The parties met in the Athenæum at 2 o'clock, P. M. of Jan. 11th., when after some debate on the question, Who shall be the respondent? they finally agreed to the following

RULES OF DISCUSSION.

1. We agree that the copy-right of the discussion shall be sold to some bookseller, who shall have it taken down by a stenographer, and that all the avails of the copy-right shall be equally divided between two such public charities as Bishop Purcell and Mr. Campbell shall respectively designate.

2. That the discussion shall take place in the Sycamore-street meeting house; and it shall continue seven days, exclusive of Sunday, commencing to-day, (Friday, 13th) from half past 9 o'clock, A. M. to half past 12, and from 3 to 5 P. M., each day.

3. Mr. Campbell shall open the discussion each session, and Bishop Purcell respond. During the morning session the first speech of each shall not exceed an hour, nor the second half an hour. In the afternoon each speaker shall occupy only half an hour.

4. This discussion shall be under the direction of a board of five moderators; of whom each party shall choose two, and these a fifth: any three of whom shall constitute a quorum.

5. The duties of the moderators shall be to preserve order in the assembly, and to keep the parties to the question.

† JOHN B. PURCELL, A. CAMPBELL.

In order to meet, as far as possible, the arrangements entered into for conducting the contemplated debate for seven days, Mr. Campbell, according to agreement, sent to bishop Purcell, on Thursday morning, Jan. 12, the following statement of the

POINTS AT ISSUE.

1. The Roman Catholic Institution, sometimes called the 'Holy, Apostolic, Catholic, Church,' is not now, nor was she ever, catholic, apostolic, or holy; but is a sect in the fair import of that word, older than any other sect now existing, not the 'Mother and Mistress of all Churches,' but an apostacy from the only true, holy, apostolic, and catholic church of Christ." 2. Her notion of apostolic succession is without any foundation in the Bible, in reason, or in fact; an imposition of the most injurious consequences, built upon unscriptural and anti-scriptural traditions, resting wholly upon the opinions of interested and fallible men.

3. She is not uniform in her faith, or united in her members; but mutable and fallible, as any other sect of philosophy or religion—Jewish, Turk

ish, or Christian-a confederation of sects, under a politico-ecclesiastie head.

4. She is the "Babylon" of John, the "Man of Sin" of Paul, and the Empire of the "Youngest Horn" of Daniel's Sea Monster.

5. Her notions of purgatory, indulgences, auricular confession, remission of sins, transubstantiation, supererogation, &c., essential elements of her system, are immoral in their tendency, and injurious to the well-being of society, religious and political.

6. Notwithstanding her pretensions to have given us the Bible, and faith in it, we are perfectly independent of her for our knowledge of that book, and its evidences of a divine original.

7. The Roman Catholic religion, if infallible and unsusceptible of reformation, as alleged, is essentially anti-American, being opposed to the genius of all free institutions, and positively subversive of them, opposing the general reading of the scriptures, and the diffusion of useful knowledge among the whole community, so essential to liberty and the permanency of good government.

CINCINNATI, 12th January, 1837.

A. CAMPBELL

DEBATE

ON THE

ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION.

REPORT.

The parties met according to appointment, on the 13th January, 1837, at the Sycamore Street Meeting House, at half past nine o'clock, A. M.

MODERATORS.

MESSRS. SAMUEL LEWIS, THOMAS J. BIGGS, WILLIAM DISNEY, JOHN ROGERS AND J. W. PLATT.

WILLIAM DISNEY, CHAIRMAN.

Mr. Samuel Lewis, having called the meeting to order, read the rules of the Debate, as agreed upon between the parties, and the propositions advanced by Mr. Campbell for discussion. He requested the audience to refrain from any audible signs of approbation or disapprobation, as it would interrupt the debate. Mr. Campbell then opened the debate as follows:

My Christian Friends and Fellow-Citizens—

I appear before you at this time, by the good providence of our Heavenly Father, in defence of the truth, and in explanation of the great redeeming, regenerating and ennobling principles of Protestantism, as opposed to the claims and pretensions of the Roman Catholic church. I come not here to advocate the particular tenets of any sect, but to defend the great cardinal principles of Protestantism.

Considerable pains appear to have been taken by the gentleman who is my opponent on this occasion, to impress upon the minds of the public the idea that he stands here in the attitude of a defender of Catholicism, and to represent me as its assailant. I am sorry to say that even some Protestants have contributed to give that color to this debate; for I saw in this morning's Gazette an article, in which I am represented as conducting a crusade against the Roman Catholics. Its editor appears to have his sympathies morbidly enlisted in their cause. He is very sympathetic indeed, in behalf of the Roman Catholic religion. Every agony the mother church feels is a pang to him; for every groan she heaves he has a bottle full of tears ready to be poured out. I will not stop to enquire whether they are political or religious tears. I have to do with the worthy gentleman here, who has represented me as having volunteered to come forward with an attack upon the Catholic church.

I need scarcely inform that portion of my audience, who were present at the last meeting of the College of Teachers in this city, that s far from its being true that I made an attack in the first instance,

upon the Roman Catholic church, the gentleman did first assail the Protestants.

He says in the Gazette of the 19th of Dec. 1836, that I am a bold and wanton challenger; but a word of comment on this document will shew that it is quite the other way.

