church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch, with Paul and Barna. bas, namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren, and they wrote letters by them after this manner, the Apostles and Elders, and brethren, send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria, and Cilicia. For as much as we have heard, that certain which went out from us, have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, ye must be circumcised and keep the law, to whom we gave no such commandment. We have sent, therefore, Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burthen than these necessary things." Acts of the Apostles, chap. xv. verses 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28. The Antiocheans and Judeans maintained that circumcision was necessary. But St. Paul withstood them, and they him, they were not convinced by the preaching of those Apostles, and we are told that there was a great disputation and an appeal was had to the College of Apostles and Priests at Jerusalem, they appealed to a general Council of what my Rev. opponent calls "the officers of the church," he was afraid of the word "Priest," and therefore he was pleased to style them "officers;" but I can tell him that although every "Priest" is an "officer," it does not follow that every officer is a Priest; I therefore wish that he would give up his holy horror of the name, and speak more ecclesiastically. Well then, my brethren, bear this with you, Sts. Paul and Barnabas allowed the appeal to the Council, and there the matter was discussed and settled. Now if the right of private judgment was allowed, if every man was permitted to judge for himself in matters of faith, St. Paul was a wicked man for allowing the appeal to the Council at Jerusalem, and for sitting in judgment upon private judgment. He did that which he ought not to have done, and the Apostles were equally guilty for sitting with him in judgment, receiving the appeal, and deciding against, and forever silencing the Antiocbeans and Judeans, who never afterwards uttered one word against the decision; they bowed to the authority of the Council and the Holy Ghost, for the Council declared-“It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us." verse 28. Now, my friends, if the right of private judgment was the rule of faith established by the Holy Ghost, this decision would not have been made by the Apostles, for they would not have dared to rescind the tribunal of the Holy Ghost. Their decision, therefore, is a flat negative to the doctrine of "private judgment," which is the base and boast and origin of ail Protestantism. Now, gentlemen, with respect to that assertion of the Protestant Church-and which assertion has been reiterated here to-day by my Rev. friend-to wit, that the church was invisible for 800 years and more--that the whole world was buried in gross idolatry and superstition-how, I ask, if that was the case, were the promises of Jesus Christ fulfilled? What incomprehensible fools must have been the martyrs who, for the first 500 years-when the alleged apostasy had set in-spilled their blood in Spain, Italy, Germany, France, Portugal, and the Low Countries;-what egregious fools they must have been to give up friends. property, and life—to suffer their eyes and tongues to be pulled out, to subunit to be torn in pieces by wild beasts, and to undergo every species of torment. torments of the bitterest description-and all for the sake of a vile church that drank deeply, even at that period, of the abominations of apostasy, if we are to believe the assertions of the Rev. champion of the Protestant Church; and, mind you, ray friends, this too at a period when England herself received the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which was preached to her by a Minister of that apostate church-for the whole world was at that time within the visible pale of the Catholic Church:-what madmen, I repeat, must all the saints and martyrs have been, to have their properties destroyed, to be tied to the stake,-what mad people they must have been, as I have already observed, to suffer all this for an aceursed and an apostate church? or, how foolish to imagine that that church for which so many holy men and women have suffered the most ignominious deaths, should be apostate? I ask you, why so many beautiful virgins submitted to be torn in pieces by wild beasts? And why, as it sometimes happened, did the wild beasts

