doctrine, or rather raving, in favor and defence of liberty of conscience,' for which most pestilential error, the course is opened for that entire and wild liberty of opinion, which is every where attempting the overthrow of religious and civil institutions; and which the unblushing impudence of some has held forth as an advantage to religion. Hence that pest, of all others most to be dreaded in a state, unbridled liberty of opinion, licentiousness of speech, and lust of novelty, which, according to the experience of all ages, portend the downfall of the most powerful and flourishing empires. "Hither tends that worst and never sufficiently to be execrated and detested LIBERTY OF THE PRESS for the diffusion of all manner of writings, which some so loudly contend for, and so actively promote." p. 121.

This so fresh from Rome, stamped with the seal of infallibility, without another word, sustains that specification in my proposition relating to the anti-American spirit and genius of the grand elements of popery.

But continues he on the subject of unlicensed books:

"No means must be here omitted, says Clement XIII., our predecessor of happy memory, in the Encyclical Letter on the proscription of bad books-'no means must be here omitted, as the extremity of the case calls for all our exertions, to exterminate the fatal pest which spreads through so many works; nor can the materials of error be otherwise destroyed than by the flames, which consume the depraved elements of the evil."

The secretary of the court of Vienna and counsellor of legation-I mean Frederick Schlegel, who, in 1828, lectured on the philosophy of history in favor of monarchy and popery-one supreme bishop, and one supreme monarch-who was one of the Austrian cabinet, the confidential counsellor of Prince Metternich-whose policy and opinions opened the way for Austrian efforts on the foundation of St. Leopold, to add America to the pope's dominions-I say, of this great man and his opinions, the author of a foreign conspiracy, as quoted by Doctor Beecher, thus speaks:

"In the year 1828 the celebrated Frederick Schlegel, one of the most distinguished literary men of Europe, delivered lectures at Vienna, on the philosophy of history, (which have not been translated into English) a great object of which is to show the mutual support which popery and monarchy derive from each other. He commends the two systems in connexion as deserving of universal reception. He attempts to prove that the sciences, and arts, and all the pursuits of man, as an intellectual being, are best promoted under this perfect system of church and state: a pope at the head of the former; an emperor at the head of the latter. He contrasts with this, the system of Protestantism; represents Protestantism as the enemy of good government, as the ally of republicanism, as the parent of the distresses of Europe, as the cause of all the disorders with which legitimate governments are afflicted. In the close of lecture 17th, Vol. II. p. 286, he thus speaks of this country: The TRUE NURSERY of all these destructive principles, the revolutionary school for France and the rest of Europe, has been North America. Thence the evil has spread over many other lands, either by natural contagion, or by arbitrary communication. Ib. p. 122,

123.

Such are the popular views of our institutions in the best and purest church district in the world: and the emigrants of that country with those opinions are daily crowding to our shores, and filling up this immense valley. These are they who are taught to execrate the liberty of the press, and to consider liberty of conscience pestilential error, and that a spiritual monarch, and a political emperor are the very paragon of all excellence in church and state. Is this compatible with the genius of our institutions? Are not such views and reasonings, positively subversive of them?

Let me observe from that book of Fessenden's of which my opponent seemed to know so much yesterday: but the author of which he

cannot now name, as I believe, (if he can, however, he may tell us something about him)-I say from the Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, and from some other documents before me, I would wish to read a few statements, to show that this said Roman Catholic Institution, chameleon like, first accommodates itself to the customs of every country, and seems to inhale and exhale the popular atmosphere until it reaches its end; (for well the Jesuit knows the means may be infinitely various, while the end is one and immutable,) and so soon as it gains the fulcrum of popular opinion and the lever of the majority, it builds up an empire, after the model of the Prince Metternich. This has hitherto been its history, in every climate, and country, and age. A single example of this policy, taken from the Encyclopedia, must suffice:

"Various attempts have been made to bring this church under the papal yoke; but without success. The Portuguese having opened a passage into Abyssinia in the fifteenth century, an emissary was sent to extend the influence and authority of the Roman pontiff, clothed with the title of patriarch of the Abyssinians. The same important commission was afterwards given to several Jesuits, when some circumstances seemed to promise them a successful and happy ministry; but the Abyssinians stood so firm to the faith of their ancestors, that towards the close of the sixteenth century the Jesuits had lost nearly all hope in that quarter.

