yALe university LiBRARy
the gARVAn coLLeccion
Of
BOOKS on iReLAnd
estABLished in 1971 By
f RAncis p. gARVAn^ yALe 1897
in honoR of his pARents
pAtRiCK QARVAn
mARy CARROLL gARVAn

AUTHENTIC REPORT

IMPORTANT DISCUSSION
HELD IN CASTLEBAR,

THE REV. W. B. STONEY,
RECTOR OF NEWPORT PRATT, COUNTY MAYO,

THE REV. JAMES HUGHES,
ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST, NEWPORT PRATT.
FROM FRIDAY JANUARY 6, TO FRIDAY JANUARY 13, 1837.

DUBLIN:
WM. CURRY, JUN. & CO. UPPER SACKVILLE-STRBET;
R. GROOMBRIDOE 6, PANYER ALLEY, PATERNOSTER HOW, LONDON;
FRASER AND CO. EDINBURGH;
AND SOLD BY ALL llOOKSGLLEHS.
PRINTED BY P. DIXON HARDY, 3, CECII.I.i-STREET.
1837.

St 7

PREFACE.

The Discussion, a Report of which is contained in the following
pages, originated in letters addressed by the Rev. James Hughes,
P.P. of Newport Pratt, to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and pub
lished in the Newspapers. In these letters he advanced sundry
charges against the Achill Mission, and those engaged in it. In
Mr. Hughes's last epistle, addressed to the Earl Mulgrave, he put
forth the following challenge to a controversial meeting : —
" Now for the first time I announce to you, that as soon as you,
the Rev. William Baker Stoney, Protestant Rector of Newport
Pratt, shall cleanse and purify your person and character from that
excrescence of moral leprosy, which must in spite of fate, stick to
both — then I shall be in readiness to receive your instructions, to
stipulate the conditions of a controversial meeting between you and
me, on any, and on as many points of the doctrines of both Churches
as shall meet your pleasure.
To this, a reply was written by the Rev. Mr. Stoney, in which
he challenged Mr. Hughes to a Public Meeting on the three fol-
lown subjects : —
First — To compare the doctrines taught in the Protestant and
Roman Catholic Churches respectively, with the epistle of Paul the
Apostle, to the Romans.
Second — To discuss seven errors, Mr. Huglies was charged with
teaching ; namely, preventing the reading and circulation of the
Scriptures — Transubstantiation — the Sacrifice of the Mass — with
holding the Cup from the Laity — Prayers in an Unknown Tongue — ¦
Purgatory— Private Auricular Confession,
a2

vl
my friend, the Rev. Mr. Loftus, and about fourteen other clergy
and lay gentlemen, you declared twice that you were in readiness
and prepared to meet me then : You on last Wednesday, held a
public meeeting in the Westport Market-house, where and when
you publicly declared that you were then also in readiness to meet
me in controversy.
But now I call on you, on your Protestant parishioners, and the
world at large, to witness how altered have been yonr feelings and
language on this day— When I proposed next Monday, the 2d of
January, as the day of our controversial meeting, your reply was,
ihat you were not prepared to answer my objections. I mentioned
Tuesday, you gave the same answer— I mentioned Wednesday,
you said you would not or could not be prepared — I mentioned
Thursday, you could iiot be prepared to answer my objections.
You also made another objection against meeting me, which was
that you could get no chairman to act for you. I asked you,
could you not get a chairman, in Westport, Castlebar, Ballinrobe,
or in some parish or town in this county or the Province of Con-
naught. Your answer was that you could not force them. The
Rev. Mr. Sirr, who was then present, gave the same answer.
This shows the badness of your cause, when you could not get any
Protestant, lay or clerical, to support you — on this day you alsQ
said that you could not get any house in Westport to meet me.
It was a stratagem invented to get you oif — I removed that
objection, by promising you that I would get you Sheridan's great
rooms in Castlebar. I hereby give you this notice, that I shall be
in Castlebar, at Sheridan's great rooms on Wednesday and Thurs
day, the 4th and 5th of January, God willing, at the hour of Ten
o'clock, A.M., to defend the doctrines of my religion, against which
you object, and to prove that the doctrines of your church are
false, antiscriptural, and untenable. — You must meet me, you
cannot avoid it by any shuffle. Your flock will see, that if you
don't meet rae on those days, the cause to be, that you are not able
to defend the doctrines of your church or to disprove mine. I
regret being obliged to write after this manner to any clergyman.
But your conduct has provoked me to it. Should you to-morrow

vu
at your church, allude to the proceedings of this day, you will first
read to your congregation this my letter ; I shall read it to my
people. Should you not meet me on those days, I shall never
again degrade myself, by giving a meeting to so degraded a
character as you are. I am, Sir,
„ „ ^ JAMES HUGHES.
Newport Pratt, Heember 31, 1836.

REPLY,
, Sir, I have just received your letter which is full of misstate
ments. I shall waive my right to appoint a day, and meet you,
please, God, in Castlebar, on Thursday next. I shall do this, not
withstanding the great advantage you force me to give you in the
absence of my Chairman, the Rev. Mr. Pounden. I will meet you
at Sheridan's hotel, to discuss the subjects of my challenge, which
you accepted, and of your points which you object to me ; the
number of persons present on both sides to be equal.
I am, Sir, &c. &c.
W. B. STONEY.
To the Rev. James Hughes.
Accordingly on Thursday the 5th of January, a meeting took
place in Sheridan's room ; at which it was arranged that tbe dis
cussion should commence the following morning, in the County
Court-house, the use of which Mr. Hughes had obtained from the
Sheriff, John Bourke, Esq. Six hundred persons to be present —
each party to issue three hundred tickets, and no admission with
out producing a ticket.
This regulation proved useless ; for, early the first day the mob
forced the doors, and so intense was the anxiety evinced, that the
Court-house was crowded almost to suff'ocation during the entire
discussion. Great numbers were gathered from all parts of the
county, to attend the Quarter Sessions, then holding in the Crown
coHrf.

vm
THE SUBJECTS FOR DISCUSSION WERE,
FIRST DAY.
Protestant objection : — " Preventing the reading and circulation
of the Scriptures amongst the laity."
Roman Catholic objection : — " To prove from Scripture, inter
preted by private jndgment, which is the Protestant rule of faith,
the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and the Incarnation of Christ."
SECOND DAY.
Protestant objection : — " The doctrine of Transubstantiation."
Roman Catholic objection : — " To prove, according to your rule
of failh, Infant Baptism, the procession of the Holy Ghost as well
from the Son as from the Father,' the translation of the Sabbath,
Baptism by aspersion, and the lawfulness of the use of blood and
things strangled."
THIRD DAY.
Protestant objection : — " The Sacrifice of the Mass.''
Roman Catholic objection : — " At the commencement of the
Protestant Reformation, the doctrine of Seven Sacraments was
held by the Catholic church all over the world ; of these sacraments,
five have been rejected in the 25th of the Thirty-nine Articles of
your church : I call on you to justify the act of rejection."
FOURTH DAY.
Protestant objection:— "Withholding the cup from the laity."
Roman Catholic objection : — " I call on you to prove, according
to your rule of faith, the integrity, the authenticity, the veracity,
and the canonicity of your Bible."
FIFTH DAY.
Protestant objection ;— " Prayers in an unknown tongue.''

IX
Roman Catholic objection : — "I call on you to prove, by your rule
of faith, that Christ has established a better and safer rule for our
guidance to the doctrines of salvation, than the church ivhich he
founded." SIXTH DAY.
Protestant objection: — " The fabulous prison of Purgatory."
Roman Catholic objection : — " I call on you to prove, by your rule
of faith, your Church to be what you profess in the Nicene Creed,
one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic."
SEVENTH DAY.
Protestant objection: — "Private auricular confession."
Roman Catholic objection : — "J[ call on you to prove, by your
rule of faith, the Bible interpreted by private judgment, to be a
safe rule, a sufficient rule, and a rule adapted to every individual of
the human race, in matters of faith, without which it is impossible
to please God." Heb. xi. 6,
Soon after ten o'clock, on Friday the 6th of January, 1837, the
discussion commenced. The chairmen were, on the Protestant
side, the Rev. Edward Nangle, Missionary in the island of
Achill; on the Roman Catholic side, the Rev. Martin Loftus,
Parish Priest of Dunmore, and Chancellor of Tuam.
The Reporters of the Mayo Constitution, and Telegraph news
papers, were in attendance, to take down the speeches on both
sides.

FIRST DAY'S DISCUSSION.

QUESTION,

PREVENTING THE READING AND CIHCULATION OP THE SCRIPTURES
AMONGST THE LAITY.

FRIDAY, JANUARY 6, 1837.
At a quarter before Eleven, the Rev. James Hughes, was
called on by the Chairman, to vindicate the Church of Rome,
from the charge of preventing the Reading and Circulation ofthe
Scriptures amongst the laity. — He spoke as follows :
The first error which my church is charged with entertaining,
is contained in these words put forward by Mr. Stoney : — " First
Error taught by Mr. Hughesr^preventing the Reading and Circu
lation of the Scriptures amongst the Laity.'' He after that, in a
paragraph of about twelve lines, states no less than six falsehoods.
The first falsehood is,, that "in the Church of Rome the people are
kept in ignorance of the Scriptures. Second — That the priest keeps
them in ignorance of the Scriptures. Christ says, " Search the
Scriptures." — (John v. 39.) The priest says, search them not.
Third, — The priest says, do not exercise your judgment ; you will
take a wrong meaning out of them. Fourth,— -That the Pope,
Dr. M'Hale, Priest Hughes, and other clergymen of Rome, revile
and curse those who follow the example of the Bereans, in search
ing the Scriptures. — (Acts xvii. 2.) Fifth, — The priests of Rome
forbid the children to learn the Scriptures, and do all in their power
to keep them from the schools where they are read. Sixth, —
Rome, the pope, and the priests are directly opposed to Moses,
Christ, and his apostles : they take away the key of knowledge ;
they enter not in themselves, and them that are entering in, they
hinder.---(Luke xi. 52.) That these are six falsehoods I will prove

12 FIRST DAY'S DISCUSSION.
to the satisfaction of the public, not on my individual opinion. _ I
will produce authorities with regard to the reading of the Scrip
tures, firstfrom the Council of Trent : not the authority of Bishop
M'Hale or any priests, but the authority of the Catholic Church,
the bishops, and popes congregated for 18 years at the Council of
Trent. I will give the result of their consideration; not the private
opinion of any individual in the Catholic Church.
But before I proceed further, I call on Mr. Stoney for his rule
of faith. This, (holding up a book J is the Council of Trent. This
is my rule of faith. 1 now call on Mr. Stoney for his. What is
he? Is he a Protestant clergyman? Is the Book of Common
Prayer his rule of faith?, What does he call himself? If he tells
me the Book of Common Prayer is his rule of faith, I am satisfied.
But 1 will not grapple with him unless he gives me an answer.
Mr. Stoney  1 am a CleVgyman ofthe Church of England.
Mr. Hughes. — Then I am satisfied.
This book in my hand is the Decrees of the Council of Trent.
In the fourth session will be found its decision on the Canonical
books of the Old Testament. In the articles of religion in the
Protestant Book of Common Prayer I have also the Canonical
books of the Old Testament ; and from both it appears that the
same books are to be found in the Book of Common Prayer, with
this difference that our canon contains 14 more books. As far as
regards the New Testament we are on an equality, both admitting
the same books as inspired. But in the Old Testament, the Church
of Rome admits 14 books more than the Church of England.
It is untrue that we do not admit the Scriptures.
The Canon of Scripture as admitted by the Catholic Church is
laid down in the xlvii. Canon of the 3d Council of Carthage, nearly
1500 years ago. At that council the learned St. Augustine was
present. The same canon was admitted 1160 years after by the
Council of Trent. At that remote period you perceive a perfeet
coincidence between these authorities.
Having established the canon, it now becomes my duty to
explain how the Catholic Church permits her children to use the
Scriptures. I will show you on unquestionable authority that the Catholic
Church recommends and inculcates on all the proper and profitable
use of the Scriptures. That I will prove by the Council of Trent,
Pope Pius the 6th, and by various other authorities.
I will read a portion of the Council of Trent held more than
300 years ago, approving and prescribing how the Scriptures are
to be circulated and read. I will read it in English, and give
every Protestant gentleman an opportunity of reading it in Latin.
I will produce no authority, but from books which I have present
with me.
" Besides to restrain petulant minds, (the council) decrees, that no
one, trusting to his own skill, in matters of faith and morals, belonging to
edification in Christian doctrine, wresting sacred Scripture to his own

