fact. The first arrival of St. Paul in Rome is mentioned in Acts xxviii. 14, 15, 16, and here it is distinctly stated that the brethren (Christians) came as far as Appii Forum and the Three Taverns to meet him; consequently there were Christians in that city before his arrival. Previously to this, he had written his Epistle to the Romans, where in chapter i. verses 7, 8, it is manifest that Rome was then a city which had a Christian Church "whose faith was spoken of through the whole world." Now the questions occur, who made those Christians? Who governed that Church? Certainly not Paul, who had not been there at that time. Not only Papias, but a great number of ancient writers inform us that Peter was their Apostle; this was stated to the knowledge of the people of Rome and of all the other churches, and not contradicted, but admitted by them all, and in the earliest ages was made a foundation for a claim on the part of Rome for supremacy over the other parts of the Church. Towards several portions of the universal Church, in the earliest ages, the Bishops of Rome used measures which appeared harsh and coercive, and yet we never find a single bishop or church in those early ages question the fact of Peter's residence and labours in Rome, though we find some of them displeased with the manner in which the authority derived from him was used against themselves. They lived near the apostolic days, they knew the character of Papias, and still we are gravely told that this simple prelate beguiled and misled them all!! Yet this is called criticism. I doubt not but we could find persons who would call it philosophy! Yes; the philosophy of history!! There are some people who seriously give that name to their own speculations against fact. Monsieur Blanc, however, forgets himself a little, for though he told us that it was upon the authority of Papias the Popish tradition of St. Peter's being at Rome, and so forth, rested, and gives us the account of Papias as based upon a hearsay about eighty years after the occurrence: that is, in the year 146, or thereabouts, he informs us in his next paragraph:

"According to the testimony of the same Eusebius, Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, an author of the second century, affirms also that St. Peter and St. Paul met at Corinth, and that they departed together for Rome, where they suffered martyrdom."'

One passing remark here might not be amiss, viz., this very accurate antiquarian refers us to the 25th chapter of Book II. of Eusebius, as authority for his statement that "St. Peter and St. Paul met at Corinth." Not one syllable in support of such an assertion is to be found in any copy of Eusebius which has fallen under my eye, nor in support of the other averment that "they departed together for Rome." But the history of Eusebius does contain a passage from the said

Dionysius, stating that both those saints did instruct the Christians at Corinth, and were united in the building or planting the Church at Rome; and Eusebius also states, that the same author testifies their martyrdom at Rome. Thus we find the essayist gives us another witness besides Papias; and, therefore, the Popish tradition, even according to himself, does not rest on that prelate alone. This looks like a contradiction. Dionysius died in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, of course before the year 192, and at an advanced age. If Papias wrote at Hierapolis only from a hearsay, eighty years after the transaction, Dionysius in Corinth, who wrote several years before his death, his Epistle to the Romans, in which this testimony is found, must in all likelihood have learned it from other sources besides the book of the Bishop of Hierapolis. And how strangely must it sound to the Romans when the letter of the Bishop of Corinth was read to them, informing them of what, upon the supposition of our friend the Reverend Blanc, they knew to be false, viz., that St. Peter, who never was in their city, planted their Church and was put to death in a place where he never had been!! Yet this same Dionysius appeared to know the history of the Roman Church very well, for in this same Epistle to the Romans, or rather to Soter their Bishop, he writes, in thanking them for the alms received from Rome for his Church:

"From the beginning it is your custom to bestow your alms in all places, and to furnish subsistence to many churches. You send relief to the needy, especially to those who work in the mines; in which you follow the example of your fathers. Your blessed Bishop Soter is so far from degenerating from your ancestors on that head, that he goes beyond them; not to mention the comfort and advice which he, with the bowels of a tender father towards his children, affords to all who come to him. On this day we celebrated together the Lord's day, and read your letter as we do that which was heretofore written to us by Clement."

