says, "I will work a miracle, and in proof of that assertion, he takes a number of lambs and he turns them into a desert, where nothing is to be found but howling and ravening wolves; in the beginning, some of the lambs are slaughtered, but, in a short time, by their good conduct, by their mildness, and forbearance towards their enemies, they changed the wolves and tigers into lambs, and made them as mild and as tame as themselves, would not that be a great miracle? And such, exactly, has been our case. "Behold, (says Jesus Christ) I send you as lambs among wolves; Luke x. 3. And such was the case with the holy apostles, martyrs, coufessors, and virgine of our church. They were sent into the desert of this world, numbers of them were murdered, but in the end such was their conduct, that they converted the fierce and ravening wolves of paganism, into glorious and innocent lambs, and made them all follow the good shepherd, Jesus Christ. Did not St. Francis Xavier, convert more souls to Christianity in India, during the short space of three years, than al! that were ever converted by the Protestant Church put together? Even Protestant historians acknowledge the miracles of that great and holy Saint; for God knew that when he was sent to carry the Gospel of Jesus Christ into an infidel country, miracles were necessary to attest the truth of his mission, and to convince the pagans that his commission to preach, and the doctrines which he taught, were of a divine origin; such conversions are not like those effected by the Protestant Church. My Rev. friend's maxim would be, to give the unbeliever the Bible, and then he was converted, although the imaginary convert might cast away the Bible in a moment or two afterwards, or, like the Jewish Rabbi, said to be converted by Mr. Wolff, cut a portion of it out, and keep the remainder as a memorial of his friend. It may be said to the ignorant Protestants, as Abraham said to Dives-"they have Moses and the prophets let them hear them." (Luke xiv. 29.) Why, sir, they have no such thing; what do ignorant Protestants know about the Bible? How many years would they take to go over the Bible? How would they understand it? How could they interpret it? According to Mr. Gregg, they are at liberty to do so, agreeably to their own ignorant, and therefore fallible private judgment. Gentlemen, you will hear his interpretation of the Apocalypse, according to his "private judgment," and you will find that he will not have it all his own way. To-morrow, my friends, you will see how I will refute all his assertions that he has brought, and may bring forward against my church. What will you think of his interpretation of the Scriptures, when he tells you that the" Antichrist" foretold, will be in the Church of God. But I will prove from the Holy Scriptures, that he will be out of the church-that he will deny Christ and the church, and that he will not come until near the end of the world,—that his reign will be for three years and a half only; "he shall reign for a time, and times, and a half a time." "And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change time and laws, cnd they shall be given into his hand, until a time, and tines, and the dividing of time." Daniel, vii. 25. I will prove to you, gentlemen-in fact, that text alone proves it-that he will be but one man, "and he shall speak." and not a succession of Popes, as Mr. Gregg has attempted to show you; and I will prove to a demonstration, that his interpretation of the Scriptures is both nonsensical and foolish in the highest degree. I will show you some of the greatest Protestant writers that ever lived, laughing at him and the interpretation which he has put upon those texts which he has quoted. I will now, my brethren, in my turn, ask him to prove from the Holy Scriptures any one of his thirty-nine articles, with the exception of those I have already mentioned, and in the belief of which we both agrce. I call upon him to give me proofs from Holy Writ in support of his twenty-two negative articles. He is bound to give me proofs. He says, and his church says, that it is essentially necessary to a man's salvation to believe them; and she not only says so, but she compels men to swear to them. I ask him this, either a man is bound to believe them, or he is not? If they are essentially necessary to salvation, every man is bound to believe them: but, in order to be binding, they must be founded on the No. 2. 3*

''