About the beginning of the seventeenth century the Portuguese Jesuits renewed the mission to Abyssinia, when the emperor created one of them patriarch; and not only swore allegiance to the Roman pontiff, but also obliged his subjects to forsake the rites and tenets of their ancestors, and to embrace the doctrine and worship of the Romish church. At length the emperor became so exasperated at the arrogant and violent proceedings of the patriarch in subverting the established customs of the empire, for the purpose of confirming the pope's authority, especially in imposing celibacy on some, and requiring divorce of others, who had married more than one wife, that he annulled the orders formerly given in favor of popery, banished the missionaries out of his dominions, and treated with the utmost severity all who had any connexion with the undertaking. From this period the very name of Rome, its religion, and its pontiff, have all along been objects of peculiar aversion among the Abyssinians."-Encyc. Relig. Knowl. p. 22.

Thus have the Jesuits done in every country, and this will they do -first ingratiate themselves with the people, and when they think they are secure of their object, they will proceed to subvert the government for they are sworn and sold to the pope forever.

The gentleman says, We are both foreigners; indicating that we have equal rights and privileges. I did not use that term in an invidious sense, when speaking of my willingness to receive foreigners. Nor do I oppose the principles of my opponent, because of their hostility to Protestants only: but because of their hostility to Roman Catholics. It is from my views of the political and religious bearings, the temporal and the eternal consequences of the system, that I expose and oppose it. As a philanthropist, I am opposed to the papal empire, whether at home or abroad-in Europe or America.

But although politically considered, in one sense, we both may be called foreigners; yet, we are not foreigners in the same sense. I claim a very intimate relation with the Protestant family. I am one of that family. It was then my family, that first settled this country. The bishop's family settled Roman Catholic America. He is a foreigner here, as I would be a foreigner in Mexico or South America. I belong to the persecuted-he to the persecutors of that family.

In the next place, I never took but one oath of allegiance. I never vowed to support but one political constitution. My opponent first

swore to America and then to Rome. He is bound to a foreign prince: I am not. If that prince should reward him for any service with a Cardinal's cap, he might be commanded away to Rome next week. BISHOP PURCELL. No, I will not leave this country.

MR. CAMPBELL. The gentleman is under the "Holy Lord the pope." I am not a foreigner in this sense.

But still better, I am the father of a family: my children are native Americans and through these I am more a kin to the great American family than he ever can be. Without perjury or apostacy from his office, he can never have a wife, nor family. He is a stranger to those near and holy relations. He has no country-no home. He lives and he must die under the command of foreign superiors; and they may, by authority or promotion, remove him to Europe or Asia at pleasure. For these and other reasons I am identified with Protestant America, and claim a relation here to which his heart shall ever be a stranger. [Time expired.]

Another instance of the unfairness with which Catholic principles are represented: another occasion for a holy triumph!

That Rhemish Testament, from which the gentleman has just now read, was never sanctioned by the Catholic church. It was published by a caucus of parsons in New York, (whose names are prefixed to it,) for the express purpose of vilifying the faith, and outraging the feelings of Catholics! And this is called a Catholic bible! Good God! whither has justice fled? Archbishop Murray, of Dublin, has lately, in the most solemn manner, condemned these notes. They are not to be found in the Catholic bible, used in this or in any other country. I am laboring to inspire my opponent with sentiments of self-respect; and assure him anew, that "evil communication corrupts good manners." The occasion called for original documents, candid statements, and reputable authorities; but, instead of these, the public are mocked by my friend with spurious, garbled extracts, which a dignified controversialist would have treated with contempt. We repudiate the notes, which Protestants have appended, for us, to this bible.

