people, who had the right, selected themselves a new ruler, like a true lover of peace and friend of established order, congratulated Phocas on his election, and used the language of scripture, be it observed, in his letter, because anarchy was at an end, and an orthodox and generous prince substituted on the throne of C. P. for a tyrant, a miser, and a suspected Marcionite heretic. Mauritius may have died penitent, but he reigned without love for his subjects.

We were spoken to of the president of the U. S. He has the same power and authority as Washington had while the constitution of the country endures. And as long as the constitution of the church endures, the successors of Peter have the authority of Peter. If there was ever to come a time, when the true church was to fail, Jesus Christ was bound by his wisdom and love to foretell it. If it was his intention to forsake the church, and if the power and authorities of all the regularly constituted orders were to fail, he never should have given it the promise of perpetual endurance, and the precise period, and all the different circumstances of its defection should have been more clearly and emphatically revealed, than any other event in the scripture. It is needless to add that such defection is not foretold; but on the contrary it is repeatedly declared by the Son of God, that his church should stand for ever, that his Holy Spirit should abide with it all days, that the gates of Hell should not prevail against it. What is the meaning of the words "the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it?" In the east, laws were enacted, justice administered, and the sages and people assembled for deliberation at the gates of the cities. Hence the expression denotes, wisdom, subtlety, malice. Again, when a city was invaded by a hostile army, the hottest fighting was around its gates. In them and around them, were all the energies of the conflicting hosts put forth-and on the issue of the battle was suspended a nation's weal or woe. Thus by the gates of Hell are clearly meant, all the craft and power of Hell, the malice of heresy and error, the force and violence of persecution. All these shall rage around the church in vain, for Christ is in the citadel, and his Holy Spirit is the sentinel that guards its outposts and defences from being overthrown by error. But he says that the apostles had all power given to them -grant it but what was the nature of that power? what was its extent? It was a power to teach all nations. The weapon of their warfare was not carnal but spiritual; "for our wrestling," says St. Paul, Ephes. vi. 12."is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places." "Behold," says Christ, "I send you as lambs in the midst of wolves. Carry not with you scrip nor staff, &c. Be not solicitous for the morrow, what you shall eat, or wherewithal you shall be clothed. Behold the lilies of the field, they sow not, neither do they spin-and yet your Heavenly Father clotheth them-careth for them-how much more ye, &c." By patience they were to run towards the fight proposed to them, and by patience they triumphed over their persecutors. The pope, should occasion require, will show himself the faithful imitator of these heroic models. Were he stript to-morrow of all external, temporal power whatever, and a poor wanderer among the mountains of the moon in Abyssinia, he would have no less power, and would be, for aught I know, no less respected, than he is at present. His chief authority is, thank God,

such as this world can neither give nor take away. It was given for the salvation of the people of God, and as long as there is a soul to be saved, a sheep to be brought back to the fold, or a spiritual conquest achieved for the glory of Christ, and the praise of his grace, so long shall that power survive; when all else decays, itself, amidst vicissitudes unchanged, shall flourish in immortal youth.

For our sakes, in this distant province of creation, and at this late age, as well as for those who saw the Word made flesh conversing among men, was this commission given and this authority conferred. Our souls were no less dear to Christ than were those of the first believers of glad tidings—and Cincinnati was the rival of Jerusalem in the Savior's love! With him there was no exception of personsneither past nor future. He provided for every casualty which he foreknew should happen in the lapse of ages-he anticipated every favorable or adverse circumstance that should affect the condition of his church, and with divine wisdom he adapted its constitutions to the peculiar exigencies of every age and nation and individual believer, until we reach "the consummation of the world." He sent his apostles with power to ordain faithful men, who should in their turn be fit to teach others. This is the charge that St. Paul repeated to Titus, and thus has the succession of apostolic teachers been continued from nation to nation, and from age to age, the church gaining in one region of the earth what she had lost in another, renewing her youth like the eagles, increasing her members, and daily transmitting to the bright realms of heavenly glory innumerable multitudes of her children of every clime and tongue, and peculiarity of social government or manners. The apostles exercised various functions-I admit it. But they substituted the deacons to wait on tables, and distribute the alms, so do their successors; Christ gave them powers adequate to every emergency.

