the charge of unscriptural, and unfounded assumptions? Let no one imagine, however, that I am at all opposed to order and government in the church. As far as concerns oversight, or the having of bishops to preside over the flock, I am an Episcopalian. I am for having presbyters or elders in every church. I do not believe in a church without presbyters or bishops. So far I am both a Presbyterian and an Episcopalian. On the subject of the primacy of Rome, the gentleman quoted Barronius, and snarled at Du Pin. But it is too late for any bishop of Rome, or of England to stand up in this nineteenth century and tell us that Du Pin is not an authentic historian. My friend intimates that the certificates in the preface were suborned. What a charge on the learned and venerable author of this work! [Bishop Purcell here said, that those certificates being in the book proved nothing-that they might have been put there by the printer.] I will now read these attestations and vouchers that you may judge how gratuitous are the objections and insinuations of the bishop. THE APPROBATION OF THE DOCTORS OF THE SORBONNE. "The whole world has openly declared the esteem which they think due to the New History of Ecclesiastical Writers, that we could not but be sensible of the complaisance shewn to us, since the judgment we had formed of it was followed, supported and authorized by that of the public. "All those who have already read them, will here find what will recall to their memory many things they may have forgotten, and will see with pleasure, that our author has reduced their doctrines to certain principles, by which they show their solidity and coherence. Those who wish to read them will here meet with what will save them much time and trouble; and those that are engaged in that long and wearisome journey, will at least have the advantage of a faithful and experienced guide, who will lead them only through paths equally safe and known. Both the one and the other will meet with a piece of criticism which is always clear, prudent, and upright; distinguishes what is certain from that which is false or doubtful; never precipitates the judgment, nor lays down simple conjectures in place of demonstrative proofs; gives to every thing what it merits, purely on its own account; and the better to attend to reason, banishes all prejudices and looks at nothing in its search after truth, but truth itself; nor condenins, only, where it cannot excuse. * "Given at Paris, August 18th, 1688. 66 * BLAMPIGNON, Rector of St. Merris. APPROBATION OF THE ROYAL CENSOR. By the order of my lord Chancellor; I have read a book, entitled "A History of the church and of Ecclesiastical Authors in the sixteenth century," by Messieur Lewis Ellies Du Pin, Priest, Doctor of Divinity of the Faculty of Paris, and Regius Professor of Philosophy: Containing the History of the Church, and of ecclesiastical Authors, and from the year 1550, to the year 1600; in which I find nothing to hinder its being printed. Given this 18th day of January, 1703. BLAMPIGNON, Curate of St. Merris." APPROBATION OF THE DOCTORS OF DIVINITY OF THE FACULTY OF PARIS. "We whose names are under written, Doctors of Divinity of the Faculty of Divinity of Paris, certify, that we have examined a book, entitled "A History of the Church, and of ecclesiastical Authors, in the sixteenth century;" by Messieur Lewis Ellies Du Pin, Priest, Doctor of Divinity of the Faculty of Paris, and Regius Professor of Philosophy and that we have found nothing therein contrary to the Catholic faith, or to good manners. In assurance whereof, we have set our hands this 20th day of January, 1703. D : BLAMPIGNON, Curate of St. Merris. I put it now to the good sense of my audience, whether such tescimonies are to be set aside, by saying that the printer may have forged or printed them on his own responsibility. The divine warrant for the primacy of the pope is not the question on which the gentleman read from Barronius. There are two things in every history,—the statement of facts, and the comment on those facts. The opinion of the historian is like the opinion of the reader; but the facts stated are common property; and these are the proper materials of his work. Barronius does not, however, on the point in debate, state a fact contrary to Du Pin. There were, indeed, primacies at Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem. But the primacy of a metropolitan, and the doctrine of an universal primacy over all metropolitans at any one place, is a different matter. I could not understand in what sense he meant to be understood when he said Gregory could not go for primacy in "that sense." Was there a peculiar mysterious meaning attached to the claim or title which Gregory reprobated? It has not been proved that any contemporary understood it so. I affirm that there was not an intelligent Catholic of that day who understood the title of universal patriarch, in any other sense than that in which, it is understood among us now. The person first established in the primacy of Rome exercised a universal superintendency over the church exactly similar to that first claimed by the bishop of Constantinople. My friend says, 'the author from whom he read you states the fact of such a primacy early in the Roman Church.' If we examine the authority we shall see, it is nothing but the opinion of a fallible man; and that opinion contrary to all ancient history. I affirm that there is no ecclesiastical historian of authority, who attests the fact, which he is desirous to prove. It is one thing to state a fact, as a historian, and another to state an opinion or commentary on a fact. The question before us, is not the metropolitan primacy of Rome, or Antioch, or Alexandria; but the universal primacy of the whole church! I admit, as to the council of Nice, what it was said Du Pin asserted, viz. that the sixth canon does not deny the primacy of Rome.' But Du Pin goes further,-(and why did not the gentleman read all that Du Pin asserts ?) I