MR. HUGHES' FIRST SPEECH. lit
sense, contrary to that sense our holy motlier the church has held and
holds, whose province it is to decide upon the true sense and interpreta
tion ofthe sacred Scriptures ; or even should dare to interpret the sacred
Scriptures contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers ; even though
interpretations of this sort were at no time to be published. — Sess. iv."
This supposes, that when the Council of Trent was held, the
Fathers of 15 centuries were unanimous : and since they were so,
what an extraordinary and extravagant thing for any individual to
place his opinion against the unanimous opinion of the Fathers for
fii'teen ages !
The rule laid down in that council as the doctrine of (he Catholic
Church is no more than this, that the Scriptures are to be read and
used and perused by every man, but not to put on them a con
struction contrary to the wisdom, learning, and piety of fifteen
centuries. My second authority on the same subject willbe frora Pope Pius
the sixth. These are his words written to Martini Bishop of
Turin. Beloved Son, health anu apostolical benediction.- — At a time
that a vast number of bad books, vihitjh most grossly attack the Catholic
Religion, are circulated even among the imlearned, to the great destruction
of souls, you judge exceedingly well that the faithful should be excited to
the reading of the holy Scriptures, for these are the most abundant sources
which ought to be left open to every one, to draw from them purity of
morals and of doctrine, to eradicate the errors vi'hich are so widely disse
minated in those corrupt times. This you have seasonably effected, as you
declare, by publishing the sacred writings in the language of your country,
suitable to every one's capacity, especially when you show and set forth
that you have added explanatory notes, which being extracted from the
holy Fathers, preclude every possible danger of abuse. Thus you have
not swerved either from the laws of the congregation of the index, or fron>
the constitution published on this subject by Benedict XIV., thatimraorta.
pope, our predecessor in the pontificate, and formerly when we held a place
near his person, our excellent master in ecclesiastical learning — circum
stances which we mention as honorable to us. We therefore applaud
your eminent leaming, joined with your extraordinary piety, and we return
you our due acknowledgments for the books which you have transmitted
to us, and which when convenient we will read over. In the mean tirae,
as a token of our pontifical benevolence, receive ourapostolical benediction,
which to you, belovgd son, we very affectionately impart.
Given at Rome, on the Calend of April, 1778, the 4th year ofour
pontificate. To our beloved son, Anthony Martini, of Turin.
These are the words of Pope Pius the Sixth, who died in exile,
because he would not sanction the divorce of the Emperor from
his wife. This pope recommended the circulation of the Scrip
tures, with notes, so that every one might be instructed properly.
He here inculcates the reading of the Scriptures, but prevents Its
abuse. Thus it appears, that it is not the use, but the abuse of the
Scriptures, that is condemned by the pope, and that the Council of
Trent has allowed the reading of them with proper notes.

14 FIRST DAY'S DISCUSSION.
He says, too, you have not swerved from the laws of the congre
gation of the index. . . j i,
(Mr. Hughes here explained the congregation of the index to be
certian ecclesiastics, appointed to examine the characters of books,
and to forbid the reading or possession of prohibited books, under
certain penalties.)
In Ireland, there is at present the Catholic Primate, who has
circulated 10,000 copies of the Scriptures in English. Dr. Denvir,
Catholic Bishop of Down and Connor, published and circulated
amongst the people 2,000 copies last year. I have here a copy of
that edition given to the faithful. He says in the preface, I am
for the circulation of the Scriptures amongst the faithful, being
convinced that if accompanied with proper notes, their perusal
would be attended with great advantage.
Now, gentlemen, my opponent will be called upon to reconcile
his six declarations with the authorities I have quoted. The Catho
lic church has sanctioned, recommended, enforced, and impressed
upon them, the use, the proper use of the Scriptures. She has
commanded the perusal of them, and the strictest enquiry into
them, in order that her children may be instructed in the faith and
doctrines of the church, and in piety and morals. But if the
Catholic church recommends her children the use of the Scriptures,
she prohibits the abuse of them. I say that if every mechanic,
tinkers, (I don't mean to use offensive epithets,) tailors, weavers,
&c. were to judge of the meaning of the Scriptures, in opposition
to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, they must be abused ;
and that is what the Catholic church wants to prevent.
if every man could take an act of parliament, and interpret it as
he thinks proper, what would be the state of society ? You would
have nothing but confusion, disorder, and anarchy. If this would
be the case in civil society, what infinitely greater disorder would
it produce in religion, by making every peasant a judge, who had
no other qualification than an unlimited fund of pride and self-
conceit, to interpret a volume so full of mysteries, incomprehensible
to the most powerful created intelligences.
I now go to the Scriptures themselves, to show the folly and
mischief of this system of private interpretation. I will give only
half my quotations now, as time would not permit me to do more,
and explain them in as few words as I can. I will afterwards rip
open my opponent's arguments, and leave them not worth a straw.
The first proof is from the 1st epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians,
chap. xii. 28th and 29th verses : " And God indeed hath set some
in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors,
after that, miracles, then the graces of healings, helps, govern
ments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches. Are all
apostles? are all prophets? are all doctors ?" Are all prophets?
what is the raeaning of this ! If Christ sends apostles and doctors,
he sends them to teach all mankind. Then, are all to be teachers? .
No : he has set sorae in the church to be teachers. There is order
in the church, as well as in every thing else ; but, according to the

MR. HUGHES' FIRST SPEECH. IS
Protestant church, all are teachers, and every one his own guide.
If anxious to find out the truth, we cannot find out any thing more
opposite than the doctrine of St. Paul and the Protestant religion.
My second authority, and I beg particular attention to it, is from
the epistle to the Ephesians, chap. iv. verse 11, "And he gave
some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and
other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for
the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,
until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of
the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age
of the fulness of Christ : that henceforth we be no more children,
tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine."
Here the ministers of religion are enuraerated. Is every raan to
be an apostle ? Is every man to be a prophet ? Is every man to be
an evangelist, pastor or doctor ? Is this the system established by
Christ ? Why were these officers appointed } In the next verse he
says, 'for the perfecting of the saints.' For this purpose teachers
and pastors were appointed. How long were they to be continued ?
Not for a day, not for a month, not for a year. No : but till we all
meet into the unity of the faith. We must all agree in points of
faith, and it is for this purpose that St. Paul says, Christ has given
doctors and teachers to his church, for this reason, that henceforth
we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with
every wind of doctrine. How contrary to this is it, to have Bible
readers going about, as St. Paul says, with cunning craftiness lying
in wait to deceive.
The next authority is from 2 Peter iii. 15, 16, 17, '• As also our
most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath
written to you ; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these
things, in which are certain things hard to be understood, which
the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do the other scriptures,
to their own destruction.'' Here St. Peter tells us, that there are
some passages of Scripture so hard to be understood, that the weak
and infirm wrest them to their own destruction.
I will return to this text, but I wish again to call your attention
to the Council of Trent. It was from the disposition manifested
at the Reformation, to read and peruse the Scriptures only to pro
fane them, that she restricted the use of them. I shall prove that
there never was any crime not attempted to be justified from proofs
of Scripture. To check this, the church allowed the use of them
to every Catholic who would read them with pious intentions, and
in such a manner as to profit by them. But where she saw that
they would be absurd, she checked their perusal, by the congrega
tion of the index. But this was only for a time, while found ex
pedient. But since the year 1757, restrictions have been completely
reraoved ; and every man, woraan and child, from the rising to the
going down of the sun, from pole to pole, in the Catholic church,
is permitted to read the Bible. The proper use is recommended,
the abuse only is prohibited. The penalties laid on by the Council
are removed. Tho spirit of religion condemns such restraints^

18 FIRST DAY'S DISCUSSION.
except in cases of necessity. The reading of the Scriptures is
tolerated ; care is however taken that the Bible thus allowed into
the hands of all, shall have some explanatory notes. They may
now for eighty years be read by all ; but she recommends that no
construction be put upon them contrary to the unanimous consent
of the Fathers.
There are two or three objections raised to this statement by my
opponent. He says, all are ordered to search the Scriptures. I
search them ; and so does every Catholic search them. They
denied his divinity, which he had proved by his works ; and then
he said, go to the prophets and you will find ray divinity proved by
them. If Mr. Stoney attaches any other meaning to this passage
than this, it is false, and brings on him the curse that is pronounced
in Revelation (xxii. 18, 19) upon all who put on the Scriptures any
other than their true meaning. He next refers to the Bereans.
St. Paul had gone to Thessalonica to preach the gospel : the Jews
proved obdurate. He then went to Berea ; the Bereans had read
the Scriptures more attentively, and were prepared to receive his
doctrine ; and he praised them for doing so : so do I approve of
them, and praise them. The third argument is that Timothy read
the Scriptures in his youth. I did the same. There is not a youth
in the parish but might do so ifhe pleased. When I go into a
house, I would rather see a Bible on the table than Lord Byron's
Don Juan, or any of the profane novels that deprave and corrupt
the minds of the young. Mr. Stoney says, that the word of God
is shut up from the people by the priests, who do not study it them
selves. All ray proofs are brought from the Scriptures, and that
shows my reverence and esteem for them. Every bishop, and
every Catholic author recommends them. There is no better au
thority than the word of God ; therefore my first proof is brought
from Scripture.
I will now prove, from the Dublin Review, that the Scriptures had
been extensively published and read in the language of each country
in Europe before the Reformation. In Italy — in Papist Italy,
thirty years before the Protestant Reformation, twenty-one editions
of the Bible were published, in order that it might be read by every
person in the country. There were also sixteen editions of the
Bible published in the same country within thirty years after the
Reformation. I next go to Spain, — in Spain I find that at the
same period, in a very few years, no less than six editions of the
Bible were published in the Spanish language before the Reforma
tion ; and six others after. Thus we find twelve editions of the
Bible published in Popish Spain. 1 now go to Germany, and find
that in that hotbed of infidelity and novelty, the Catholic church
published thirty-three editions of the Bible in the German lan
guage, before the Reformation ; and thirty-four after. This makes
sixty-seven versions of the Scriptures published in Germany, to be
read by all classes. In France, some years before the Reforma
tion, there were nineteen versions of the Scriptures, and after the
Reformation forty-eight more were published in the vernacular

MR. STONEY'S FIRST SPEECH. U
language to be read by all. Why were they not published in Old
Latin ? Is ft not extraordinary that they should have been pub
lished in the vernacular languages of the countries.. Good God,
how can any one bring such a charge against the Catholic Church.
In Belgium or the Netherlands twenty-five editions ofthe Bible
were published in the Flemish language, and seventeen after it.
There now, Gentlemen, is my argument, and I appeal to you
Protestants, if it is not sound and conclusive. I will now give a short
summary of my arguments. My first was drawn from the doc- !
trines promulgated by a Catholic Council raore than 1400 years '¦
ago. The next was from a general Council of the Church, at
which 300 Catholic Bishops attended. Sometimes more, some
times less for the space of eighteen years, and all these proofs show
ing that the Catholic Church did not prevent the use but the
abuseof the Scriptures. The next was from the authority of Pope '
Pius the Vlth of happy memory, who died for his religion. The
next was the authority of the Catholic Primate of Ireland who
circulated the large number of 10,000 copies of the Scriptures.
The next was the authority of the Bishop of Down and Connor,
Dr. Devir, recommending the perusal of them to all. The next was
that the Bible was published in everj language and in every Catho
lic country in Europe : and the people recommended to peruse it. '
These arguments I contrasted with two or three texts brought
forward by Mr. Stoney, that a child ought to be ashamed to ad
vance. A few pitiful, contemptible texts against the authority ofthe
Catholic Church. I do not mean to slight the Scriptures, but
the bringing forward these texts against such authority. I would
not trust the sincerity of the man who would quote these : for if
he had read two or three verses before and after, he would find
that they give the most strenuous support to the Catholic doctrines.
Mr. Stoney says, search the Scriptures. So I do^ah 1 I have
proved to his loss that I have searched them, and am well ac
quainted with them ; and I will prove to every person in this court
that I do read and study the Scriptures. I do not blink tbe mean
ing of Scripture, nor take mutilated texts, nor affix false-, construc
tions. The way I read them is by comparing the context ;: but
not by reading, a few scattered and mutilated texts, with corrupted
andfalse meanings put upon tbem. I now call on my opponent to
produce his a.uthorities, to meet every one pf mine, in a manner
calculated, to convince any mind ; or 1 will prove that he was not
able to weaken one ofiny arguments, or support his charge against
my Church.
Mr. Hughes' forti/ minutes having expired^ Mr. Loftus called, on
Mr. 'Stoney to sustain his charge against the Church of Home,
Mr. STONEY — I am called upon, on this solemn and import
ant occasion, to sustain the charge which I have openly and publicly
brought against Mr, Hughes and the Church. of Rome, of with
holding the Sacred Scriptures from the people. I shall commence
by bringing forward from the word of God, not a fevv mutilated, and
isolated passages, distorted from their right raeaning ; but a large
B