It will be matter of more than curiosity to compare this with an early Protestant translation:

"It hath bene your accustomed manner, euen from the beginning: diuersely to benefit all the brethren, and to send relief throughout the citie, supplying the want of the poore by refreshing them in this sorte, and specially the want of the brethren appointed for slauish drudgerie, and digging of metalls. You Romaines, of olde do retaine the fatherly affection of Rome, which holy Soter you byshop not only obserued, but also augmented, ministring large and liberall relief to the vse of the sainctes: embracing louingly the conuerted brethren, as a father doth his sonnes, with exhortation of wholesome doctrine. Here also he remembreth the epistle of Clemens written to the Corinthians, showing the same of auncient custome, to have bene read in the Church, for thus he writeth: We have this day solemnized the holy Sunday, in the which we haue read your epistle and alwayes will for instructions sake, even as we do the former of Clemens written vnto us. ""

"The citie" is here substituted for "many churches;" any person

can tell why. The Bishop who wrote this did not need the hearsay nor the tradition of Papias to tell who was the first Bishop of Rome. Of a verity then, Dionysius copied not Papias, as of a truth Monsieur Blanc copied not either Eusebius or Dionysius where he affected to do. Dionysius, however, must also be demolished.

"But besides that Dionysius himself complains that his letters have been falsified by heretics, a circumstance which considerably invalidates the authority of his writings, this testimony ought not to outweigh the truth of our holy Scriptures, which, with the divine assistance, we shall bring forward below.''

Then we must, it seems, throw the testimony of this writer away, because he complains that "his letters had been falsified by heretics." If the principle be good, we must give to it all due weight and value, and, therefore, must make no use of what he thus states to have been so falsified. Of course Mr. Blanc cannot reject one portion of the passage, and keep another, without giving some sufficient reason therefor. The following is the Protestant translation:

"When I was intreated of the brethren to write, I wrote certain Epistles, but the messengers of Satan have sowen them with tares, pulling away some, putting to others some, whose condemnation is laid up of certaine. No marveil then though some endevored to corrupt the sacred Scriptures of God, when as went about to counterfeit such writings of so small authoritie.”—Lib. iv. chap. 23.

Are we then to reject the Scriptures? Have not heretics endeavoured to falsify them? My answer is very simple. Attempts were made to change passages in those Epistles of Dionysius regarding doctrine and opinion, but concerning a plain fact, as well known at Rome, whither he wrote, as at Corinth, upon a subject regarding which Rome could not mistake, it would indeed be egregious folly to attempt any counterfeit, for such counterfeit would be at once detected, and would expose him who made it to condemnation and contempt. But what a case do our adversaries make out for us, if they call this a forgery?— It is equivalent to an avowal that in the days of this bishop, there was a body of men who falsified his letters to make it appear that Peter was at Rome, and that their system was like ours, founded upon his supremacy. Will not this destroy his assertion that is was begun by Papias? See the other consequence of arguing as Monsieur Blanc does. We destroy the authority of the Scriptures of God. It is really, my friends, an avowal of what I am convinced is the fact, that to destroy the foundations of the Roman Catholic Church, you must subvert Christianity.

But to return. It is plain that the Epistle to Soter and the Roman people was not one of those that had been falsified, for they that were changed by heretics were his doctrinal epistles, but this is one merely

of thanks for alms. He then learned, not from Papias, but from public evidence, as did Papias himself; hence the French dissertation states that which is not the fact, when it gives Papias as the only original author of the statement.

I leave to the "clerical friend," and to his editor, to say how they can be certain that the copy of the Scriptures, which they possess, is free from heretical corruptions, if copies had been corrupted by heretics so early as the time of Dionysius. For my part, I avow I could have no certainty respecting the copy which I use, did I not acknowledge the infallible authority of a tribunal which then guarded their purity, and continues to do so to-day, but which tribunal is valueless in the eye of those erudite antiquarians.

Before I proceed to adduce the other testimony, I desire to close my remarks upon the passages which I have adduced from Monsieur Blanc.