Holy Scriptures; and if so, they can very easily be supported by the Word of God; but if they are not essentially necessary to salvation, why compel men to swear to & belief in, and an observance of them? Again, I say, if they are essentials, be must hold that no man can be saved without a perfect belief in, and a full compliance with them; and therefore, I ask you, my friends, is he not bound to prove them-to sustain them by the Scriptures? If he cannot do so-and I defy him to do so-am I not, then, warranted in saying, that Protestantism is a compound of human inventions? Oh, look at what a miserable figure she will make when the world will see that her great champion cannot support, by Scripture, any one of her twenty-two negative and reformed articles? Her articles have been rejected by millions who have left her communion, because they could not act in unison with her; they saw that those articles, which she tyrannically imposed upon them, and made them swear to observe, in the teeth of that doctrine which she teaches, I mean "private judgment,'” were unscriptural; they, therefore, went out from her. She did not condemn them --she could not, she dare not; they exercised that right which she allowed them to exercise the right of private judgment: and she could not consistently support her own articles of religion-her rule of faith by the Scriptures-she could not support it by the Word of God. Consequently, I pronounce her to be one great mass of error and self-contradiction. She is not like a city seated upon a high mountain; she is not like that glorious tree which overshadoweth the whole earth, in whose ample foliage all the birds of the air might nestle; she has not the visible marks of the true church. That church, to which I belong, fills all nations: she is Catholic, which means universal; there is not a nation upon the face of the earth in which she is not to be found; she is like a city seated upon a high mountain; she is like the glorious tree, which, from being like the little mustard seed in the beginning, has at length shot up to such an amazing height, as to overshadow the whole earth, and spread herself over all the world; she is like that tree, in which all the birds of the air might find shelter. But those who build nests for themselves-those who are fond of novelties and romancing-those, that nothing will please, but that which is dictated by their own fancies, we leave to shelter where they will; we cannot compel them to come into our fold, although Jesus Christ says-" other sheep I have which are not of this fold, them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd." Jno. x. 16. Now, where was that shepherd, and where was that one fold for 100 years? Where were they during that time? Did Jesus leave them so long alone? No, certainly not; for his promises have never failed. The promises of Jesus Christ could not fail; and. therefore, I do say that the doctrines of the Protestant Church, as explained by Mr. Gregg, are false, and in direct opposition to the religion revealed by Chris', and preached by his apostles. Again, I say, that church, is a false and an ignorant church, which contradicts the Holy Scriptures, right reason, and common sense; but the Church of England contradicts the Holy Scriptures, right reason, and common sense; and, therefore, she is an ignorant church. Now, I piove my minor proposition. The Church of England maintains that a part is greater than the whole, and this she does, when she teaches that the private judgment of one member of the church, is to be preferred to the judgment of the whole church. Now, this was the doctrine of the early Reformers,-it was the doctrine of Luther and Calvin, that the private judgment of each member of the church, was greater than the judgment of the whole church; for otherwise, if that was not their doctrine, how could they excuse themselves for separating from the whole church? Now, when the Church of England teaches that a part is greater than the whole, she teaches that, which is contrary to the first principles of reason, and common sense, and therefore I again say, that she is a false and ignorant church, and I challenge my Rev. antagonist to prove the contrary, by showing that she teaches the truth, and does not contradict both herself and common sense. He relies much upon Martin Luther, that great apostle of his church, but what has Christianity to do with Martin Luther? Nothing-he was the mere founder of a new religious system, unknown

to all the world before his time. He stood alone, and therefore, it follows, that all the Christian world was against him. He had nothing to do with Christianity, for "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." "But how can they hear withopt a preacher? and how can they preach unless they be sent." Who sent Luther, eh! who sent that blustering Apostle of a new religion until then, unheard of? where did Luther get his commission to preach, and to teach that new religion? was not Luther baptized by us? was he not educated by us? did he not get his ordination from us? did he not get his very Bible from us? for one thousand years we were the only church in the world laying claim to Catholicity, and that had possession of it. Luther, him self, could not make an act of faith, except in the Catholic Church, and no man who does not adhere to the doctrines of that church, is capable of inaking an act of faith, he is no more capable of making an act of faith, than the child unborn, according to your own doctrines, you have not even a moral certainty, that you are in the true church, and no act of faith can be made upon a mere probability, and therefore, I say, that the Church of England cannot be the Church of Christ, and for this reason, Jesus Christ could reveal nothing that was only morally certain and probable, because then his eternal veracity would only amount to probability. If every thing that is in the church of England, can only amount, at most, to moral probability, because she avows her own fallibility, and as no revelation of Jesus Christ, can be grounded upon fallibility, that is to say, which may be, or may not be true:-Therefore, as the Church of England teaches her own fallibility, she cannot be the Church of Christ. I ask then my Rev. opponent, since there is nothing in his church that is not fallible, how can he make an act of divine faith on fallibility, for no absolute certainty can be built on mere moral probability? How then can he infallibly certain, how can he be infal libly sure that he has the true faith? when he has no infallible organ to teach him the true faith? How many fallibilities will he require to lead him to infallibility. How different was the Apostles' faith-Scio cui crededi et certus sum, "I know whom I have believed." 1 Tim. i. 12.