18 FIRST DAY'S DISCUSSION.
collection pf passages inculcating the reading of the Scriptures pn
all clashes and descriptions of people. . I shall show fftira authority
that cannot be -doubted, that the Church of Rome is guilty of the
charge which 1 have brought agaiijst her. And lastly, I shall bripg
be&rie this meeting respectable testimony to the practical results
pf her withholding the Scriptures from the people. I shall com
mence by reading from that bpok which is the only foundation f
the religion pf Protestants, a number of passages inculcating th^
universal reading of the word of God. I will read some passages
from the 4th chapter pf Deuteronomy, 9th and following verges ;
'^ Pply take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligen]tly, l^stthou
forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart
from thy heart all the days of thy life ; but teach them thy sons,
and thy sons' sons : Specially the day that thou stppdest .before
the Lord thy God in Horeb, when the Lord said unto me, Gather
me the people together, and I will make thepi hear my words,
that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live
vpon the earth, and that they may teach their'children." My next
reference is to the llth chapter and 18th verse of the same book —
'f Therefore shall ye lay upthese my words in your heart, and in
your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be
as frontlets between your eyes. And ye shall teach them your
«?IiildreB, speaking of them when thou sittest in );hine house, and
when thou walkest by the way, when thou liept down, and when
thou risest up. And thou shalt write them upon the door-posts
of thine house, and upon thy gate's : That your days may be piul-
tiplied, and the days of your children, in the land which the Lord'
sjvare unto your fathers to give them, as the days of heaven upon
the eartli." Here we find the Israelites were cominanded to write
portions of Scripture even on )their door posts. Again we find in
|;he 17th chapter of Deuteronomy 18th apd 19th verses— '"And
it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he
ghall write him a copy of this law in a book, out of that wiiich is
before the priests the Levites. And it shall be with him, and he
shall rpad therein all the days of his life ; that he may learn to fear
the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law, and jthe^e
statutes to do them." Agalin, in the 29th chap, and 29th verse-^
ff Tiie secret things belong unto the Lord our God ; but those
things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children fpp '
ever, that we may do all the words of this law." Yes, things
revealed belong tons and to our children s on b^eb.. Also, Deu
teronomy , 30th chapter and 10th verse. We liave the same.com-
piand repeated in the 31st chapter of Deuteronoray, the llt^ and
following verses—" When all Israel is come to appear before the
Lord thy God, in the place which he shall choose, thpu shalt read
the law before all Israel in their hearing. Gather the pepple toge- .
¦ther, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within
thy gates, that they may hear, and learn to fear the Lord your God,
and observe to do all the words of this law. ' And that their chil-
idren, which have not known any thing, may hear, and learn tq fear

MR, STONEY'S FIRST SPEECH. 19
%\e Lord your Gpd, as Ipijg as ye live in the land wither ye
ge Pver Jordan to possess it." The very women and children, ¦who
have not known any thing, ai-e cemmanded to hear the Scriptures,
read, that they may learn to fear the Lord. I now turn to the 8th
fibapter of Joshua, 34th and 35th'verses.—« And afterward he read
all the, words pf the law, the blessings and cursings, according to
all t;hat is written in tlie book of the law. There was not a word of
all that Moses comraanded which Joshua, read not bpfoye all t\\e^
congregation of Israel, with the women, and the little ones, and th^
strangers that were conversant among them." Observe hpyv fre-
piiently the command is given that the children and women should
have the whole word of God. The prophet Isaiab gives the people
a test by which to try their teachers ; and that test is the word of God.
(Isaiah viii. 20) — "To the law and to the testimony : if they speak
^ot according to this word, it is because there \% nolight in them."
Yes, there is no light in them, if they speak not according to the lavR
and to tjie . testimony. Again, in the New^Testament, St. Paul, i|}
an epistle, not to the clergy, but to all persons, to every individual
Christian, the epistle tp the Ephesians, sixth chapterand 17tli verse
^ays — 'f And take the helmet of salvation, and the sw:ord ofthe spirit
¦^hich is the word of Gpd.'' Alsp, in 1 Thessalpnians, fifth chap. 27th
vprse, he cpmmands the epistle tp be read to all the holy brethren ;
his words are very remarkable — " / charge you hy the Lord that
tjiis epistle be read unto all the holy brethren," Again, ^ Tini,
iii. 15 — 17 — " And that frpm a child thou hast known the Holy
Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvatipn,
thrpugh faith which is in Christ Jesus. AH Scripture is given by
inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousnss ; that the man pf Gpd
may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.." Here
we <]nd tljat the Holy Scriptures are declared tp be able to make
even a child wise unto salvation. We find also that God has im
pressed en the page of Hely Scripture that it is a perfect and suffi
cient guide, rule, and instruction, for doctrine, fpr reproof; and that
the man who is conversant with the .Scriptures, may thereby be
thoroughly furnished unto all gppd wprks. I next refer tp the
the 34th chapter of Isaiah and the l6th verse — "¦ Seek ye put pf
^he bppk pf the Lprd and read." Again,, the 3rd chapter of CpIos-
sians, 16th verse^ — " Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly
in all wisdom ; 'teaching and admonishing one another in psalms,
apd hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in* ydiir heart
tothe Lord." Mark what I h^ve now read, my "friends. This
epistle was addressed to all the Christians in the Church, not tq
priests, not to ministers, but to all the people generally. It is
remarkable that in all the titles or cpmmenceraents of theepistl^?
tbe address is toall the members ofthe church. In the epistle to
the Romans,, to the ancient, holy, and pure Church of Rome, (hear,
hear, from Mr. Hughes,) for I recognise the awciewi Chureh of
Rome to be a true Church of Christ. " St. Paul addresses himself
B 2

20 FIRST DAY'S DISCUSSION.
in the 7th verse ofthe 1st chapter, « To all that be in Rome''— ta
every individual at Rome,"who was of that church, beloved of God,
called to be saints. In the opening of the epistle, he sends them
to the Holy Scriptures for the promise of the Gospel, by the pro
phets. He closes his letter to that ancient church in a similar
manner — (Rom. xvi. 25, 26.) Thus you find him recognising the
positive right of every individual inthe Church of Rome to have,
to read, and search the Scriptures. We find our Lord frequently
referring to the Scriptures, for proof of the truth of his mission.
On one occasion, when a certain woman said, " Blessed is the
womb that bare thee and the paps which thou hast sucked," our
Lord replied, " Yea, rather blessed are they that hear the word of
God and keep it.'' — (Luke xi. 27, 28.) Here I will briefly observe
that we too call the Virgin Mary blessed ; and we believe that she is
at this moment a blessed saint in glory ; but what ar°e our Lord's
words as related in the passage referred to .' " Rather blessed are
they that hear the word of God and keep it." Again, I refer you
to Luke xvi. 29. We have there an account of a rich man and
Lazarus a poor beggar, both, of whora died. We see that when
the rich man wanted to have Lazarus sent from the dead to warp
his brethren, Abraham said, " They have Moses and the prophets,
let them hear them." Here we find that Abraham is said by our
Lord to have referred to the written word, and to hav« declared,
that the individual who would not hear the written word, would not
be converted even though one rose from the dead.
I find that St. Peter ascribes .regeneration to the word of God,
1 Pet. i. 23: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of in
corruptible, by the word of God.i which liveth and abideth for
ever." Revelation, a book confessedly difficult on account of its
unfulfilled prophecies, op^ns with a blessing to those who read and
hear it, Rey. i. 3, " Blessed is he that readeth, ¦ and they who
hear, the words of this prophecy."
I now turn to the 119th Psalm, 99th verse, " I have more under
standing; than all my teachers : for thy testimonies are my medi
tation." . Mark this : the Psalmist was made wiser than his teach
ers, through the precepts of God's word. Again, in the 105th
verse,^ "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and U light unto my
path ;" and in the 130th verse, "The entrance of thy words giveth
light ; it. giveth understanding unto the siniple."
In the, 17th of Acts we have an account of St. Paul going to
preach to the ^ews, and reasoning with them out of the Scriptures.
He had been ill treated at Thessalonica, and was sent to Berea.
I beseech your attention, to' the eulogium bestowed upon the Be
reans, Acts xvii. 11, 12; "These were more noble than those in
Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of
mindj and searched the Scriptures daily whether those things were
so. Therefore many of them believed ; also pf honourable women
which were, Greeks, andof men, not a few." " Obs,erve, the apostle
Paul came to Berea with all the power of an inspired messenger
of God^with the power of working miracles for the sanction of

MR, STONEY'S FIRST SPEECH. 21
what he taught — the most astounding miracles, which the senses
could recognize as true. Though they had these to prove his doc
trine, yet they appealed to the Scriptures to ascertain its truth ;
and he com.mends them for doing so.
If time would permit, I could quote many more texts of Scrip
ture upon this subject. I will now show that the Church of Rome
does deny the unrestricted use ofthe Scriptures to the people. I
will read you an extract from the 4th Session of the Council of
Trent, '' Moreover, ta restrain petulant minds, (the Council) decrees, that no
one, trusting to bis own skill, in matters of faith and morals, pertaining to
edification in Christian doctrine, wresting Sacred Scripture to his own
opinions, contrary to that sense, which our holy mother, the church, has
held and holds, whose provtnee it is to decide upon the true sense and in
terpretation of the Sacred Scriptures; or shall dare to interpret Sacred
Scripture contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers ; even though
interpretations of this kind were never to be published. Those who shall
oppose are to be declared by the ordinaries, aud punished with the penal
ties appointed by law.",  « And it shall be lawful to no one to print, or
cause to be printed, any books on sacred subjects, without the name of the
author ; nor in future to sell them, or even to possess them, unless they
shall have been first examined and approved by the ordinary, under pain of
the anathema, and fine, appointed by the Canon of the last Council of
Lateran."  "Those also, who shah lend or publish them in writing,
unless they shall have been first examined and approved, shall be subject to
the same penalties as printers. And those who shall possess or read them,
shall be treated as authors, unless they give up the authors."
We deny that it is the province of mother church to determine
the sensp of God's. word, and ask, where did God delegate the
power exclusively tp the Romish church, to interpret the Scrip
tures. We are told, of the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
Whereis.it, I ask? I contend that theFathers are not unanimous.
The Fathers lived in different ages and countries, and I defy the
ingenuity of the Church of Rome to show that there is any thing
like unanimity amongst them. Tbe Council says, those who shall
oppose shall be punished with the penalties appointed by law ; and
that the printers or possessors of books not permitted by the
Council, shall be punished with the same penalties, unless they
deliver up the authors.
Mr. Hughes has referred to the rule of the Index-^so will I 
I shall now read, first in Latin, and then in Ehglish, the 4th Rule : .
"Cum experimento manifestum sit, si Sacra Biblia vulgari lingua*.
passim sine discrimine permittantur, plus inde, ob hominum temeritatem,'
detriment!, quam utilitatis oriri, hac in parte judicio episcopi aut inquisi- '
toris stetur : ut cum consilio parocKi vel confessarii bibliorum a Catholicis
auctpribus versorum lectionem jn vulgari Ijngua iis concedere possint quos '
intellexerint ex hujusmodi lectione, non damnum, sed fidei atque pietatis .
augmentum capere posse; quam facultatem in scriptis habeant. Qui
autem absque, tali facultate ea legere seu habere praesumpserit, nisi prius
Bibliis ordinario redditis peccatorum absolutionem percipere non possit.
Bibfiopoke vero qui praedictaro facultatem non. habenti Biblia idiomate
vulgari conecripta vendiderint, vel alio quovis modd concesserint librprum'