It has been wrongly asserted, that Moses had no successor. Joshua was, in one important branch, his successor, for it devolved on him to lead the people into the land of promise, and without this consummation the ministry of Moses would have been in vain; and there are Joshuas now whose office it is to lead the people to their spiritual Cana and as God obeyed the voice of Joshua, in commanding the sun to stand still, so he now obeys the voice of his priests making supplication for his people. Here is an obvious analogy between the old and the new covenants. My friend argues that, because Moses had no successor, Peter could have none, and the apostles none; but it is clear that Moses had a successor. All that Moses accomplished would have been incomplete without a succession of ministry to carry on the work of God in favor of his people, Israel. This, Eusebius beautifully establishes, p. 46. So by the same analogy, it is necessary that the succession of an apostolic priesthood should be continued for the carrying on of the christian dispensation, and be transmitted down from gen. eration of spiritual guides to generation, until they shall have conducted all the people of God to the true land of promise, where I trust we shall all meet, and cease to dispute, as we now do, like little children, at the imminent risk of neglecting the weightier points of the law. For myself, I am heartily sick of such interminable contention. Here would I stop and suffer the matter to end without another word, if the sad necessity was not imposed upon me of defending the impugned

tenets of my church, and giving with my voice the testimony which, with the divine assistance, I should not hesitate to seal with my blood, to the truths of the Roman Catholic faith. From the discharge of this duty, no true believer, still more no minister of God, should shrink; and it is worthy of notice that, with all the love and humility of St. Paul, he should have warned his disciple Timothy, and still more the body of the faithful, against associating with "heretics." I never use this word, as it is now so harshly understood, to designate those who differ from me in religion; but I know not how any human being is to determine without the aid of a competent tribunal, who are heretics, and who are not; for we cannot look into the heart."

66

I am told that an English divine was accustomed humorously to define these terms.in this way. "Orthodoxy is my doxy and heterodoxy is yours." But seriously, what being on earth can look into the secrets of the heart? Who was to determine when heresy occurred? That it existed in the early days of the church none can doubt. The apostles denounced it. They delivered its authors to Satan (of whom St. Paul says, are Hymeneus and Alexander whom I have delivered to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. 1st Tim. 1. 20.) The apostles did not suffer their disciples to make this discrimination for themselves, in defiance of the express word of God. They did not allow every man to assert the right of private judgment on scripture, which they taught was of no "private interpretation." 2 Peter, 1. 20. The very form “understanding this first" exceedingly strengthens the text. Divisions will ever exist. They are, unfortunately, as natural to depraved man, as vice; and but little, if at all less fatal. "There were also false prophets among the people," says St. Peter, 2d Ep. xi, 1, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and again v. 10 and 12, They fear not to bring in sects, blaspheming those things that they know not, promising their disciples. liberty, whereas they themselves are the slaves of corruption." These are fountains without water, clouds tossed with whirlwinds, or as St. Jude says, v. 13, "raging waves of the sea, foaming out of their own confusion, wandering stars to whom the storm of darkness is reserved for ever." Who would trust his safety in a perilous voyage to an unskilful pilot? Who would risk the horrors of the deep without chart or compass? Has God abandoned his children so far as to leave them a prey to every innovator, every wolf in sheep's clothing? Is there no ark of safety for man, while the waters of error overspread the earth? Yes, my friends, there is. It is the church. That ark alone can save the world. 66 Whosoever," says St. John, 2d Ep. 9, 10, "revolteth and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house, nor say to him, 'God speed you.' For he that sayeth God speed you,' communicateth with his wicked works." This admonition, we understand to be directed against false religions and false teachers. It does not forbid charity, which we owe to all men, and particularly the erring; for whom, we are taught it to be our duty to pray, that they may happily come to the knowledge of

truth.

6

I confess that, for my part, I cannot practise this doctrine literally, nor refuse to salute one who differs from me in faith. I retain my own convictions and eschew his errors. The apostles did differently,

and who will presume to say, they were not more enlightened than we? When St. John met Cerinthus (who denied the divinity of Christ) in the baths of Ephesus, he ran out saying that he was afraid the baths would fall upon him. And when his disciple St. Polycarp met Marcion, in the streets of Rome, he refused to salute him. "Do you not know me?" said Marcion. "I do know you," replied Polycarp," to be the oldest son of the Devil." This shows the dread of religious innovators entertained by the apostles of Christ and by their disciples, the dangerous result of heresy.-[Time expired.]

Mr. CAMPBELL rises

Half-past 11 o'clock, A. M.

I am sorry that I cannot sympathize with the gentleman in his embarrassment, occasioned, as he alleges, in being obliged to respond promptly to objections to his doctrines, which, he says, he cannot anticipate. So far as he is placed in the predicament of a respondent to my allegations, he has no one to blame but himself. When arranging the preliminaries as to the mode in which this discussion was to be conducted, the gentleman perseveringly insisted that I should lead the way, commencing every session; and that, whether the proposition were affirmative or negative, he must always respond. It was a sine qua non with him, that he should always have the last word. I would, as an apology for giving him such an advantage, inform my audience, that on no other condition would he consent to meet me. If, however, he sincerely dislikes the arrangement, I am willing to alter it, and change places with him to-morrow. The affirmative, should, in all right, and by universal usage, open, and the respondent follow, in debate.