The issue was made in the first instance in the College of Teachers. You will recollect that when Dr. J. L. Wilson read an oration on the subject of universal education, the gentleman arose, and in that Protestant house, and before a Protestant assembly, directly and positively protested against allowing the book which Protestants claim to contain their religion, to be used in schools. He uttered a tirade against the Protestant modes of teaching, and against the Protestant Influence upon the community. This was the origin of the dispute. Had it not been for the assertions made by the gentleman on that occasion, we should not have heard one word of a discussion.

It is true that the propositions just read may present me in the at titude of what he is pleased to call an assailant of the Roman church. But the question is how has the controversy originated? And let me ask, how is it possible for the gentleman to prove that, because, a year ago, I made some answer to an attack on Protestantism from the state of Illinois, and called for some more reputable antagonist, that on this account he did not assail Protestantism, and that I am the assailant in this case? Does my having been plaintiff in that case make me necessarily plaintiff in every other case? Does my having told him that I stood prepared to discuss the question at large with any creditable gentleman-[Here Mr. C. was interrupted by the moderators as not speaking to the point.] I submit to the decision of the moderators. I thought it due to myself, that the public should know precisely the attitude in which the gentleman and myself stand in this matter. I stand here as the defender of Protestantism, and not as the assailant of Catholicism. I wished to exonerate myself from such an imputation. But as the gentlemen have decided that we proceed at once to the question, let us begin and examine the first proposition. It is as follows:

"PROP. I. The Roman Catholic Institution, sometimes called the 'Holy, Apostolic, Catholic, Church,' is not now, nor was she ever, catholic, apostolic, or holy; but is a sect in the fair import of that word, older than any other sect now existing, not the Mother and Mistress of all Churches,' but an apostacy from the only true, holy, apostolic, and catholic church of Christ."

As this is the place and time for logic rather than rhetoric, I will proceed to define the meaning of the important terms contained in this proposition. The subject is the Roman Catholic Institution. This institution, notwithstanding its large pretensions, I affirm, can be proved clearly to be a sect, in the true and proper import of the term. Though she call herself the mother and mistress of all churches, she is, strictly speaking, a sect, and no more than a sect. We now propose to adduce proof to sustain this part of the proposition.

In the first place, the very term Roman Catholic indicates that she is a sect, and not the ancient, universal and apostolic church, the mother and mistress of all churches. If she be the only universal or Catholic church, why prefix the epithet Roman? A Roman Catholic church is a contradiction. The word Catholic means universal-the word Roman means something local and particular. What sense or

If the gentleman admit Luke to be a faithful historian, he must not only place the Hebrew church first, but the Samaritan, Phenician, Syrian and Hellenist churches as older than the church in Rome. Í say if we speak of churches, as respects antiquity, the Hebrew, Samaritan, Syrian and Phenician churches must be regarded as prior to her. The Acts of the Apostles close with Paul's first appearance in Rome.

But that the Roman Catholic institution may stand before you in bold relief as a sectarian establishment, I will give you a definition of her pretensions, from an authentic source, one of her own standards. The Douay catechism, in answer to the question-" What are the essential parts of the church ?" teaches "A pope, or supreme head, bishops, pastors and laity." p. 20.

These, then, are the four constituent and essential elements of the Roman Catholic church. The first is the pope, or head. It will be confessed by all, that, of these, the most essential is the head. But should we take away any one of these,' she loses her identity, and ceases to be what she assumes. My first effort then shall be to prove that, for hundreds of years after Christ, she was without such a head; the most indispensable of these elements; and consequently, this being essential to her existence, she was not from the beginning. Because no body can exist before its head. Now, if we can find a time when there was no pope, or supreme head, we find a time when there was no Roman Catholic party.

By referring to the scriptures, and to the early ecclesiastical records, we can easily settle this point. Let us begin with the New Testament, which all agree, is the only authenticated standard of faith and manners-the only inspired record of the christian doctrine. This is a cardinal point, and I am thankful that in this we all agree. What is not found there, wants the evident sanction of inspiration, and can never command the respect and homage of those who seek for divine authority in faith and morality.

I affirm then, that not one of the offices, I have enumerated, as belonging to the Roman Catholic church, was known in the days of the apostles, or is found in the New Testament. On the contrary, the very notion of a vicar of Christ, of a prince of the apostles, or of a universal head, and government in the Christian church is repugnant to the genius and spirit of the religion. We shall read a few passages of scripture, from the Roman version, to prove that the very idea of an earthly head is unscriptural and anti-scriptural. The version from which I am about to quote was printed in New York, and is certified to correspond exactly, with the Rhemish original, by a number of gentlemen, of the first standing in society. If it differs from any other and more authentic copy, I will not rely upon it. I am willing to take whatever bible the gentleman may propose. I read from the twentieth of Matthew. "Jesus said to his disciples, You know that the princes of the Gentiles overrule them, and those that are the greater exercise power against them. It shall not be so among you, but whosoever will be the greater among you, let him be your minister!" Does this convey the idea of a prince among the apostles, a vicar of Christ, a lord over the people of God? Does it not rather say there shall not be any lordship amongst you! This command is express, that there shall not be a pope, a supreme lord of the christian church. Again, Matt. 23. 8." Be not you called Rabbi, for one is your Master

B