22 FffiST DAY'S DISCUSSION.
pretium, iii usus pios ab episcopo convertendum, amittant, aliisque poeriii'
pro delicti qualitate ejusdam episcopi arbitrio subjaceant. Regalares vero
non nisi facultate a prelatis suis habita ea legere aut emere possint.",-
"Since by experience it is manifest, that if the Sacred Scriptures were in-,
discriminately allowed every where, in the vulgar tongue, more detriment
than profit would ensue, on account of the rashness of men, letthis matter
be referred to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor ; that, with tKfe
advice of the parish priest or confessor, they may permit the reading of the
Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors, to those wKp
they shall consider would reap not damage but an increase of faith ana
pisty by such reading ; which permission they are to have in writing.
Those however, who, without such a license, shall presuine to read or to,
possess it, cannot receive absolution for their sins, until they shall have,
first delivered up the Bible to the ordinary. Booksellers' also who' shajl,
have sold, or given in any manner, a Bible written in the vulgar tongue, tfl
a person not having the aforesaid license, shall forfeit the price of the
books, to pious uses by the bishop, and be subject to other penalties, acr
cording to the amount of his crime, at the discretion of the same bishop ;
but regulars may not buy or read them, without obtaining permission from
their superiors."
Here we find that a person reading the Scriptures or even pos
sessing them, without a license, could not Obtain absolution until
h^ delivers up his Bible. Nor could booksellers sell one vifithoii^'
subjecting themselves to penalties. These are the decrees of the
Council of Trent : which are still unchanged and uncharjgeable. ,;
I shall now read to yoii some extracts from ,the Bull Unigeniti^sj
which Dr. Murray, in the House of Lords, acknowledged to be id^
force in Ireland. I am sure this meeting will be surprised at the
propositions contained in that document.
Proposition 79. " It is useful and necessary at all times, in every place^:
and for all sorts of persons to study arid to know the spirit,the piety, and*
the mysteries of the Sacred Scripture." — 1 Cor. xiv. 5. , . ,
80. «' The reading of the Sacred Scripture is for all." — Acts viii. 29. .
81. "Theobscurity ofthe Sacred Word of God, js not a reason for the
laity to deprive themselves ofthe reading ofit." — Acts viii. 31.
83. " Sunday ought to be sanctified. by Christians in pious reading, and
above all that of the Sacred Scriptures. It is condemnable to wish to
withdraw a Christian from this reading." — Acts xv. 21.
83. I' It is a delusion to persuade ourselves, that the knowledge of the
mystCTies of religion ought not to be communicated to women, by the
reading ofthe sacred books. It is not from the simplicity of women,, but
froifathe proud knowledge of men„that the abuse of Scripture, has arisen;;
and heresies have sprung up." — John iv. 26.
84.'' To take but ofthe hands of Christians the New Testainent, or to
keep it shut up from thera, by taking avvay from them the means 'of under
standing it, is to stop lip the mouth of Christ from them." — Matt. v. 2.

-Liike xi. 33.
Now mark the judgment of the Church of Rome expressed ia
the sentence of condemnation passed upon these propositions.
"Having heard theVefpre, as well by word, as by writing, the opinions of
the aforesaid cardinals and other thcdlogians declared to lis, and above all/

MR; STONEt'S FIRST SPEECH. 23
having implored the aid ofthe divine light, by private and even by public
appointed prayers for that purpose ; we, by this our constitution', ¦which is
to be for ever valid, (semper valitura) declare, condemn, and reprobate ,
all and every the forenamed propositions as false, captious, grating, offen
sive tp pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, injurious to the church and
her practice, contumelious not only to the church, but to the civil power,
seditiousj impious, blasphemous, suspicious of heresy, and even savouring
• of heresy,'* also favouring heretics, heresies and even schism, erroqeous,
next to heresy, often condenined, and in short even heretical, and mani
festly bringing ip various heresies, and especially those which are contained
in the famous propositions of Jansenius, and even taken in the very sense
in which they were condemned.
"Furthermore we command our venerable brothers, the patriarchs,
archbishops and bishops and other local ordinaries, as also the inquisitor|i
of heretical pravity by all means to coerce and compel any contradictors
and opposers by the forenamed condemnations and penalties and other
remedies both of law and fact; faliaque juris et facti remedia ;J even
CALLING IN FOR THIS PURPOSE IF NECESSARY THE AID OF THE SECULAR
ARM !" . .
This bull, depriving the people of the use of the Scriptures is,
according to the oath of Dr. Murray, binding in Ireland at the
present moment, as part of the' unchanged and unchangeable doc
trine of the Church of Rome. It was issued by the pope ex cathe
dra, and according to it the authorities of the country are to be
called in to prevent the reading and circulation of the Bible.
After producing this undeniable authority, I ask can any man sa^
that I have not proved my charge that the Church of Roine dee^
prevent the circulatien ofthe Holy Scriptures.
I will now show the practical results ofthis principle which I
have fastened upon the- Church of Rome. I hold in rny hand a
report of a discussion which took place at Easky, where a Rev. Mr.
Hughes was present, aiid also the Rev. Mr. Lyons. I shall quote
two passages from the Rev. Mr. Hughes' speech on that occasioii.
"I shall endeavour to prove, that the indiscriminate perusal ofthe
Holy .Scriptures is contrary to the constitution of the Roman
Catholic Church, and that it renders conversien to her bosoni
almost impossible." Mark this important admission — it is alriiost
impossible that a man acquainted with his Bible could becohie a
Roman Catholic ! Again ; " Now I saf that it is inconsistent
¦With the apostplicity of the Catholic Church, the principle of read
ing the Holy Scriptures, withput note or comment, or withput
being cprrected by a priest, because it gives rise to arid dra^s
aside those who read it, and niust necessarily Separate them from
ihe Catholic Church, as the experience of past ages has shown it
te have done," The, reading ofthe Scriptures has indeed made a
wide separation, from the Church of Rome, and will make a still
wider one.
Notwithstanding the authorities put forward by the other side,
it is a clear fact that the Scriptures are not circulated, and are net
allowed to be read freely by every individual who pleases. Mr.
Hughes himself has said so. They must be first interpreted by
iM church, feut by what church ? you do not know, Klor.can yoii

24 FIRST DAY'S DISCUSSION.
tell where it ,is. The Scriptures must be interpreted so as to
coincide with the unanimous consent of the Fathers, whose writ
ings fill 70 folio volumes ! where is this unanimous consent ? , I deny
its existence. Mr. Hughes has said that the reading ofthe Scrip
tures would decrease the numbers ofthe Catholic Church. 1 agree
with him ; for when a person reads the Scriptures, he sees that
they are the Word of God, and that they are adapted to his wants.
He sees that they contain doctrines irreconcileable with the doc
trines of the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore the reading of
the Scriptures has a tendency to cause raen to separate from that.
church. Roman Catholic priests, as well as Roman Catholic lay
men have separated from her by reading the Scriptures. It was
the reading of the Scriptures by a regular and Augustinian monk,
(which perhaps gave occasion to the congregation ofthe Index to
restrain regulars from reading them) that caused a glorious out
break frora the chains of darkness, superstition, and sin, in which
we Protestants believe the Roman Catholics are held.
I have now proved beyond the possibility of contradiction that
God has commanded all to read the Scriptures. As to the books
called Apocrypha, 1 shall have an opportunity on another occasion
to allude to them ; but 1 contend that the Word of God is ordered
to be read by all indiscriminately. The Lord appealed to it: the
Apostles appealed to it. I have proved from the Bull, IJnigeoitus,
from the Council of Trent, and from facts, that the Church of Rome
does not permit it. I appeal to this meeting, and to all Ireland,
for proof that the Scriptures are not freely, distributed amongst the
people : and I say that this is a fact which may be seen by all, in
the opposition given by the priests to the Bible, Society. * '
I shall now sum up what I have said. I have before me notes of
Mr. Hughes' speech, and I contend, that all which he has brought
forward concerning the allowance of Pop'e Pius VI. and other au
thorities, to read the Scriptures, are all annulled and destroyed by
the infallible and immutable decree of the Council of Trent, and the
Bull Unigenitus. Facts prove that Roman Catholics are not per
mitted the free use of the Scriptures. Tbe attempt made by the
priests, to bindand chain the minds of men to the pretended unan
imous consent of the Fathers of 15 centuries, is like putting a
bandage upon the eyes, and then giving perinission to read. They
might as well tell me, that I should not freely breathe the pure air
to which every raan has an equal right. All have an equal right
to the Scriptures; and all have equally the promise ofthe assis
tance ofthe Spirit of God. That heresies and errors have arisen
from reading the Word of God is" no reason why it should be taken
out of the haiids of the people. Every good gift is liable to be cor
rupted by the depraved heart of man.
Here Mr. Stoney's time expired."
Mr. HUGHES — Gentlemen, I complain that I suffer under a
serious disadvantage and inconvenience,' which I do not attribute
to any thing like a wilful and malicious design on ypur- part, but
to the holiness pf the day which kept ypu at mass. (Epiphany.)

MR. HUGHES' SECOND SPEECH. 25
I also regret that Protestants were not present at my first speech,
to hear me develope the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Had
you been present you would agree with rae that not one particle of
my arguments has been met by my opponent. My first argument
was drawn from a Council held more than 1400 years ago, showing
the opinion held by the Catholic Church as to the canon of Scrip
ture. My authorities were. — 2. The Council pf Trent. 3. Pppe
Pius VI. pf the blessed memory. 4. The circulation ofthe Scrip
tures in the vernacular languages of the different countries of
Europe. And this was only half of ray proof. So powerful and
convincing was it, that if compared with the reply given by my
reverend opponent, you would admit that my argument has not
been answered. I have- proved that the doctrine inculcated, by
the Catholic Church is that she permits the use of the Scriptures.
This has not been met face to face. He has followed a path which
he has chalked put fpr himself, and I am net afraid to say that no
one particle of my argument has been answered. You, Mr. Stoney,
have brought forward arguments. 1 admit all yours. You referred
to the Old Testament to show the benefit and advantage arising
from the reading of the Scriptures. I admit that. You next come
to the New Testament, and you referred to Timothy, to the Acts
of the .Apostles, and to other places. I admit the whole. You
endeavoured to found something like argument upon the Council
of Trent. There is no such passage. He gave his own comment.
Ah, but says Mr. Stoney, ifl have authority to comment upon and
distort the Word of God, according to my capricious phantasms, I
have the same privilege to do what I please with the Council of
Trent. He calls it .the infallible Council of Trent. 1 thank him
for that compliment. I beg your attention to the Council of Trent,
and will show you that not one word of what Mr. Stoney has read,
is in it. Is he at liberty to palm his private interpretation as the
decree ofthe Council of Trent. Here are the words ofthe council.
|_Mr. Hughes here quoted precisely the same passage as is given
in Mr. Hughes' first speech, and afterwards by Mr. Stoney, p. 21.]
It will be hard for Mr. Stoney to get over that. Is there a single
order, edict, or shadpw of an edict tp command the people not to
read the Scriptures. The Council of Trent does not prevent the
reading, but the putting of a iwrong construction upon them. It
only required that they should be interpreted according to the
unanimous consent ofthe Fathers. Will any Protestant arrogate
to himself to set up his weak and infirm judgment in opposition
to such a consent.
Not a single word is said in that Council about preventing the
proper use of the Scriptures : it is only the abuse of thetn that
would lead people to their pwn destruction that is prohibited.
There is on the contrary an imperative comraand to read them,
with piety and devotion, so as to profit by them That is my
commentary on the Council of. Trent. It allows the use but not
the abuse. It would not allow every bible-reader to go about with
the Bible in his fist, putting his own construction upon it. Mr.