to whom they were thrown, refuse to devour them? If the Catholic Church were not the Church of Christ, let me ask, why, when locked up with the raging beasts in their dens, did those animals lick their feet and shew them that mercy which barbarous man denied? Gentlemen, I ask you, were not these some of the visible marks of the true church? And I challenge my Rev. friend to show me in what other church have such miracles happened-or for what other religion have such sacrifices. been made. I challenge him to shew me any. St. Paul gave God thanks for the Romans that their faith was praised all over the world—" To all that be in Rome beloved of God, called to be saints; Grace to you and peace from our God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world." Romans, 1st chap. 7, 8 verses. They had the true faith at that time. He allows that we had the true faith in the beginning: he admits that. And now I call upon my Rev. friend to tell me, when we lost that true faith? Will he name to me, my brethren, what was the first heresy? when did it commence? under what Pope or Emperor was that heresy broached? Let him name the historian by whom that heresy is recorded. Let him name any heresy that ever was broached without the Catholic Church having excommunicated the man that broached it. The Catholic Church never permitted an error to be broached without attacking and confuting it, and lopping off from her communion the individual that promulgated it. Now, if he can show one heretic that was not excommunicated-if he can show one heretic that was allowed to remain in communion with the Catholic Church, after he put forward his heretical doctrine, let him name him, and if he does, he will be doing something for the cause of his church; I say, then, he cannot name one, if he can I call upon him-nay, I defy him to do so. What noise Arius caused in the world, when he broached his heretical doctrines,-who brought him to task for denying the divinity of Jesus Christ, who condemned him, and who condemned all the persons in the whole world that ever promulgated heresy, but the Roman Catholic Church? Will you name me one heresy that she did not condemn? You cannot, and I again defy you to do so; does not Martin Luther, the great grandfather of the reformation, and apostle of your church, declare that in the beginning, he stood alone? "Primo solus eram, et certe ad tantas res tractandas ineptissimus et indoctissimus; casu enim. non voluntate, nec studio, in has turbas incidi, Deum ipsum testor." In pref. to 1. lat. And in his short confession, Brev. Conf. he says his doctrine is " new, and above measure scandalous all over the whole earth.' In his book "De Summa Mandalorum," he says, "I know of no person, since the Apostles, who judged correctly of Faith and Works."-De Captivit Babylon, he says, "The Papal tyranny has extinguished the faith for many years back."-Contra Regem Angliæ, he says, boastingly, "I have brought the word of God to light in such a manner, as has not been heard of these thousand years."--Contra Missam, he says, "Be not staggered at the thought, that the whole world is against us, both in its faith, and its practice." And "De abrogat. Missa," he says to himself, "Art thou alone wise ?" Have all the Universities of the world erred? Have all ages been in ignorance? Now, Rev, Sir, where was the Holy Catholic Church then? was it then invisible? Luther was obliged to make an act of faith in the Catholic Church, under pain of eternal damnation, and how could he make it if the church was invisible? Where was then the visible Catholic Church? You know, Sir, that Christ himself says, "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church, but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto them as a heathen and a publican."-Matt. xviii. c. 17 v. How, Sir, can you obey a church how can you hear a church, if that church is not to be seen? Where then was that church which Luther was commanded to hear and obey? If it were invisible as you say it was, I again repeat it could not be heard and obeyed; where then was the church which Luther was to obey? He, himself says, it was no where, and you Sir, make the same assertion, and if you be right, how could either you, or he, act in obedience to the command of Christ, "To hear the Church, which you and he say was

invisible for 800 years and more? And how could he comply with that article of the Apostles' creed, which says, "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church?" The only church then in existence laying claim to the term "Catholic" was ours, and how could it be competent for him, or for you, or for those who sanction your religious opinions, "to hear or to obey" a church, which you allege was an invisible church before the days of Luther, and a apostate one at the present period? A church must be visible to be heard, and that I take to be a principle consistent with right reason and common sense. Now, my brethren, I shall say a word or two with reference to the doctrine of the invisibility of the church. I will shew him that be must come over to our church, I will demonstrate to him that it is not possible for any man of his religion to convert a Jew, and if I show him that, he must come over to our side. He says that he would at once give the Jew the book of God, and then preach Jesus Christ crucified.-But this is supposing every thing and proving nothing. The Jew denies the New Testament, and denies Jesus Christ. How would he reconcile the Jew to his invisible church? The Jew whom he would seek to convert would say unto him, why, Sir, for eight hundred years and more, according to yourself, there was not a human being in the church of your Messiah, that was not sunk in base and infamous idolatry; here, Sir, is the 2d chapter and 18th verse of Isaiah, "And idols shall be utterly destroyed." "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean from all filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.” Ezek. 36 chap. xxv. v. ; and again, verse 23; "And I will sanctify my great name which was profaned amongst the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them, that the heathen may know that I am the Lord, saith the Lord God, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes." And again, in Micah, 5th chap. xiii. verse; Thy graven images also will I cut off, and thy standing images out of the midst of thee, and thou shall no more worship the work of thy hand;" and again, “And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord of Hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered; and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirits to pass out of the land." Zach. 13 c. ii. v. Now Sir, the Jew would say there was to be no idolatry in the Christian dispensation, according to our prophets, for the ancient prophets expressly declare that in the new covenant there never would be any idolatry-since then, you declare there has been no idolatry, in what you call the new covenant, for 800 years or more, you contradict yourself, and our prophets, and therefore your religion cannot be the religion of the true Messiah, and secondly, he whom you call the Messiah, to wit, Jesus Christ, has expressly promised, "That the gates of hell should never prevail against his church." Matt. 16 c. 18 v. "That he would be with her all days, even unto the end of the world." Matt. xxviii. 20. that he would "send her the spirit of truth to guide her into all truth." Jno. 16. 12. 13 v. "That she should be like a city built upon a mountain which could not be hid." Matt. 5 c. 14 v. as "That her bishops and pastors would be the salt of the earth." Matt. 5 c. 13 v. and "That he that did not hear her, should be as the heathen and the publican." Matt. 18 c. 17 v. Here then the Jew would say, is your own Messiah predicting that his church should never tolerate idolatry-but you say that she has not only tolerated it, but that she has been aotually swallowed up in it for 800 years and more; therefore, Sir, either your religion is not the religion of the true Messiah, for you contradict both him and our prophets, or your Messiah has broken his promises-and if he has broken them, he could not be the true Messiah; therefore, Sir, you must either become a Jew, or look out for some other church, as the true church of the Messiah. Now, Sir, I should be glad to hear your answer to this argument of the Jew.-Surely, Sir, the Jew would say, as I have already observed, that there was to be no idolatry in the Christian dispensation; and he would prove that on the authority of his own prophets-and then he would tell you, before you teach me a new religion, reconcile it with the language of the great God, as spoken by the mouth of the prophets-shew me that this new religion which you preach to me, and which you want me to believe, is consistent with