read it all. I told the whole truth respecting it the gentleman has told you but the half of it-Du Pin says "this canon does not preclude the idea :" but "neither," says he, "docs it establish it." I am for quoting the whole authority. Du Pin, as a Catholic, was endeavoring to find some authority for supporting the antiquity of the primacy of the see of Rome. He is examining the canons of the council carefully, and he says that though this canon does not preclude the primacy, "YET NEITHER DOES IT ESTABLISH IT.' It afforded him nothing for or against it. And what other decree or council did establish it?! That is a secret the bishop will never reveal. Let us now return to my argument. I left off at the year 750, and was in pursuit of the day, when the present church of Rome began. I hasten to establish it. It would be both tedious and unnecessary to read, or narrate the quarrels between Nicholas of Rome and Photius of Constantinople, on the vital question who shall be the greatest? which greatly prepared the way for the grand schism. We have not time for this, as we are now, before we sit down, to give you the day and date of the separation of the Roman church from the Greek church, which must be regarded as the day of her separate existence, when she became what she now is, a schism, or sect. There was a violent contest between the patriarch of Constantinople and the patriarch of Rome, or pope, if you please, (for I state emphatically, that the idea of a supreme head of the church had never been digested in the east, and though the eastern church may have submitted, or acquiesced for the time being, she never did consent to it). The promotion of the layman Photius, gifted and splendid as he was, to the primacy of Constantinople, greatly vexed his holiness of Rome. Indeed, from the time of Victor, bishop of Rome, A. D. 197, who assumed to exercise jurisdiction out of his proper diocese, in respect to the observance of Easter, there never was a cordial feeling of unity, or co-operation between the eastern and western portions of the church. The arrogance of Victor, called for strong expressions of insubordination on the part of the Asiatic brethren, who claimed for themselves as much license to dictate to the western, as he had to the eastern church. The "Catholic" body was not yet divided into two great masses. Photius had charge of the church of Constantinople. Nicholas of Rome was indignant that a layman should hold the high dignity of patriarch of the eastern church, however the emperor and the church might think. To make matters worse, they excommunicated each other, which laid the foundation of dissentious and bad feelings, which to this very day, never have been atoned. For the jealousies and rivalries of these two bishops never slumbered nor slept, till the church Iwas divided into what have since been called the Greek and Latin churches. All historians, give substantially the same account of this matter. I will read an extract or two from Du Pin." "Though the Latin and Greek churches were not in close communion with each other ever since the affair of Photius, yet they did not proceed to an open rupture till the time of pope Leo IX. and of Michael Cerularius, patriarch of Constantinople. This breach began by a letter which the latter wrote in the year 1053, in his own name, and in the name of Leo archbishop of Acridia and of all Bulgaria, to John bishop of Trani in Apulia, that he might communicate it to the pope and to all the western church. In this letter they reproved the Latins, (1) Because they made use of unleavened bread in the celebration of the eucharist. (2) Because they fasted on Saturdays in Lent. (3) Because they eat the blood of beasts, and things strangled. (4) Because they did not sing Alleluiah in Lent." &c. &c. Vol. ii. p. 234. The patriarch of Constantinople first anathematized Leo IX. ecclesiastically cursed him and his party, and this may have provoked severer measures against the Greeks than were at first contemplated by the Latins. It is, however, an important fact, that the Greeks were the first excommunicators. The pope of Rome sent three legates to Constantinople, under pretence of healing the divisions and strifes existing, who had, secretly in their pockets, a bull of excommunication against the patriarch and his party. They were instructed to exhort him to yield; but if they found him incorrigible, they were to fulminate against him the dread anathema. After a fruitless attempt to bring over the patriarch by mild means, they entered the church of St. Sophia, at noon day, on the 16th of July, in the year 1054, and mounting the altar read aloud the bull of excommunication, before the people, and then departed, shaking off the dust of their feet against the patriarch, his city and people. The bull speaks on this wise: "The Holy Apostolic see of Rome, which is the chief of the whole world, to which as to the head belongs in a more especial manner the care of all the churches; has sent us to this royal city in the quality of its legates, for the welfare and peace of the church, that as it is written, we should go down and see whether the cries which pierce its ears from this great city be true or no. Let therefore the emperors, clergy, senate and people of this city of Constantinople know, that we have here found more good to excite our joy, than evil to raise our sorrow. For as to the supporters of the empire, and the principal citizens, the city is wholly christian and orthodox: but as for Michael, who took upon him the false title of patriarch, and his adherents, we have found that they have sown discord and heresy in the midst of this city * *because they rebaptized, as did the Arians, those who had been baptized in the name of the blessed trinity, and particularly the Latins; because with the Donatists they maintain that the Greek church is the only true church, and that the sacrifices and baptism of none else are valid." The Greek church, be it noted with all distinctness, did