26 FIRST DAY'S DISCtlSSION.
Stoney says, when the Bible comes into your hbiise you tiiust
aWid it ds you woiild the Cholera : you must kick it oilt or yott
will nbt get Absolution. Mr. Stoney puts on this a false meaning ;
bht I will not allow you to do so. He speaks of the benefits of
Scripture. I agree -with him. I proved awhile ago, that 200 edi-
trdhs ofthe Scriptures were circulated through Europe withini a
shdrt period; by the Catholic Church : and he has not answered
that- point by Ei single argumerJt. His only argument is, the Bull
Unigenitus, and cites in support of his charge of withholding the
ScHptures, four propositions but of -it. Now I will tell you what "was
the state of Europe at the time of the Protestant reformation, with
respect to the Bible. Every man, at that period, .tbok up the
Bible, read it, and framed a new religion put of it, and found a new
systeih of faith in it. New systems and new creeds arose daily. The
creed that appeared to day vanished before the sun ef the follbvi^ihg
mornirig dawned tfpdn it. It was to prevent the frightful incursion
qf new sfects over the world, that the Bull Unigenitus was issued.
The Protestant doctrine is this, let every man read his Bible and
fbrm his own creed. I'll show the frightful and alarming conse
quences of this. These four propbsitions inculcate the licentious
abuse of the Word of God. It was to prevent this ihat the bull
was issued, and to inculcate and to enforce the proper, pious, hum
ble, and docile reading of the Scriptures, with a constant eye to
the inteirprfetation of that church -which Christ established, which
he built on a rock, and against which the gates of hell shall not
{Prevail. It was, I say, to feffect these desirable objfects that the bull
illuded tb was pronnilgated. Christ tells us to hear that Churcli
to which he gave apostles, teachers,' and pastors ; and •why did hfe
give them ? St. Paul says, that we might not be tossed about by
ever^ wind of doctrine. The church is the pillar and ground of
truth; it was founded by the twelve Apostles, had Christ, for its
Head*, and St Peter as its rock. Christ is a liar, if St. Peter iai
fibt the rock. . -
This church has always existed 'or Christ is a liar : He says t
¦will be ivith you to the end of the world, and the Holy Ghost Will
be with jrou. The unity of that church tP which Christ made this
|)remise,Mr. Stbney would fling to the winds of heaven, "and endea
vour, to establish on its ruins the principle bf private judgmeiit.
The bbject 6f the bull was to prevent scliisms and division^ stnd to
irioiilcdte the use, the pi:oper, diligent, and hiinible study.of the
Scriptures. The bUU says, let the.bishops and priests and doctor^
be consulted by the congregation and laity, for theSe are the lights
and guides appointed by Christ. Look to these teachers.
This is the deetrinfe ofthe Bull Unigenitus. I ftieet your argu
ments in this way. The bull incufcates the serious and diligent
perusal ofthe Seriptures. We agree', and so far your argument is
lost. •• With respect tothe Conncil of Trent you give it a meaninf
it does not bear, and you also 'distort and put a wrong meaning on
the Bull Unigenitus.
- "fhese are your arguments. I ha,ve met all yours, while ydu

. MR. HUGHES' SECOND SPfefedH. if'
Fave hot met any of mine. I put il to this meeting if hay arguments
against you do hot remain untouched : and I have fifteen yet
unprdduced. I Will now proceed to the next part of my proof, which shall be
from the Fathers, "ton said awhile ago that there were 70
volumes in. the works of the Fathei:s, I have here' the authorities
from the Holy Fathers, no.l mutilated sentehces, but whole pages
of them. (Mr. Hughes here held up Kirk ahd Berringtoh's Faith
of Ciatholics^ah ordinary sized octavo volume !) And I find that
there are 73 Holy Fathers, some of whom wrote 20 volumes, t
have here a list of 75 Fathers, of the 1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, ahd 5th cen
turies.. You said there is no unanimity between the Fathers. I
¦Ntiil'sihow that th^re is perfect unaniddity between fevery one of
them. On the pteSeiit subject I refer yod to the Fathers bf the 2d;
3d, 4tli, and 5th cfenturieS. 1 have qiiotEitions to bring forward
from Irenaeus In the 2d c&itury ; Origen, Hilairy, St. Augusiine
arid 'V'iricerit Lirinensis in the Sth century.
1 fiist showed, that thfe doctrine of the Catholic Church on the
reading ofthe SbHptures is to inculcate the use and riot the abuse
of them. "This 1 proved by the sacred council, the authbrity of
Pope, Piiig "Vl., and the catholic bishopS in Ireland. I shall now
go to the Father^ stnd stow how they i^feprbbate and deplore the
frightfiil consequences ofthe piractice of ei^ery irian'pultitig his own
iuterpretatibii on the Scriptures.
[Mr. Hughes liere inquii-ed hoW iiiuch tiriie he had. And bri
being told he had but four ihinutes, he said, I Will confine ihyself to'
one Father. He then made a quotation from Augustine.]
I will show from the discflssiciri betwefen Pepe and Magiiire; the!
frightful cdrisequerices pf' the premiscupug reading pf the Bible,
Mr. Maguire counts up the riiiriaber of sects which arose from the
principle of private Jriterjii'etatipn, At the Reformation, for before
that there ¦was hd private interpi-etatibn iri the church. Here they
are :— 2" Luth^raris, Calvinists, Agricolifets, Anabaptists, Rebap-
tizers, StbrkitefejCarlostadistris," Muncers, Adamites, AjiostolicS, Ta-
citurn% Perfects, Irinpcerits, ' LibertirieS, Sabbatarians, .Clancula-
riaris, Mdriife^tarians, Weepers, RejoicerS, Irtdifferents, Sanguina-
rian^, Antimarians, Ahdronicans, Arititrinitarian^, BaciilarianS,'
Pufitari's, QhakerS, Rustics, Insiirrectionists, Sanderaanians, Kiss-of-
CHarity-Boys, Lo^ife-fcEists, Seceders, Shakers, SociriianS, South-
cptoniaris, S^wedenborgidii^, Theophilaritrophists — headed by Tom
faine, Universalists, Zuinglians, Muggletoriiahs, Newlights, Armi
nians, David Georgians, Tunkers, (not Tinkers) Episcopalians,
FaiiiiliStS or Family of loVe, Fifth-irionarcHy-men, lUuminati, In
spired Boyi, Ihde'jieridants, Iriferrialians, (held JesUs went to hell
a,nd iifas tofaiented there,) JohrisoniafiSv (deny the Trinity, pre-ex-
istence of Christ,) Jumjiers, Groaners, Laughers; Latitudinarians;
Methodists, Rbbinsoriians, Brpwrilsts, Ranters; Baptists, Paedo.!
baptists, and not forgetting the Darbyites in Wesport : and a^
many tnore might be named.' Here are the fruits df thiS latitu^
dinarjan principle df the right of jjl-if atfe judgnieiit.' '
Here Mr. Hughes's time expired,

28 FIRST DAY'S DISCUSSION.
Mr. STONEY— I beg leave to say, that I did not mean any dis-
respectby the expression Holy Mpther Church ; I took it from the
creedof Pope Pius IV. I have proved from the Bible that all
classes indiscriminately, men, women, and children, and mechanics
should read, and exercise their reason on the Holy Scriptures.
That position has not been touched- I have proved from the
Council of Trent, aud the Bull Unigenitus, that the Church of
Rome has forbid the reading ofthe Holy Scriptures. I willagain
read the extract from the Council of Trent in proof of that point,
[Here Mr. Stoney read the extract already quoted p. 21]. I s^y I
have proved my position, notwithstanding all that has been said.
And it cannot be denied.
The difference between Mr. Hughes and me is, that he admits,
with me, that the Scriptures should be given to the people : he has
made a great many admissions of that kind to day : but he would
tie down the minds of men to the interpretation ofthe charchand
the unanimous consent ofthe Fathers. The church has given no
interpretation, and 1 defy him to produce his infallible coupmentary.
He has the Bible with notes by private individuals in the Church
ofRorae; but he cannot produce an infallible coramentairy.
In opposition to this doctrine of Mr. Hughes, I say that every
person, learned and unlearned, high and low, ought to possess the
privilege of reading, comparing, and studying the Scriptures,, with
the promised assistance of the Holy Spirit. This is denied by- the
Church of Rome ; and therefore I say that the people have not the
liberty of reading the Scriptures. Mr. Hughes has read fbr-you a
long list of sects which he says have sprung up from reading the
Scriptures. I stated before,in reference to this, that the abuse of God's
gift is no argument against its use. Man is responsible to God for
the use of his gifts, ifhe make a bad use of them he is answerable to
God ; but no church, council, or authority, has a right to interdict
the free use of the Scriptures, and say, -you shall be tied down to
my commentary. He speaks of Protestant sects and parties : he
seems to forget the numerous sects and parties in Rome. I have
here the Pope anathematizing those who read the Scriptures ; there
is, therefore, no liberty, no freedom, unless free liber^ is given to
read Go"d!s woi-d. All Ireland, I trust, will shortly, assert their
freedom to study the ScriptureS| and the result will be the exercise
of their judgment on the teaching of their teachers ; and that they
wi|l discover the truth of God, and be able to distinguish it from
the pernicious system by which they are enslaved.
In the Church of Rome we have Jesuits, and Augustinians,'and
Dominicans, and Franciscans, Cistertians, Trappists, Carmdlites,
&c. &c., many of whom differ widely one from another in .matters
of faith. The Jesuits and Jansenists differ upon the. doctrines of
grace ; the Dominicans and Franciscans upon the iminaculate con
ception of the Virgin Mary, besides a heterogeneous mass of other
opinions. With all her efforts she is not able to prevent disunion
ivithinher own bosom. Her apparent' unity is the. unity of igno
rance. It is true, that in Ireland the appearance of unity is kept

MR. STONEY'S SECOND SPEECH, 29
^pt, but there is no Scriptural unity ; it is not the unity of the
Spirit, which is the bond of peace. There are Protestant differ
ences, but these are chiefly on points which are non-essential.
We may differ about episcopacy, presbytery, &e., but we all unite
on the rule of faith, and the canonical books of the Bible. The
Church ofRome is not agreed as to her rule of faith, and, the seat
of her infallible authoritj'. Some say that this resides in the Pope
speaking ex cathedra; others, that it rests in a Council without the
Pope. Some contend that the asserted infallibility is to be found
in a Council and Pope conjointly; others, in a council summoned
with the consent of princes : others again, in the living voice of
the church as expressed by her pastors. Is every bishop infallible ?
Is every priest infallible? Is the Pope himself infallible ? There
is no unity-^there is no knowing where this.aathority rests.
There is more unanimity amongst Protestants upon essential
doctrines. . They do not indeed pin their faith to their pastors.
The word of God admonishes them to respect them, but to test
their doctrines. Let Mr. Hughes do this and I am satisfied. Let
him permit you when you go home to take up the Bible and test
his doctrines by it. Let him say, here are the words of the living
God ; compare them with what 1 have taught you. If you find
that my teaching and the Scriptures agree, believe me. But if
you. do not see that my doctrines are in accordance with them,
do not believe me. Compare what I say upon purgatory, the mass,
&c., with the word of God, and if they are not supported by it,
reject them. Let him do this and I will withdraw my charge.
I have • proved that God commands the indiscrirainate reading
of the Bible; and I have.established the fact that the Council of
Trent has forbidden it. I say, then,- that if Pope Pius permits and
recommends the perusal of the Bible in oppositipn tP the decree
of the Council, the unity of the Church of Rome is scattered to
the winds of heaven, and there is no infallibility in her.
I have- here the Roman Catholic prayer book, or extracts from
the book' in which the priests read their daily office. I find in it
an account of a motley, variety of sects and saints ; not only Jesuits,
and Dominicans, and Franciscans, '&c., but the most monstrous,
absurd, and ridiculous lives and mock miracles. You have here a
miraculpus gtory of a man carrying his head under his arm a con
siderable distance I ' -•
Mr. Hughes  I object to Mr Stoney alluding to that subject:
it is no part of the raatter under discussion.
Mr. Stonev. — Ah, you are afraid of this !• I introduced it tp
show the want of unity in the Church of Rome.
Mr. Hughes asks what was the state of Europe at the time of
the Protestant reformation, and what was the consequence ofthe
reading of the Bible ? I say that it was far better than the blind
igDoranQe of the then Church of Rome. I freely admit that
human depravity abuses the best gifts of God; but I stand here
in the power of my God to assert for every raan the right, the
supreme right to read the word of God, unfettered and uncontrolled