I regard this discussion, my friends, as a very serious and important affair, involving in it the very best interests of the whole community. I do not appear here to speak for myself alone in behalf of Protestantism, or to you alone. I speak for my contemporaries, and for the great cause of truth; and I am glad for their sake that this debate is immediately to go to record. I must, therefore, give as connected a form as circumstances will permit to my argument. For this reason, I passed over some things in the speech of yesterday that I might finish my first argument this morning. I unfortunately, however, forgot to notice them before I commenced my second proposition.

I will now recapitulate.

The question was asked me, yesterday evening, "Where was the true church before the time of the Greek schism?" I observed, this morning, in answer, that my having shown the Greek church to be the senior, or the original of the Roman, did not necessarily involve the idea that the Greek church was at the time of separation the true Catholic church. To this answer the gentleman has not replied; but yet reiterates the question. His assumption of a church of nations with a political head, having always existed, so confounds him that he cannot see a church without a pope, or a national establishment. I might ask, in reply, where was the church before the days of Constantine?

We can, however, show that from the earliest times there has existed a people whom no man can remember, that have earnestly and consistently contended for the true faith once delivered to the saints. If he requires me to put my finger on the page of history on which is

described the commencement of the degeneracy of the Roman diocese from the true faith, I will turn back to about the year of our Lord 250. Then the controversy between Cornelius and Novatian, about the bishopric of Rome, embraced the points at issue, which separated the true church from that which was then grievously contaminated with error and immorality. It was, indeed, a controversy about the purity of communion and discipline, rather than about articles of doctrine. And it is worthy of remark, that such was the principal issue made at that time, although the doctrine of christianity will not long continue pure in a degenerate community.

I have here, before me, Eusebius, the oldest of ecclesiastical historians, who informs us that Novatus and his party were called Cathari or Puritans. And, although he appears greatly incensed against Novatus and his party, he can record no evil against them except their "uncharitableness," in refusing to commune with those of immoral and doubtful character.

The gentleman has given you his definition of orthodoxy and heterodoxy my definition is-the strong party is the orthodox, and the weak party is the heterodox.

I hold in my hand one of the latest and best historians-Waddington. My learned opponent has already introduced him to your acquaintance. He is a Fellow of Trinity college, Cambridge, and Prebendary of Ferring, in the cathedral church of Chichester. The account he gives of these reformers is sustained by Jones and other ecclesiastical historians. I prefer Waddington for his brevity and perspicuity. He says:

"We may conclude with some notice of the sect of the Novatians who were stigmatized at the time both as schismatics and heretics; but who may perhaps be more properly considered as the earliest body of ecclesiastical reformers. They arose at Rome about the year 250, A. D. and subsisted until the fifth century throughout every part of Christendom. Novatian, a presbyter of Rome was a man of great talents and learning, and of character so austere, that he was unwilling, under any circumstances of contrition, to re-admit those who had been once separated from the communion of the church. And this severity he would have extended not only to those who had fallen by deliberate transgression, but even to such as had made a forced compromise of their faith under the terrors of persecution. He considered the christian church as a society, where virtue and innocence reigned universally, and refused any longer to acknowledge as members of it, those who had once degenerated into unrighteousness. This endeavor to revive the spotless moral purity of the primitive faith was found inconsistent with the corruptions even of that early age; it was regarded with suspicion by the leading prelates, as a vain and visionary scheme; and those rigid principles which had characterized and sanctified the church in the first century, were abandoned to the profession of schismatic sectaries in the third."

This sounds a little like Protestantism. Our author proceeds: "From a review of what has been written on this subject, some truths may be derived of considerable historical importance; the following are among them :1. In the midst of perpetual dissent and occasional controversy, a steady and distinguishable line, both in doctrine and practice, was maintained by the early church, and its efforts against those, whom it called heretics, were zealous and persevering, and for the most part consistent. Its contests were fought with the sword of the spirit,' with the arms of reason and eloquence; and as they were always unattended by personal oppression, so were they most effectually successful-successful, not in establishing a nominal unity, nor silencing the expression of private opinion, but in maintaining the purity of the faith, in preserving the attachment of the great majority of the believers, and in consigning, either to immediate disrepute, or early neglect, all the unscriptural doctrines which were successively arrayed against it.'