our prophets who never preached, nor promulgated what was false-show me that— but until you do that, I will not hear anything from any man's lips, who says, that our prophets were liars: and, Sir, I tell you, that you never will gain over one of my religion to embrace that which you profess, so long as you maintain, that in the visible church of your Messiah, there was nothing but idolatry" for 800 years and more," which doctrine of yours is a flat contradiction to our prophets, and consequently, not to be received by us. That is the answer, Sir, which you would receive from the Jew, if you attempted to convert him to your opinions-opinions, which I maintain, have no settled or definite principles to rest upon. Now, Sir, I will give you what I will call a segment of the arguments, which I will use in the course of this discussion. I ask you, Sir, what signifies it if you prove that our religion is wrong? it may be wrong, but it does not follow, if our church be wrong, that therefore the church of England is right.-You, Sir, have blinked that question-you have given that question the go-by-therefore, my brethren, it is not at all necessary for me to say one single word in defence of my own religion, in reply to him, and for two reasons; First, he has not advanced one single argument against it; and secondly, if he did, it is not the subject of this day's discussion. But now, one word with respect to the Church of England; and here I must take a liberty with my friends, the Dissenters. The Dissenters are a numerous, a respectable, and an intelligent class of Christians, and are equally opposed to the monstrous grasping and tyrannical ambition of the Established Church, that thrusts her hands in every man's pocket, whether he prays with her or not-whether he agrees with her doctrines or not-or whether he curses them or not, every man must pay! friends as well as foes, must contribute. The Dissenters have been flung off-and why? because they will not swear to the observance of twenty-two negative articles, which they repudiate, and are not willing to pay her what she has not earned. Nevertheless, they must pay. The Dissenters are told by the Church of England, "you must pay-you must contribute to the support of the wives and daughters of my ministers, and you must enable them to roll in their carriages; you must enable my bishops to portion off their daughters, who are to be married to parsons, and have benefices for their sons. That is the language which the Protestant Church uses towards the Dissenters; and there is not an argument, or, more properly speaking, an assertion that he may advance that I will not retort upon him, with double force, in the name of the Dissenters. Gentlemen, I will fling the Dissenters in his face,-I will show that his doctrines, and those of his church, have damned them, and that his church oppresses and persecutes them, and that his rule of faith would damn me, as well as him and them, if I were fool enough to adopt it. He tells me, forsooth, that he is right, and that I am, and those who think with me are wrong; and therefore if we are wrong, he is right. That is his argument: it is a complete non sequitur; but, if his argument were right, it would go to this-that no man outside the pale of his church could be saved.