39 FIRST DAY'S DISCUSSION.
by priest or minister, and to brjng to it? test every sernjoB, dqctripji,
and practice.
'This glorious principle has been assailed in vain. Iri tbe creed
pf Pppe Pius, to which Mr. Hiighps has sworn^^I did not sivear
io \t, from Dfr. Hughes) — it is saiij " I do adrnit the Holy Scriptures,
in the same sense that Holy Mother Church dofh, whose business
it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of them ; apd I
will interpret them according tp the unanimqiis consent of the
Fathers." I say there is hefe no liberty pf judgment to a Roman
Catholic ; he is a slave — be is tied dpwi^ to the interpretation pnt
upon Scripture by his priest. All ¦whp do not assert the right tp
exercise their judgment on the thii^gs contained in the Scpftures
are slaves, and are kept in gross darkness and ignprance qy the
priesthood for interestei^ motives.
• 1 do not think I have left unanswered a single argument put
fprjyard by Mr. Hughes. "Vfe bpth agree th'^t the Bible is the
?fprd-pf Gpd. "Vvp both agree that the reading of it is good' and
fiseful. But we differ in our asser|;ions cpncerning th^ prohibition
pf thera by the Chvirch pf Rpme. I have prpdiiped decrees which
prpye that she has dene sp, and I will give my propfs tp M.t,
pughes's Chairman tp exapaine their truth. If IVJr. Hughes caq
produce ppntradictpry pnes, fhen the bdasted nnity pf the ChurcJ^
of Rome is gone. I contend that the phurch of Rpme dpes pre
vent the circujatipn pf the word of God. 1 "have provpd |:liat sl»e
has done so not only by her spiritual autljority, but by CALL1V4
IN THE AID OF the SECULAR ABM. Wherever she has had tbe
power she has done so. In countries where thprp are no Protes
tants the people have not t}»e Scriptures. If they have a littl^
more liberty here, \\is because the presence of protestantism has
thrown a gleam pf light upon their Church. Can Mr. Hughes deiiy
that the Church of Rome has prohibited the reading ofthe Scrip:
tures except with comments ?
He deviated from the subject before us into the promises made
to the Church. I will not follow him in his wanderings. I admit that
Christ left promises to liis Church — exceeding great ^nd precious
promises. But I defy fiira to cpnjiect the modern C^urclv of Romp
Ifcith the ancient Catholic Church. I wp'uljl npt leave his attempted
proofs unanswered. ,rh^ve answered eve^'y'one of them. I Wye
shown that she has succeeded in tanishirig the Scriptures from a(l
^R'??3'ff C^tfiolic States. Prqtestaiits h^vg asserted,, and priests
have acknowledged, that t|ig! indiscriminate reading oi the Scrip-
Jfires renders conversion to ber bosom nearly impossible: and so
it does.  17 i . , ,^
Pere Mr. Stoney's time expire^.
Mr. HUGHE S.— Mr. Stoney ha? said tbat we agree in one point,
that the Scriptures are the word of God. The only point of dif
ference is the manner and mode in which the Scriptures are to be
interpreted. The only point in Mr. Stoney*s last speech which
paUs for a, reply |s this-^he said that if there are poin^ of diffef.

MR. HUGHES' THIRD SPEECH. 31
?aee amongst Pretestants, there is as great a want of unity in the
Catholic church. He proved this by quoting the different orders,
Carmelites, Jesuits, Jansenists, &c. In this he betrayed consum
mate ignorance, and I would be glad th,at he would npt make use
of bad Latin when speaking of the Council of Trent. He en
deavours to palm on us heretics, that have been cut off from the
Catholic church — the Jansenists. The different orders ampngst us,
the Carmelites, Franciscans, Dominicans, &c., all say the same
mass, all. administer the same sacraments, are all united by one
bond of faith, all bear the narae of Catholic. Whereever a Ca
tholic goes, no matter where, he is joined by one bend of faith, he
is bound by one bond of Christian faith. Is this, I ask, lijce the
¦)inity of the Protestant church ? Is that the unity pf Calvin, who
ordered Seryetus to be burned alive for his faith ? Dp Pur prders
persecute each other ? They dp npt, because they are pf pne
faitji. That point is answered. He says we have tlie same Scrip
tures— tGRantep. We differ as to the mpde pf interpretation. I
have provefl that the Council of Trent condemned pnly the private
i}it,erpretation, but never the use of the Scriptjires. I have proved
there ¦were 60 or 70 editions pf the Bible published throughput
Europe. "Why publish them except they were to be read by all
|n their own language. My original argument is unconfuted , it
stands firm'as the rock on wjiich my church is founded, and against
which the gates of hell will not prevail. He has brought a number
of texts to prove what is admitted on both sides, that the Biblg
.should be read. But has he adduced a single text to prove the
superiority of private opinion to that of the Catholic church. He
challenges' rae to show our connection with the original Chureh of
jRome. I will show you an unbroken line pf Pppes, up to the first
Pope, Peter. We have first Peter, second Linus, and a continued
line of sixty-five cancnical Popes, link after link. Then as to pri
vate ppinipn, I will give ypu the, wprds of inspiration. I Will pro
duce a cpmpetent judge : St. Paul, in his 2nd epistle tp the Thes
salpnians, 2nd chapter, and r4th verse ; he says, " Therefprp
Drethren, "stand fast, and hold the traditions ¦whicli ypu havp
learned, whether by word or pur epistle.'' Again in 1 Cprinthians,
]2th chapter, 29th verse, " Are all apostles, are all prophets, are all
doctprs ?" . Is every common peasant in the country — is every
tinker, shoemaker, nailer, &c., tP interpret the scriptures ? I go
again to the epistle of the same apostle, to the Ephesians, 4th chap
ter and llth verse, and I beg your respectful attention to it, "
« And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some-
evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of ,
the saints, foRthe work of therainistry, for the edifying pf the bpdy pf
•Christ, until we all raeet'into the unity of faith, and ofthe knowledge ' .
of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the
age of the fulness of Christ, that henceforth we be no more chil-
. dren tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doc
trine." He there tells us why he gave pastors, doctors, &c.— " for
ihe perfecting ofthe saints," — and next he tells us how. long he

32 FIRST DAY'S DISCUSSION.
•would continue to give them,—" till we all meet info the unity of
the faith,'-— and again he tells us, that the teachers Were given
"that we be not henceforth children, tossed about with every wind
of doctrine," If you go to any part of the world you will find in
the Catholic church the same confession, the same mass, the same
absolution. There is unity in the Catholic church for the last 100
years, 50O years, and to the apostles' days. Has he this unity?
No. We have it because we hear the church, which St. Paul says
is the pillar bf truth. He never told us to distort Scripture tP our
own signification. On the contrary, they say that they are
•Wrested by persons to their own destruction, because they bring
their private opinion to sit in judgment upon the Church. Iwill
now show that the Catholic church is ruled by fixed principles and
a certain authority ; and you will see if that is not a surer and more
certain guide than private opinion, by which the Protestant church
is distracted and torn asunder in every part of the World. Ypu
will see a man and his wife, the daughter and the mpther, all ana
thematizing each other ; and cpntinually changing their own prin
ciples. The creed they have to-day they have not to-morrow ; arid
all this is the consequence of the same absurd doctrine of private
interpretation. 1 will now give you the authority of a holy Father,
Vincent, of Lerins, who lived 1400 years ago. There is not a
¦single division among the Bible readers that he has not e::plaiBed.
" Whosoever would avoid error in religious belief, must consult Holy
Scripture as the rule of primary authority, and then have recourse to the
tradition pf the Catholic church ; but it may be asked, since the Canon of
Scripture is complete, and in itself more that sufficient for every chiistian
piirpose, what necessity can be alleged for subjoining to it the authority of
'ecclesiastical opinion ? Because that from the very depth of Holy Scrip
ture all men cannot receive it in one and the same sense ; one person in>
terprets the Divine oracles in one manner, another person in a manner
totally different ; insomuch that from the same source almost,as many opi
nions ,may be plausibly elicited, as there are men. Therefore, amidst>iSO
great, perplexities, of such various error, it is extremely necessary that the
line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be regulated by 'the standard
of ecclesiastical and Catholic judgment."
[Mr. Hughes quoted more from Vincent, the substance of which
was, that] Novatus, Sabellius, Arius, Eunoraius, &g„ admit no
common interpretation, all were divided because they admitho
authority, therefore it is wholly necessary to take the sense of the
' Catholic church as our rule. This saint truly says, that there areas
many opinions as there are persons to interpret the Bible ; and that
it is not private judgment, but the authority ofthe Church, which
i should be appealed to. This Father asks, have heretics^ recourse to
this authority ? He tells us there is no heretic without the Bible
in his fist; that every man of them with the Bible inhis fist, goes
sword in hand in search of followers. They quote Scripture on all
occasions, at their table,' in the street. You have seldom a word
from them without a quotation from the Bible. Such was the abuse
1400 years ago, and it is the same with the modern sectaries at this
day.

MR. HUGHES' THIRD SPEECH. 33
(Mr. Hughes here made another quotation from Vincent, stating
that ancient heretics brought in all the charms of eloquence, to
render their errors the more seductive.)
If any person should ask a modern Bible reader whence dp I
learn my duty te depart frpm the universal and ancient faith — he
replies, iny Bible tells me ; althpugh the Bible tells us the church is
the pillar and ground of truth, and comraands us to hear the church.
This we must do to save our spuls frpm the abyss of heresy.
It will be Mr. Stoney's business to prove from Scripture that it
is safer to take the Bible interpreted by one's self, than to follow
the interpretation of the Catholic church. He must also do what
he has not yet done — prove that the Council of Trent has pre
vented the indiscriminate reading of the Bible. I have shown
you that the rule ofthe Index prohibiting the reading ofthe Bible
has been abolished these 90 years. I have given the authority of
fifteen holy Fathers. He has given assertions without arguments.
Let him meet Vincent of Lerins, and fifteen holy Fathers which I
will give to him, or to any Protestant who chooses. He must re
fute my authorities, and prove that his mode of interpretation is a
safer way to attain the true faith which will save you. There is
only one true faith, for St. Paul says you cannot enter the kingdom
of heaven without it. Can you say, Mr. Stoney, that yours is the
true faith? If you do, I grieve that I cannot approve of it. I
conclude by stating, that authority was always the rule of faith in
the Catholic church. WThen Arius appeared, heresies were so
numerous, that St. Augustine tells us the whole world groaned
under them — and what was the reason ? — Because Arius and the
other false teachers took up the Bible and interpreted it according
to their own fancy. Arius and his numerous heretics denied the
divinity of Christ. He was joined by other bishops. The Coun
cil of Nice condemned that heresy by the authority of the church.
Other Councils condemned other heresies, not by private opinion,
but by authority. The Iconoclasts were condemned, not iy pri
vate opinion, but by authority ; and it was by the same principle,
that every heretic was cut off from the church as a rotten member.
Photius was condemned on the same principle, by the bishops con
vened in Council. Bishops are the successors of the apostles.
Christ said to his apostles, I will send you another paraclete, that
he may abide with you for ever, the Spirit of truth. He tells us
t6 go and teach all nations, and that he will be with us to the end
of the world. In the East there were eight counsels, and in the
West ten. Their object was to put down error. They met heresy
by church authority — not by private opinion— because there was
no other possible way of putting it down. Private authority could
not be of any possible use against the spread of error. Every
heretic says, I have as much right to interpret Scripture as you
have : another says the same. I meet Mr. Stoney with this syllo
gism—That system which was always productive of heresy ought
to be condemned ; but, heretics were the result of private judg
ment i therefore private judgment ought to be condemned. The

34 ^ FIRST DAY'S DISCUSSION.
Gnostics said that the human nature of Christ was not real. These
heresies were the result pf private opinion.
(Here Mr. Hughes's time expired.)
Mr. STONE Y.— The Rev. Gentleman has offered me a book of
the Fathers — ^I have a better book — the Bible. He has accused
the Protestants of persecuting one another. That accusation
comes with ill-grace from a church which has established the In
quisition, to coerce the consciences of men, and to compel them
to unity. It comes with ill-grace from a church whose Pope
issued a bull excommunicating the sovereign of these countries,
fulminating damnation against her, and absolving her subjects
from their oaths of allegiance.
Mr. Hughes. — I call you to order, Sir, you have no right to
speak on that subject.
Mr. Nangle — You alluded to similar topics, and it is not fair
to allow an ex parte statement to gp before, the public.
Mr. Stoney. — I say the accusation, that Protestants have perse
cuted one another, comes with a very bad grace from a church,
which has issued the Bull Unigenitus, in which the Pope anathe
matized and cursed the Jansenists, for their supposed errors ; and
called in the aid of the Civil arm to put them down.
Mr. Hughes. — Come to the point my honest good fellow — come
lo subjects connected with the succession of popes, and the church
of St. Peter ; and to heresies put down not by Scripture, but by
church authprity.
Mr. Stoney.^I deny the Church pf Rpme tp be the Cathplic
church. Mr. Hughes has speken pf errors arising from the exer
cise of private judgment. I have already said that men may abuse
the best gifts pf Heaven. He has given us a list pf pppes — I have
here a list pf popes who were heretics.
Mr. Hughes. — Prove it.
Mr. STo^Ey. — Some Popes were Arians. There is np unity in
the Church pf Rome. Where is this boasted unity, when we can
prove that popes annulled the decrees of popes ; and we have
cardinal against cardinal. Innocent 3rd, revoked a decree of
John 1st; and John 23rd, one of Nicholas the 1st: and I might
adduce many similar cases. Mr. Hughes, after having quoted
Vincent of Lerins, called on me to show my authority for the
exercise of private judgment, in opposition to the opinions of the
ancient Fathers. I will prpduce that authority. In 1 Thes. v. 21,
we are commanded to "prove all things, and hold fast that which is
good." There is an authority superior to any Father, superior to
the Church of Rome with all her popes, cardinals, and councils,
condemning and anathematizing one another. There is a full, per
fect, sufficient, and infallible, because divine authority, "Prove alj,
THINGS." Let every individual do this. Refer tP the law and tp
.he testimpny, and if your teachers speak not according to that,
there is no light in them. We reierourpecple tothe Scriptures.and
say to them, if our doctrines do not accord with them do not
hear us,