MR. CAMPBELL.-Produce another.

BISHOP PUBCELL.-I will. Behold it. Here is the bible to be found in every book-store, where Catholic works are for sale. Here is Luke, chap. ix. 55! Not a word of it there! (Holds it opened, towards the audience, and towards MR. CAMPBELL.)

You perceive, that I have granted my opponent, all the extra time he chose to occupy, to explain away, if he could, the mis-translation (to call it by the very mildest name) of Liguori; and he has just left it where he found it, in the mire of infamy! The edition which I exhibit, was published in the very year and the very place with the edition, from which Mr. Smith pretends to have quoted. You have heard Mr. Kinmont.

The gentleman has cited the words of Christ, "Do this in commemoration of me," against the real presence. This is all I wanted, to complete my argument. Here is the answer :

"After having proposed the sentiments of the church upon these words," this is my body," we must tell what she thinks of these others, which Christ added: "do' this in memory of me." It is clear that the intention of the Son of God is to

oblige us by these words to remember the death which he suffered for our sakes: and St. Paul concludes, from these same words, that we announce, in this mystery, the death of the Lord. But it must not be imagined that this remembrance of his death, excludes the real presence of his body; on the coutrary, by only considering what has been just now explained, it will fully appear that this commemoration is founded upon the real presence. For as the Jews, in eating their peace offerings, remembered that they had been sacrificed for them, so we, in eating the flesh of Jesus Christ, our victim, should remember that he had been immolated for us. It is therefore this same flesh eaten by the faithful, which not only awakes in us the memory of his immolation, but which confirms to us the truth of it. And far from being able to say that this solemn commemoration which Jesus Christ orders us to make, excludes the presence of the flesh, it is visible, on the contrary, that this tender recollection, which he wills we should have of him, in the holy communion, as immolated for us, is founded upon the real receiving of this same flesh; it being surely impossible to forget, that it is for us he hath given his body in sacrifice, when we see that he gives us still every day this victim for our food."

I now come to the subject of purgatory, which my friend calls the lever of the pope, to raise the world. I should be glad to see the pope raise the world in any way. If he has not the power to raise mortals to the skies, he, at least, wants the will to pull men or angels down. The doctrine of purgatory can be proved by a few plain texts. The first is from 2d Machabees, xii. 42; where we read, that the valiant Machabeus sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem, for sacrifice, to be offered for the souls of the dead. "It is, therefore, says the scripture, a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins."

My friend will say, the book of Machabees is not canonical. But, is it not, as Du Pin would say, very ill done of him, to reject a book of scripture, because it pinches him. This is a fine way of confuting Catholics: to mutilate the scripture when it favors our doctrine; to believe our enemies, when they misrepresent it; and to attribute to, and force upon us, doctrines which we do not profess.

The books of the Machabees are to be found in the Codex Alexandrinus, and in all the approved bibles of the Catholic church, from the beginning. Why tear them, at this late day, from the canon? Besides, they are, at least, authentic history, and, as such, faithful records of the belief of the only people who, at the time when they were written, professed the true faith.

Jesus Christ says, that there is a blasphemy against the Spirit; which is a sin that will not be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come. (Matt. xii. 32.) These words clearly imply that some sins will be forgiven in the world to come. Where? Not in heaven, which "nothing defiled can enter;" not in hell, for out of hell there is no redemption. What is that place, called Abraham's bosom, on which Lazarus reposed, until heaven was opened to the souls of men, by the death of Jesus Christ? Was it heaven, or hell, or that intermediate place or state, which Catholics call by the name of purgatory? It is necessarily the latter: apart from the suffering of sense by purifying fire, it would be a state of mental or spiritual suffering as it was one of separation from God, whose beauty the soul, released from the prison of the body, and the darkness of sin and ignorance, so clearly discerns, and so ardently desires to enjoy. The Savior tells us to be reconciled quickly with our adversary, while we are in the way: lest we be delivered over to the judge, and cast into prison, whence we shall not be released, until we shall have paid the

last farthing. (Matt. v. 26.) What prison is this? What place of sorrowful detention on the way to heavenly glory? Neither heaven, nor the abode of everlasting torments: consequently, purgatory.