"This hell-fire creed is 'Tresham's,' every line,—

Oh! priestless parsons, take it not for mine,"

Gentlemen, that is his creed; it is not my doctrine, for I will not be so uncharitable as to say that any man who sincerely and solemnly believes that he is right, will be damned; but nevertheless he is bound to take care and examine that he may see that he be in the truth. I belong to a church which commands me not to judge, lest I may be judged-"judge not, and you shall not be judged ;" and I also know that the right hand of God's mercy is not to be tied down by us. It is true that I believe no heretic or schismatic will be saved; but who is to decide here who is the heretic and who the schismatic? The man that professes the doctrines of a false church, and knows them to be wrong, is a heretic and will be damned. St. Paul says so," he is condemned by his own judgment." Luther, that great apostate and apostle of the Reformation, was a heretic, because he went out from us, and preached new doctrines; but a man that remains in the wrong church through hereditary

Q*

ignorance, or through mistake, if such a case could be supposed, I would be very sorry indeed to say, much less to imagine, that that man would be damned on account of his faith. St. Paul says, that "there must be heresies," as Christ says, "scandals must come." But why is heresy so strongly reprobated by that great apostle? Why? Because it excludes from the kingdom of heaven. Now, I ask how could my reverend opponent call the Rev. Mr. Burgh a heretic, merely because he differed from him in opinion? Why has not Mr. Burgh, who judges not others lest he may be judged, a right to judge for himself? Has he not the right of private judgment as well as Mr. Gregg, according to his own principles? Why, to be sure he has. But Mr. Gregg stands up for the right of private judgment. He says that every man, learned or unlearned, has a right to exercise it; but the very moment persons attempt to do so, and especially if they dare to differ from him, up he jumps and condemns them and their private judgment into the bargain. He co demas Mr. Burgh for exercising his private judgment, although he maintains that cvery man has a right to the exercise of it. He condemns Arius for denying the divinity of Jesus Christ; and yet, according to his principles, Arius had as good a right to the exercise of his private judgment as my reverend friend. Now, my friends, upon his own principles, and upon his own showing, have I not a right to the exercise of my own private judgment? And let me ask him, upon his own principles, how he could consistently with those principles which he is endeavouring to maintain, attack me if I chose to broach a new heresy to-morrow?-and I can assure him that I could broach one as well as many who have done so alreadySuppose I was to say that my friend, the Rev. Mr. Gregg, was not to have a second coat-the Gospel says so: if I said, "when you are asked for your coat, to give your cloak also;" "If you are struck upon one cheek, turn the other;" or, "If your eye offend thee, pluck it out ;" and if I said to my hearers, you are to understand these texts literally, what right would you, who maintain the right of private judgraent, have to call me a heretic? or how would you answer me, or refute my doctrine, if you had nothing but the mute Bible alone to assist you? If you object to me, I hold out the Bible and its truths to you; and you admit that it contains the words of God; but you assert that every man has a right to judge it by his own private judgment, which doctrine I have already shown to be contrary to that preached by Jesus Christ, who commands us to hear the church, as it is also to that preached and practised by the apostles. The texts of Scripture, as they stand in the Bible, are in favour of the new doctrines I have broached? how then can you refute them on the principles of private judgment?

Here the half hour expired.

Mr. GREGG.-I entreat your attention, in my reply to what has been urged by Mr. Maguire, and I must repeat that I stand here as a member of the Church of England, not as a private individual. I will stand by the Church of England, God willing, to my last breath. I shall take up Mr. Maguire's last proposition first, and I shall be very brief in my observations on such parts of his speech as deserve to be noticed in reply. He accuses me of standing solely on private judgment. I deny the charge. As a member of the Church of England, I hold that the Church is the judge in controversies concerning faith; and I conceive it the privilege of the holy Catholic Church to be a living witness against all heresies; so that I may say I very nearly accord with my opponent in his views as to ecclesiastical authority in that respect. I say the holy Catholic Church has a title to condemn heresies; I only declare that the unholy Catholic Church has not that right. I do not object to that which is right in the Roman Catholic Church; I object only to her errors; and I grant that the holy Catholic Church has a right to object to and repudiate all heretics, a right which we well understand in our holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Mark, I do not stand on an indefeasible and paramount right of private judgment. I say there are two rights: first, the right of public judgment-the church has a