MR. STONEY'S THIRD SPEECH. S5
[During this part of Mr. Stoney's speech he was frequently
interrupted by Mr. Hughes.]
Mr. Hughes referred to 1 Cor. xii. 28. He wants rae to believe
that because God has instituted in his church, orders of ministers,
we are therefore not to exercise our private judgment. I deny
that position. I admit that it is a great blessing to have good
teachers. There were in the primitive church miraculous teachers ;
but there are none such now. There are some indeed who pre
tend to work miracles, but we cannot see them performed. The
text does not invalidate the exercise of private judgment. If the
church tells you to believe any thing, must you not exercise your
judgment, in order to know what it is that she requires you to
believe ? I say that a man should judge by the faculties which
God has given him. How can a man judge any thing unless by
the exercise of private judgment. The Roman Catholic clergy
man appeals to the same to prove the authority of his church.
This day's meeting is a proof of it. The church of Rome is now
before the great bar of private judgment. How are you to de
cide upon the arguments advanced here to-day but by the exercise
of private judgment ? You cannot be deprived of it. It is not in
the ppwer of man to dp sp. Mr. Hughes quotes Eph. iv. 12, and
endeavours to prove from it that you must pin your faith to the
sleeve of your priest ; though the word of God tells you to prove
all things, and to hold fast that which is good. In the 20th chap
ter of John, and the 31st verse, it is said, "These are written that
ye might believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God ; and that
believing ye might have life through his name." There is an in
fallible direction to read the Scriptures, and exercise your private
judgment upon them. Mr. Hughes next refers us to 2 Pet. iii. 16,
He says this is a hard passage. Let us try if we can answer it.
" They that are unlearned and unstable wrest them, as they do the
other Scriptures, to their own destruction." Let us read the con
text and you will find that it is a text supporting my view of the
subject. St. Peter speaks of those who are unlearned and unstable,
wresting the Scriptures ; he does not speak of those who are desti
tute of human learning ; but of those who had not submitted their
understanding to the teaching of Christ. But does St. Peter tell
them not to read the Scriptures ? Far from it ; for he adds, "grow
in grace, and in the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ." How are we to do so ? Our Lord tells us, John xvii. 17,
« Sanctify them by thy truth, thy word is truth." That is by the
Scriptures. There remains an overwhelming multitude of texts to
prove the right of private judgment. But I have already fully
proved it, causa finita est.
Mr. Hughes and his church may ridicule us as Biblicals. We
are not ashamed of our attachment to the Bible; we avow it, we
glory in it. He says the biblicals pretend that the Scriptures will
tell them to come out of the Church of Rome. They are right.
The Bible says, " Come out of her ray people, that ye partake not
of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." They are right
c 2

36 FIRST DAY»S DISCUSSION.
to call upon the people to exercise their private judgment, which they
were never forbidden to do, but in the bull of the Popei and in the
decrees of that false church which called in the secular arm to burn
Jerome and Huss, and to persecute in every age those who read and;
judged for themselves.
Mr. Hughes tells us of eight Councils in one part of the world, and
ten in another. But the Church of Rome is not agreed as Jo the
authority of these Councils. Some are received in one country and
not in another. Again, some of their decrees are received by one
party in the Church of Rome and rejected by another. The Roman
Catholic bishops themselves admit, that the decrees of some General
Councils are not binding in Ireland. There is here no unity, and no.
recognized tribunal. The poor man who is concerned to obtain pardon
for his sinSy is left in darkness on that impprtant subject, by the Church
of Rome. He will be told that he is not to do or believe any thing
not authorized by the church which is infallible. But if he inquire
after an infallible interpretation of Scripture, he will find there is
none. The Church has given no authorized interpretation. The
priests are not infallible — the bishop is not infallible — the Pope is not
infallible. I say then that any man who leaves the authority of 'Qod
and pins his faitli to another man's sleeve, is in the sea of uncertainty,
and has no sure rule or guide to gp by. It is far safer for either Ro
man Catholic or Protestant, in the concerns of his soul — indeed it is
his imperative duty, to go lo the blessed Bible, and to read and study.
it so as to be made " wise unto salvation, through faith which is jn ,,
Christ Jesus." That one text from St. Paul's epistle to Timpthy is
quite sufficient to establish my point. The decree of the Council pf
Trent and this part of the creed of Pope Pius is utterly wrong. " I
do admit the Holy Scriptures in the same sense that Holy Mother ,
Church doth, whose business it is to judge of the true sense and inter
pretation of them, and I will interpret them according to the unani
mous consent of the Fathers.'' This is a mere ignis fatuus. There is
no unanimous consent of the Fathers. Such an interpretation is not to
be found. There is no interpretation of Scriplure authorized by the
church ; therefore a man must exercise his private judgment, or be
without a rule of faith.
Mr. Hughes has quoted one text upon which I beg to make an ob-,
servation. " One Lord, one faith, one baptism." If the Church of
Rome be right, St, Paul should have written one Lord, one faith, one
Lady, for the Virgin Mary is put on a level with God. Mr Hughes!
tells us the rule of the index of the Council of Trent was abplished.
Here is strange unity ! They set up a Council, and say it is infalHble ;
and here we have Mr. Hughes alleging tliat some of its decrees have
been altered. 1 will show you, however, that this decree against the
rtadiiig of the Scriptures has not been rejjealed. The last Fppe, Leo'
the 12th, issued an encyclical letter, which was circulated in t'eland,.
In thislf'lter lie referred to that rule of ihe index, saying that if the Scrip
tures were circulated, more evil than ijood would arise, There is unity!
There is an authority above the Scriptures, as we are told by those
who refer to the Church as an infallible guide to their true meaning I

MR. STONEY'S THIRD SPEECH. 37
Oh infallible interpretation ! Where is it ? I defy you to show it !
The 'Protestant has an infallible, safe, and perfect guide. He has an
infallible rule — tiie word of the living God ; not the varying, altering
decrees of councils, and bulls of Popes, and contradictory writings of
Fathers, amounting to seventy-five folio volumes !
The Bible is a sure, perfect, and known rule. Where is an infallible
guide to be found? Is it in the clergy, either priest or minister?
No. Blessed be God, we have an infallible guide — the Holy Spirit,
promised to them that ask it; for Christ says, Luke xi. 9 — 13, "Ask,
and it shall be given you ; seek and you shall find ; knock, and it shall
be opened unto you. For every one that asketh, receiveth ; and he that
seeketh, findeth ; and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened. If a
son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a
stone ? or if he ask a fish, will lie for a fish give him a serpent ? Or
if he ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion ? If ye then, being
evil, know how to give good gifts unto your chiHren ; how much more
will i/our heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him ?
St. James also directs us to the same guide ; he says, James i. 5, " If
any of you lack wisdom, let him ask pf God who giveth liberally
and upbraideth not.''
[Mr. Stoney here addressed the dense multitude who filled the
Court-house.] Let every one of you, then, have, and read the Bible. Exercise
your judgments upon it, and test the doctrines and practices of your
church by that blessed volume — ^the great foundation of our hope and
feith. We now close. We have both spoken; and I hope I have
established to your satisfaction that it is your blessed, your glorious
privilege to have, to read, and to study the sacred Scriptures. Why
chain down the poor Roman Catholic from exercising his reason in
the interpretation of the Bible ? His priest gives hini one. He reads
it ; he finds differences between it and what his priest has taught him.
He goes to his priest to reconcile these ; he is told he may read his
Bible, but not interpret it. He still reads and still finds a great differ
ence, a wide and vast one, between the doctrines of the Church of
Rome and those of the Bible. He finds that God's word makes as
plain as light the falsehood of the doctrines his priest has taught him.
He again applies to his priest, who tells him, beUeve not your own
senses ; swallow down every thing 1 tell you. Is that giving him
liberty } Is it not rather putting a bandage upon his eyes .'' If you
were left a property by will, and that a lawyer should take possession
of it and say, you must not read the will yourself, you must leave it tp
me to read it for you; or, I will permit you to read it, if you bind
yourself down to interpret it as I interpret it. No ; says the free born
Irishman ; let me read it for myself, it is my property, and I must
have it. Yes. It is your property — the Bible is your property ; and
no man can deprive you of your right to it so long as that text remains,
*' Search the Scriptures."
The discussion of this question closed here.

38 FIRST DAY— SECOND POINT FOR DISCUSSION.
QUESTION.
Proposed by Mr. Hughes.

TO PRCVE FROM SCRIPTURE, INTERPRETED BY PRIVATE JUDGMENT,
WHICH IS YOUR RULE OF FAITH, THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINI
TY, AND THE INCARNATION OF CHRIST.

Rev. Mr. Loftus. — Mr Hughes calls on you, Mr Stoney, to prove
from Scripture, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Incarnation of
Christ. Mr. Stoney.! — I am called upon to prove, from the Holy Scriptures,
the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Incarnation of Christ. Before I
proceed to do so, I beg leave to make a few observations. You have
heard a great deal to-day on the subject of private judgment, of which
the Church of Rome would deprive you, but cannot. For I ask, how
can you decide here to-day upon the truth or untruth of what Mr,
Hughes or I advance, unless you exercise your private judgment ?
You are exercising it at this moment. No man can deprive you of it }
you cannot even deprive yourselves of it.
I shall now turn to meet my opponent : but who is my opponent ?
A denier ofthe Trinity ! 1 am not speaking of Mr Hughes, 1 am only
speaking of my supposed antagonist. A man calls upon me to prove
these doctrines. I ask him, who are you ? He says I am a man who
do not believe the Trinity, and the Incarnation of Christ-^I am an
infidel. Mark this, ray friends. I have brought a number of charges against
the Church of Rome. Mr Hughes in return cannot bring one against
the Protestant Church. He is obUged to seek the aid of an infidel,
and calls upon me to prove the doctrine ofthe Trinity, and the Incar
nation of Christ, which we both believe.
Mr. Hughes.— How do you know that ?
Mr. Stoney. — Was ever the like of this ! Protestants may well be
confirmed in the truth of their religion ; and Roman Catholics racked
with doubts of their's to their very heart's core. Why not charge
some false doctrine on the Protestant Church ? There is not one such
objection in all Mr. Hughes's questions. Was ever such a triumph
given to the Protestant cause. This is not a triumph to me, but to the
truth of the Scripture. He is obUged to bring an infidel question
against the-circulation of the word of God ! Mr. Hughes, however, is
no infidel. He believes these doctrines as well as I do. But I meet
this supposed infidel — this imaginary gentleman.
I will, however, observe, that it is not fair in Mr. Hughes to state,
that the Bible, interpreted by private judgment, is my rule of faith ,'
no more than it would be right in me to say that Mr. Hughes's rule o'f
faith IS the Church, interpreted by private judgment. I acknowledge
no rule of faith but the Bible. The Bible alone is thp. rolii^inn nf Prn.