"Papias was copied by Clement of Alexandria, Clement was copied by Eusebius.'' The essayist refers for his authority in making these statements to Eusebius, (Hist. Ecc. lib. ii., c. 14, 15, et seq.). How far et seq. might extend, I know not. But I do know that, after a diligent reading of Eusebius, I find no authority for the statement. But in the fifteenth chapter I find the following passage:

Chapter XV, The foyle of Simon, and mention of the Gospell VVritten by St. Marke: "When the heauenly worde came thither, immediately the power of Simon, together with him selfe came to nought, and the flame was quenched. But of the contrarie such a light of piety shined in the mindes of such as heard Peter, that they were not suffized with once hearing, neither satisfied with the unwritten doctrine that was deliuered: but earnestly besought Sainct Marke (whose Gospell is now in use) that he would leaue in writing, vnto them, the doctrine which they had receaued by preaching, neither ceassed they, vntill they had perswaded him, and so geuen an occasion of the Gospell to be written, which is now after Marke. It is reported, that the Apostle vnderstanding of this by inspiration of the holy spirite, was pleased with the motion of those men, and commanded this Gospell now written, to be read in the Churches. Clemens in the sixth of his Hypotiposeon, reporteth this story. With him agreeth Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia, who sayeth, that of this Marke mention is made by Peter, in his former Epistle, which he compiled being at Rome, and of him the citie of Rome figuratively to be called Babylon, the which is signified when he sayth: the Church partaker of your election, which is at Babylon, saluteth you, and Marke my sonne."

There is no authority here for stating that the writer of the Hypotiposeon copied from Papias, and when Monsieur Blanc made the assertion, he wrote the thing which is not. Neither was Clement the author of that book, though it bears his name. Eusebius wrote in the century succeeding that in which Clement died, and quotes him; but I shall show a large body of intervening testimony in several places during the

interval, so that to assert as is here done by the dissertator, is to suggest a falsehood, that this was the only course of the testimony, and is also to suppress the truth, that there was a large host of other witnesses: and besides, the fact here referred to is not the founding of the church, but the writing of the Gospel by St. Mark, at Rome, under the direction of St. Peter.

As to the remarks concerning Simon Magus, and the crucifixion of St. Peter, I shall find a more proper period for my observations than at the close of this letter.

I remain, my friends,

Yours, and so forth,

LETTER III.

B. C.

CHARLESTON, S. C., Nov. 17, 1828.

My Friends:-I have shown that Mr. Blanc's references to Eusebius are not to be relied upon; that Papias was a cotemporary of some of the Apostles, and could easily ascertain who was the first Bishop of Rome; that he was an honest witness, and even according to the reverend dissertator, was not the only witness who, living in the apostolic days, testified the fact of Peter's residence at Rome; for Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, who testifies it, was also a cotemporary with at least one of the Apostles.

The next attempt to destroy testimony is the effort to make Pope Clement of Rome say what is the very contradictory to his meaning.

"To all these pretensions, we can oppose, in the first place, the testimony of Clement, who is reckoned to have been the third or fourth Bishop of Rome. This pious and holy person, in his admirable Epistle to the Corinthians, expresses himself thus, on the subject of St. Peter and St. Paul:-'Through unjust envy, Peter did not endure one or two, but a very great number of trials, and at last, having suffered martyrdom, he went to his place in glory. Through the same envy, Paul received the reward of his patience, having been in prison or in chains seven times, beaten twice, stoned once: and after he had been the herald of the word of God in the east and in the west, he obtained by faith an illustrious victory. Having reached the extremity of the west, he suffered martyrdom under the emperors. Thus he departed from this world, and went to a holy place, leaving us a singular example of patience.' What is the likelihood, that in the parallel which Clement draws between these two Apostles, he should forget to say that under the emperors he (Peter) suffered the pains of martyrdom? Would he have neglected a fact, in this manner, which would have given additional weight to his epistle, and done honour to his see?” The passage of Clement is to be explained by the circumstances under which it was written, by the comment of cotemporaneous writers, and of those who lived soon after the period of its publication. Allow