormities. A similar provision in its effects and spirit is made with relation to bishops themselves, but the order of proceeding is different." This is in substance the provision of the decree of the council of Trent. Sess 25, cap. 14. [Time expired.]

SATURDAY, January 24th, Half-past 9 o'clock, A. M. MR. CAMPBELL rises

Under any other circumstances than the present, I should have insisted on being allowed the same number of minutes over my stipulated hour, which my friend has taken with Mr. Kinmont's exposition, over his usual time.

BISHOP PURCELL.-I have no objection to MR. CAMPBELL's occupying that much more time. It is right that he should.

MR. CAMPBELL. I feel obliged to the gentleman for his courtesy, and will therefore proceed. My friends, you will doubtless have observed, that of all the extracts read from Ligori, found on the pages of Smith, but one was challenged by the Bishop, on the ground that it is not found in the page of St. Ligori in the edition now before us. The case is simply this. According to the moral theology of the church of Rome, marriage is a greater sin than concubinage: for, if a priest marry, he is forthwith excommunicated; but if he keep a concubine he only pays a fine. This is the statement that Mr. Smith makes. and translates the passage in Ligori as follows:

"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. Much less can he apply those fines to any thing else but pious uses, which the council of Trent has laid upon non-resident clergymen, or upon those clergymen who keep concubines." Ligor. Ep. Doc. Mor. p. 444.

Now, Bishop PURCELL denies that there is such a passage in Ligori, or that there is in the council of Trent any such arrangement; and in proof of it, he has brought us an edition of St. Ligori, and the decrees of the council of Trent. But the edition which he has produced, has not, upon the page referred to, the passage quoted. In the passage quoted, the reference to Ligori is to a decree of Trent. But

there are always two ways of quoting a passage: the one verbatim ; and the other, substantially. Whether Ligori quotes the decree of Trent literally, or only quotes the substance, we cannot affirm. The bishop referred this matter to Mr. Kinmont, without consulting me. It was an exparte reference; and therefore, comes not fairly before us. Although I have no objection to Mr. Kinmont; but on the contrary, I think him very competent to decide a matter of this kind, if he had time to examine all these volumes: and perhaps, had I been consulted, I should have agreed in selecting him: yet as the reference is wholly one sided; it can have no authority here. However, so far as the decrees of Trent have been read, they do speak of fines or forfeitures of those who have concubines, and these do substantially sustain all that I have alleged.

46

I have this morning received a paper of Mr. Smith's, in which I find an article" on the authority of Ligori," which I will now read. Alphonsus de Ligori was canonized by Pope Pius VII. on the 15th of September, A. D. 1815, under the title of the Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord Alphonsus de Ligorio. He has written the Modern Theology of the church of Rome, in nine large volumes, containing 4701 pages, which was published at Mechlin, Superiorum Permissu, A. D. 1828.

His Theology is called, in the preface of the work, "The Light." His doctrine after having been explored, was approved of by Pope Pius, VII. on the 18th May, 1803, after the Sacred Congregation of Rites had given it their sanction, and had declared that there was NOTHING IN IT WORTHY OF CENSURE. Ligori was spoken of by the sacred Pontiff, Leo XII. in the highest terms; and his eminence the Serene Cardinal of Castile, the Major Penitentiary, in his letters to the Bishop of Massilien, says, that Saint Ligori is not only an ornament to the Episcopal character by the illustrious splendor of his virtues; but he shines resplendent by his SOUND DOCTRINE, which is according to God. Doctrinam sanctam, ac secundum Deum." (Pref. Editoris.)

In his preface to his Synopsis Mr. Smith observes:

"If they deny that we have given a fair translation, we will then challenge them to come forward in a public assembly with the works of St. Ligori, when we promise to meet them, and submit our translation, and the original, to the inspection of a committee, one half of whom to be chosen by ourselves, and the other half by the Roman clergy. Truth never shuns investigation. If we have not given a fair, genuine, and true translation, and if we have not exhibited the doctrines of Ligori, and the church of Rome fairly and correctly, without garbling, or giving an erroneous construction, we will be willing to incur the consequences that we ought to expect, for having deceived the public." Synop. Pref. p. 12. I will thank the Bishop to inform me the date of his edition of the works of Ligori.

BISHOP PURCELL.-What is the date of Mr. Smith's edition?
MR. CAMPBELL.-1828.

BISHOP PURCELL.-This edition [pointing to his own] was also published in 1828: so that it appears both are the same.

MR. CAMPBELL [here taking up a volume of the Bishop's copy of Ligori read]"Editio Nova Emendata." It hence appears that the Bishop's is a new amended edition; so that, probably, this and the one used by Mr. Smith are not the same. Be this, however as it may, nothing is lost by the examination: nothing is proved against Mr. Smith as a translator, and I shall write forthwith to New York to Mr. Smith for the original Latin of this passage în his edition, and have it certified and published among this community.

But were it lawful to read in this assembly, I have before me the decrees of councils, and the words of bishops and cardinals, teaching the very doctrine which the Bishop would represent as a reproach or calumny on his clergy and church. Here is the decree of a coun