Here Mr. Maguire's half hour ended.

Rev. Mr. GREGG.-Gentlemen, I do from my heart and soul congratulate the people of Ireland on this discussion. It is a glorious thing; I congratulate them because I feel assured that before it shall have terminated, they will be convinced that the Church of Rome is a false church. Mr. Maguire has spoken for half an hour, and I do undertake to say, that when the report of this discussion goes before the public, they will pronounce his speech unintelligible. He has been darkening counsel by words without knowledge, I say he has been sophisticating and trifling, instead of dealing plainly with the truth. He does not answer my questions, and then he stands up and gets into a fume and a passion, and tells me that I do not answer his. He said, "your church cannot convert a Jew," I answered that, then he defied me to stand out about private judgment; I said I did not assert a paramount right of private judgment. Thus he makes a battle against his own imaginations. He makes the giants first, and then he kills them; he contends against me as if I were a private separated individual, when I tell you that I am a member of the Church of England, and that there is a consistency between the public judgment of the church, and a well exercised private judgment. Luther, he says, had no judgment to go by, and then he pretends to give us Luther's own words; I have Luther's own words here, he was a man that spoke plain truth. I call on you my Roman Catholic brethren, to decide where is clearness, and where is there a manifest exhibition of truth, and where is bush fighting, and running into holes and corners. Do you determine that, I pray God you may be enabled to do 80. Luther says there is a right of private judgment, and he brings forward Scripture to prove it.

Let us come to the new law, Christ says, in John, chap. x. "My sheep hear my voice, they hear not the voice of strangers, but fly from them." Now does he not

here make the sheep the judges? Does he not give the right of determining to the hearers. Paul also, when in the first of Cor. xiv. he says, "let one speak, let the others judge, but if any thing be revealed to one who sits by, let the former keep silence," does he not here understand the power of judging to belong to the hearer? So, whatever Christ prescribes in Matthew xiv. and elsewhere, of false doctors, whatever Peter and Paul prescribe concerning false Apostles and teachers, whatever John prescribes concerning trying the spirits, evidently grows out of the principle, that the authority of proving, of judging, of condemning, belongs in strictest justice to the people.

For every one at his own peril believes rightly or falsely, and, therefore, each must for himself take care that he believes rightly, so that even common sense and the necessity of salvation urge that the judgment of doctrine doth necessarily belong to the hearer, otherwise in vain, it is said, "prove all things, and hold fast that which is good;" and again, "He that is spiritual judgeth all things, and yet is himself judged of no man," but every Christian is rendered spiritual by the spirit of Christ: again he says, "all things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas; that is ye have the right of judging concerning the deeds and words of all." Lutheri Opera. Tom. 2 Will. 1562. These are Luther's words about private judgment, and mark what he says about the Church, "the bishops and priests, (i. e. of the Romish Apostasy,) have impiously and sacrilegiously wrested it, (that is the right of private judgment) from the people, that is from "Queen Church." Queen Church." Luther's tract against Henry the Eighth.

Mr.