stand upon this point, that she was the only true church; and that no ordinance, baptism or the eucharist, was at all valid, unless administered by her authority. I will read a little further: "Michael having been advertized of these errors" &c. &c." refused to appear before, or to have any conference with us, and has likewise forbad our entrance into the churches to perform divine service therein forasmuch as he had formerly shut up the churches of the Latins, calling them Azymita, persecuting and excommunicating them, all which reflected on the holy see, in contempt whereof he styled himself ECUMENICAL or UNIVERSAL PATRIARCH. Wherefore not being able any longer to tolerate such an unheard of abuse as was of fered to the holy apostolical see, and looking upon it as a violation of the Catholic faith in several instances, &c., "We do subscribe to the anathema which our most holy father the pope has denounced against Michael and his adhe rents, if they do not retract their errors." &c. Id. ib. p. 236. If then, there be any truth in history, from that day the present sect of the church of Rome began its existence. It never was fully, or cordially conceded by the Greek church, that the pope was, or ought to be, the universal father; and it may be affirmed in all truth, that this was the real cause of the schism. To recapitulate, thus far, in seeking for the papal head, so essential to the Roman church, we find it not in the New Testament, in the ancient fathers, in the canons of the first general councils, nor in the history of the church, till the commencement of the seventh century. On the authority of Barronius, it is said that Phocas gave thẻ title to Boniface the 3rd in the year 606. We have also seen, that Pepin, another usurper, gave temporal estates and political dominion to the popes about the middle of the 8th century, and that on the 16th of July 1054 the Western or Roman half of the church, after having been first anathematized by the Eastern or Greek half, did solemnly separate itself from the communion of the Greek church by an anathema. Hence, both the origin and the name of the church of Rome. [Time expired.] My friend Mr. Campbell has fought a noble battle for me.. I shall prove that presently. Gibbon was an infidel, and became so because his father would not allow him to embrace the Roman Catholic faith. He was a prodigy of mind, and his intellect was so precocious that even when only sixteen years old, he read, I think it was, Bossuet's Universal History, by which he was convinced of the truth of the Catholic religion. His father (sad proof of the restraints on liberty of conscience, as exemplified in Protestant communities) persecuted him for this, and sent him to Lausanne, in Switzerland, where, under the close surveillance of Pavillard a Calvinist minister, he was confined, debarred the reading of Catholic books, and fed on bread and water, till at last he yielded his creed for better fare. He thus became an infidel, and wrote against all religions. But a man who could thus shrink from duty to that faith which he believed true, because he was persecuted, was not fit to appreciate the beauty of the religion that had attracted him; nor the sublime testimony rendered to its divinity by its martyrs' blood. If he could thus prove recreant to the only one which he loved, no wonder he became opposed to all. Such are the authorities against which I have to militate. The gentleman told us that he would put his finger upon the precise day and date, as recorded in history, when the Roman church separated from the holy and ancient apostolic church, but he has not kept his word. I warrant that that pledge will never be redeemed. (Mr. Campbell here explained that he had fixed it at the 16th July, 1054.) If then the Catholic church ceased to be the true church in 1054, where was the church of Christ? Where was the true Catholic church, from which the Roman Catholic church separated? "Behold I am ALWAYS with you," says Christ," and I will send you another Paraclete who will abide with you ALL DAYS." Matth. xxviii. 20. If the true church was no where-if Christ had no witness on earth, his promises have failed; and Revelation is a solecism. A church, unless it be conspicuous, unless every enquirer can have access to it, is of no use as a witness of truth to mankind. If hid, how can it testify of the true doctrine of Christ to all nations? But mark the splendid testimony in favor of the purity and watchfulness of the Roman Catholic church, afforded by history. How did the schism of the Greek church begin? A layman Photius intruded and declared himself the head of the church. This single fact is a splendid argument of itself, to prove the necessity of a supreme head to watch over the church. To use a Scriptural phrase, he was like a faithful sentinel upon the walls of Zion, to sound the warning to the world, er, if you will, not to resemble "a dumb dog," but to bark at the approach of the thief, who came not in at the gate, but came by another way into the fold,and he did bark at him; and Photius and Michael Ceru larius and other Greek intruders and errorists, not content with assuming a power not belonging to them, actually cursed and anathematized the pope of Rome, a proof perhaps of the amiable character the gentleman gives the enemies of order and of the pope, but a sufficient reason why the pope should exert all his authority in protect ing the church from their usurpations. But the three legates to whom the commission was entrusted, carried the bull of excommunication in their pockets, and they are made to appear very treacherous because they did not produce it at once, but tried by pacific measures to bring about a reconciliation. Is it in the gentleman's estimation, then, an evidence of treachery, to resort to persuasive means with an enemy, before appealing to the sword and involving one's country in war? Suppose the president of the United States sends a minister to a foreign country to obtain the settlement |