"Christ died for our sins," says St. Peter, (1st Epist. iii. 18,) "being put to death in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit: in which also coming, he preached to those spirits that were in prison." This is the place, of which it is said, in the apostles' creed, "He descended into hell," which was surely not the hell of the damned, but that temporary hell, or hades, or purgatory, to whose inmates he announced the joyful tidings of their deliverance, where the first and the second Adam met, the type and reality. What is the meaning of the universally prevalent practice, of which St. Paul speaks, of performing pious works, called baptisms for the dead: "Else what shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all. Why are they then baptized for them?" (1st Cor. xv. 29.)

"Hence, the council of Trent teaches: "That there is a purgatory, and that the souls detained there, are helped by the prayers of the faithful, and particuJarly by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar.'

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Eusebius, St. Epiphanius, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and several other ancient fathers and writers, demonstrate, that the doctrine of the church was always, and is now the same, as that which was defined by the council of Trent, with respect both to prayers for the dead, and an intermediate state, which we call purgatory. How express is the authority of the last named father, where he says: "through the prayers and sacrifices of the church and alms-deeds, God deals more mercifully with the departed than their sins deserve." Serm. 172. Enchirid. cap. 109, 110.

St. Chrysostom, who flourished within three hundred years of the age of the apostles, and must be admitted as an unexceptionable witness of their doctrine and practice, writes as follows: "It was not without good reason ordained by the apostles, that mention should be made of the dead in the tremendous mysteries, because they knew well that these would receive great benefit from it." In Cap. 1. Philip. Hom. 3. Tertullian, who lived in the age next to that of the apostles, speaking of a pious widow, says: "She prays for the soul of her husband, and begs refreshment for him." L. De Monogam. c. 10. St. Cyprian, who lived in the following age, says: "It is one thing to be waiting for pardon; another to attain to glory: one thing to be sent to prison, not to go from thence till the last farthing is paid; another to receive immediately the reward of faith and virtue: one thing to suffer lengthened torments for sin, and to be chastised and purified for a long time in that fire; another to have cleansed away all sin by suffering." S. Cypr. L. 4. Ep. 2.

The doctrine of the oriental churches agrees with that of the Catholic church, in the only two points defined by her, namely, as to there being a middle state, which we call purgatory, and as to the souls, detained in it, being helped by the prayers of the living faithful. True it is, they do not generally believe, that these souls are punished by a material fire; but neither does the Catholic church require a belief of this opinion. On some occasions, Luther admits of purgatory, as an article founded on scripture. Melancthon confesses that the ancients prayed for the dead, and says that the Lutherans do not find fault with it. Calvin intimates, that the souls of all the just are detained in Abraham's bosom until the day of judgment. In the first liturgy of the church of England, there is an express prayer for the departed, that "God would grant them mercy and everlasting peace." Collier's Eccl. Hist. Vol. II. p. 257.

Bishops Andrews, Usher, Montague, Taylor, Forbes, Sheldon, Barrow of St. Asaph's, and Blandford, all believed that the dead ought to be prayed for. To these, I may add, the religious Dr. Johnson, whose published Meditations prove, that he constantly prayed for his deceased wife."

The Universalists make hell a purgatory.

The notion, that this doctrine fills the pope's coffers with gold, is too ridiculous to be refuted! Every Catholic knows its absurdity. As to the intention of the priest, about which the gentleman has found