There he admits the existence of "Queen Church." The holy church, and let Mr. Maguire not pretend to say it did not exist; I say "Queen Church" always existed; I undertake to prove every article of the Church of England from Scripture; I shall stand by the Church of England as long as I have breath. Mr. Maguire says, that the Church of England in her homilies declares that every individual, man, woman and child, was sunk in gross and damnable idolatry for eight hundred years and more. I assent, cum intimo animo meo; to that proposition, but then remember that there are two kinds of Universality; first there is a moral Universality, and secondly, there is a metaphysical Universality. We can say in general, that all men have reason, although there are some exceptions; and it is just precisely in that sense the church speaks; it speaks generally as the Scriptures do, when it says, "all men are sinners," while the Scriptures admit that those who are redeemed by Christ Jesus, (are in a sense) exceptions, and so it is with the church of England, she does not contradict the truth in her homily, in urging that Universal proposition. Maguire says, that the Church of England contradicts the words of Christ, and he gives us some syllogistic arguments on the subject. I would to God that Mr. Maguire would learn to despise those miserable sophisticated syllogisms; I tell him that he will not attain to the truth, as it is in Christ, unless he attain to something more of the simplicity of the Gospel. He tells us that the Church of England contradicts the words of Christ, because Christ said, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church. Why here we are the united Church of England and Ireland, blessed be God. standing on the rock of everlasting ages, brought out of the midst of the apostate Babylon, and verifying in a manner the most cheering, and the most glorious, the inviolability of the truth of Christ's everlasting promise; yes, our Church stands upon a rock, but at the same time Christ has foretold that the Church of Rome, as I will prove to-morrow, as clear as the sun in the heavens, (notwithstanding Mr. Maguire's imagination to the contrary) should become Apostate, I will prove that it is the very identical Apostasy foretold by the Prophet Daniel, as the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place." Mr. Magnire says, "where was your church for so long a period, during the lapse of one thousand years?" I must not allow Mr. Maguire to drive me out of the plain course of my demonstrations; I shall prove that our Church is the Church of Christ in these kingdoms, recollect, that there are two characteristics belonging to the Church of

Christ, which the Church of England possess. First, we have that fellowship with the Apostles which is mentioned in the Acts. "These all continued in the Apostles' fellowship." Secondly, we have the Doctrine of the Apostles "These all continued in the Apostles' Doctrine, and fellowship," that is, though there should be a separated society that held the doctrine of Christ, yet the Christians there spoken of would not go to that sect or party, but would cleave to that society in which the Apostles were, and would not go to another, though it taught the Apostles' doctrine. In fact, the Christians there described, which cleaved to the Apostles' society, belonged to the body established by Christ. Now I assert and maintain against the whole world, my Roman Catholic brethren, that the doctrines which we teach are the doctrines of Christ; doctrines exalting the glories of the Saviour-promoting holiness in the Christian character-and producing happiness, peace, and comfort wherever they are received in the soul-but that is a subsequent work. Mr. Maguire asks what nation has our church ever converted from infidelity! I answer the question very easily. There is New Zealand, and Australia in general, and numerous nations in India; but the Roman Catholic Church, since she became apostate, never converted one single nation but with the sword. Here is a very respectable book which is called the Pontificale Romanum, and if Mr. Maguire finds me such a ceremony in the Common Prayer-Book, as I shall now read from this book, I shall myself become a Papist. It is the ceremony for blessing a sword. A great long sword. Here you see is a picture of it. It is a very formidable weapon. First of all a blessing is pronounced on the sword and him who carries it; then the rubric goes on to say, "Let the Pontifex,"-mark the word Pontifex! it is the title of the High Priest of Pagan Rome. I shall show that Popery is just a resurrection of Paganism. "Let the Pontifex sprinkle the sword with holy water, and sitting with the mitre, deliver it to the proper person, who kneels before him, saying, "Receive this sword in the name of the Father, and of the + Son, and of the Holy Ghost, for thy defence, and that of the holy Church of God, and for the confusion of the enemies of the cross of Christ and of the Christian faith; and, as far as human fraility shall permit, hurt no one unjustly with it-which may he make you to do, who liveth and reigneth with the Father and with the Holy Ghost, one God, in sæcula sæculorum. Amen."

Do you perceive the way in which the Roman Catholic Church converts the nations; there is the way she converted the Albigenses, and made them as quiet and as still as lambs, for millions of them were made silent by the sword of Simon de Montfort. Now mind, Rev. sir, I admit that the Church of Rome in the primitive ages was a distinguished vessel and instrument of mercy; it is against her apostasy I protest-I will prove to you that it is only against her abuses I protest.