Bible alone is the religion of Pro-

MR. STONEY'S FIRST SPEECH. 39'
testants, and will, I hope, be sopn that pf Roman Catholics, whether
they join my Church or not.
I meet the Socinian, however. The doctrine of the holy Trinity is
easily proved. I go firSt to Matt, xxviii. 19 : " Go ye, therefore, and
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and ofthe Holy Ghost." Next, to 2 Cor. xiii. 14 : " The grace
of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of
the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.'' There is the Trinity for
you. But my opponent says he is not satisfied — I want you to prove
the Divinity of the Son. Well, then, in John i. 1 — 3, I find, '.' In
the beginning -was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All
things were made by him ; and without him was not any thing made
that was made." "There it is ; the Divinity of the Son, whom we call
the second person in the Trinity, is there acknowledged. Again, in
Phil. ii. 6 — 11 : " Who, being in the form of God, thought it not
robbery to be equal with God ; But made himself of no reputation,
and took upon himself the form of a servant, and was made in the
likeness of men ; And being found in fashion as a man, be humbled
himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death ofthe cross..
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name
which is above every name ; that at the name of Jesus every knee
should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things
under the earth ; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus
Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Here is an undeiiiable
passage asserting that he thought it no robbery to be equal with God,
and yet that he humbled himself, and became man for our sakes. The
apostle from this shows us how humble we ought to be ; and truly we
ought to be so. Again, in Acts xx. 28, we find St. Paul calling the
blood of Christ, the blood of God : " Take heed therefore unto your
selves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made
you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased
with his own blood." And again, I refer to 1 Tim. iii. 16 ; " And,
without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness ; God was mani
fest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto
the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.'" And
to I John iii. 16 : " Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he
laid down his life for us : and we ought to lay down our Uves for the
brethren." Mark this Socinian. What can you say to that ? " God
manifest in the flesh" — "God laid down his Ufe for us." I come
also to 1 John v. 20 : " And we know that the Son of God is come,
and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is
true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ.
This is the true God, and eternal life." There, I say, is a glorioUS
triumph, not to me, but to the truth of God over the cavils of infidelity,
Here Jesus Christ is declared to be the true God and eternal life, arid,
therefore, equal to the Father. 1 next go to Titus ii. 13 : " Looking
for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and
our Saviour Jesus Christ." Hete we see he is called " the great God,
and our Saviour Jesus Christ." I will not multiply many more passages

40 FIRST DAY— SECOND POINT FOR DISCUSSION;
of Scripture in proof of the doctrine. In Rev. i. 8, he is declared to
be the Almighty : "lam Alpha and Omega, the beginning and thfe
ending, saith the Lord, which is, which was, and which is to come,
the A Imighty.' ' And Col. i. 1 6 : " For by him were all things created,
that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether
they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers : all things
were created by him, and for him." Here he is declared to be the
Creator of all things. He is declared to be the object of worship in
Heb. i. 6 : " Let all the angels of God worship him ;" and again in
Acts vii. 59, we find the first martyr, Stephen, giving divine adoration
to Christ, saying, " Lord Jesus receive my spirit."
I have now settled the controversy with the Socinian, as tPtheDivi-
nity of Christ, by the word of Gpd. I have next to prove the Divinity
ofthe Holy Ghost. My first reference will be to Acts v. 3, 4: " But
Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan fiUed thine heart to lie tothe
Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land .-'' Whiles
it remained, was it not thine own } and after it was sold, was it not in
thine own power } why hast thou conceived th'is thing in thine heart ?
thou hast not lied unto men, but unio God." Therefore the Holy
Ghost is God, because " lying unto the Holy Ghost,'.' is lying unto
God. If we compare the remarkable vision of the Divine glory, seen by
Isaiah, chap. 6, with the 28th chap, of Acts, v. 25^— 2S, we will'find
that the message, given byJehovaii to Isaiah, is declared, by the Apostle,
to be the speaking of the Holy Ghost ; and, therefore, the conclusion
is undeniable, that the Holy Ghost is Jehovah.
I have now proved, to the confusion of the Socinian, whether he
come from Rome, or from any other quarter, the doctrine of the Tri
nity — that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are the Triune
God. I will now take the Socinian upon other grounds, and prove
the Divinity of Christ from the nature of his atonement, the fall of
man, and the attributes of God. The experience of the world convin
ces us that all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. The
whole human race are sunk in the deepest poUmion^ and are justly
exposed to God's eternal wrath. The love of God undertook to pro
vide a means by which sin might be pardoned, iniquity subdued, and
the sinner be raised from his degradation to eternal glory and blessed
ness. But in order that these gracious designs mighi be accomplished,
an infinite satisfaction was needful ; for ipfiniie justice demanded an
infinite atonement for sin. Nothing short of infinity could sustain the
load of guilt contracted by the countless myriads who were to be re
deemed and saved by liis blood. Therefore, I contend, that if Christ
were not the infinite God, he could not have accomplished the mighty
work assigned hira in the economy of redemption.
Again, no creature can make satisfaction for sin. Whatever powers
he possesses he is already bound to employ them all, to the utmost ex
tent of their capacity, in the service of his Creator. It is, -therefore,
sriipossible that he can do more than his oivn duty, and could,, there
fore; make no compensation for the omissions or the sins of another.
The Scripture plainly declares, that Christ made satisfaction».-full and

MR. STONEY'S FIRST SPEECH. 41
Eerfect satisfaction — for the sins of his people. Hence he could ftot
e a creature ; and if net a creature, therefore God.
Further : Christ invites all who are weary and heavy laden to cast
their burdens upon him, and promises them rest. Who but God could
sustain the overwhelming load ofthe innumerable and varied sorrows
and sufferings of Christ's afflicted people in all generations } Who
but God could relieve them from that load and give them rest?
I shall now speak of the work of the Holy Ghost, and prove by the
same train of reasoning that he must be God. It is the office of the
Spirit to animate dead souls : for our souls are by nature dead
in trespasses and sins. None but God could giveiiife to the dead. It
is the office of the Holy Ghost to lake ofthe things of Christ, and to
reveal them to the souls of his people. Nothing but Almighty power
could do this. It is his office to enlighten the darkened understand
ing, to show the sinner his need of Jesus, to teach him to glory in his
cross alone, and to convince hira that he has justification by his blood.
Further, it is his office to continue this work in the soul of the believer :
to carry on his sanctification, and to give him further illumination
in. the knowledge of Christ. It is also his work to enlighten the
teachers of the church, if they teach in accordance with the word of
God : but not otherwise. It is bis work to renew fallen man after the
divine image, to eradicate the love of sin, and implant the love of holi
ness — to make him a new creature in Christ Jesus. Nothing less
than divine power could perforra such a work. The Holy Ghost does
accomplish all this, and therefore he must be God. It is thus that I
would triumphantly meet the cavils of the infidel sent against us: for
Mr. Hughes could bring no objection against the doctrines ofthe Pro
testant Church without stepping into the shoes of the Socinian. And
now, haying proved from the Holy Scriptures the doctrine of the Trini
ty, I would say to my infidel opponent, come, sir, let us go to a
Roman Cotholic priest and ask hira how would he prove it. Agreed ;
let us go to Mr. Hughes. The Socinian asks Mr. Hughes how he
proves the doctrine ofthe Trinity. By my church, says Mr. Hughes.
That will not do, the Socinian would reply ; your church is no authority
to me. I have denied the Scripture arguments brought forward by
Mr. Stoney: I iipw deny the authority of your church. How do you
prove it .^ Thus you see Mr. Hughes is placed in a far worse state in
dealing with the Socinian than I would be. For unless he could satisfy
the Socinian that the Scripture promises infallibility to the church, and
that that promise is made exclusively to the Church of Rpme; unless
he can clearly and distinctly prove what that infallibility is, and where
it is ; he is utterly helpless befpre the Spcinian, who will say to him,
your assertions about this ignis fatuus of the authority of the church,
cannot satisfy any intelligent mind. They do not satisfy me. The
assertions of your canons, councils, fathers, popes, &c. can have no
weight with me, until you have proved their authority. Now as this
can only be done by an appeal to the Scriptures, it is plain that Mr.
Hughes would be driven to the same ground, upon which I originally
stood. After all, the Bible is the only authority by which the truth of
any doctrine can be established.

42 FIRST DAY—SECOND POINT FOR DISCUSSION.
I have now tp prpve the doctrine of the Incarnation. My first refer
ence will be to John i. 11— 14; "He came unto his own, and his
own received him not." " And the Word was made flesh, and
dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only be
gotten ofthe Father,) full of grace and truth." Again in Isa. vii. 14.
we read, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give ydu" a sign; Behold,
a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Imma-
nuel.'' Here we have the prediction of a prophet of ancient ages,
taking his stand upon the hills of tirae, and predicting, centuries befpre
the coming of Christ, the incarnation of the Son of God. We can
have no doubt that this prophecy refers to Christ, as we find it quoted
by St. Matthew, as having received its accoraplishment in the birth of
the Saviour. Matt. i. 21, 22, 23. " And she shall bring forth a son,
and thou shalt call his name Jesus ; for he shall save his people From
their sins." " (Now all this was done, that it raight be fulfilled which
was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, " Behold, a virgin
shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his
narae Emmanuel ; which, being interpreted, is, God with us.") What
can the Socinian say, but that I have proved from the Scriptures the
incarnation of Christ. 1 go next to Gal. iv. 4, 5. "But when the
fulness ofthe time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman,
made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law,
that we might receive tbe adoption of sons." Mark this infidel. There
is the incarnation ofthe Son of God. The only other reference which
I shall bring forward from the raultitude of passages that might be
adduced in this controversy, is Luke i. 31. " And behold, thou shalt
conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name
Jesus.'' I put it to you, Socinian, or infidel, or whatever you may be;
if 1 have not proved from the sacred Scriptures that there is a Trinity
in Unity, God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. What other proof
can you demand from me .' You obj ect to my Bible. I have abundant
proofs both internal and external of its inspiration and integrity. The
Church of Rome says you have received your Bible from us. I tieny
it. And even suppose we did, the gift pf God is not deteriorated by
the polluted mediura through which it comes. I prove its inspiratidn
from its doctrines, its prophecies, its morality, its suitability to our
condition, and many other internal evidences which cannot be control-
verted. But I say lo ray opponent, you are sent by Mr. Hughes, and I
can satisfactorily prove the Bible to be the word of God. Now go
back to Mr. Hughes and ask him to prove it. He endeavours as before
to do so by the authority of his church. My opponent, however,
denies the Church of Rome to be Apostolic. He denies Peter's supre
macy, and shows that Mr. Hughes has no proof of any primacy having
been conferred upon him — that Saint Paul declared that he himself was
not a whit behind the very chiefest of the Apostles, 2 Cor. xi. 5.
Mr. Hughes tells me the Protestants have no sure rule of faith. But I
contend that by the exercise of the faculties which God ha^ given me,
lean prove the Bible to be of divine authority, and therefore my rule
of faith is the Bible. The Bible, interpreted under the promised assist
ance of the Spirit of God, not by mere private judgment, as Mr. Hughes

MR. STONEY'S FIRST SPEECH. 0
says, God has commanded us to make " a light unto our feet, and a
lamp unto our path." This is the rule of the true Catholic Church,
though not ofthe Church of Rome. The Socinian tells me Mr. Hughes
has informed him that I have no sure rule of faith. But 1 answer that
I have established my rule, and retort, that the Church of Rome has
no rule of faith, except the contradictory decrees of councils, the un
certain opinions of Fathers, and tbe opposing bulls of Popes. After a
full and fair examination Mr. Hughes will be obliged to give up his
rule of faith, and to come to mine, which is a well known one, and
accessible to all.
Protestants may differ in some things, but they all agree in the
rule of faith — they all acknowledge that the Bible is the word of God,
that it is a well known defined, substantial and tangible rule. We
hear much of the rule of faith of the Church of Rome. Where is it ?
The inquiry after it reminds me of a child who strives to reach the end
of the rainbow, because he is told he will find a crock of gold under it t
I need not say that he can never obtain the object of his search. It is
so with the Romish rule of faith, the anxious inquirer may seek for it !
but be will never find it : it is " non est inventus." Tbe Protestant
rule isa/ier/ect rule, for the Apostle says, 2 Tim. in. 16, 17, "All Scrip
ture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man
of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.'' It
furnishes the man of God thproughly unto all good works, and must
therefore be a perfect rule. On the other hand, the Romish rule is an
imperfect one. It is contradictory, illusory, deceptive and not to
be found. We have Council against Council, and Pope against Pope.
There were at one time three Popes seated together in the Chair of
Saint Peter ; so that it had well nigh burst asunder. Each of these
Popes issued their decrees, and cursed and anathematized one another,
and their respective adherents. Which of their commands were the
people to follow ? The Protestants have none of this uncertainty to
encounter. "The law ofthe Lord is perfect, converting the soul, the
testimony ofthe Lord is sure, making wise the simple."
The Protestant rule is an infallible .and certain one. Peter referred
to it, saying, 2 Peter, i. 19. "We have also a more sure word of pro
phecy ; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that
shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in
your hearts." Here we find St. Peter prefers the word of prophecy,
the written word, even to an audible voice from heaven. We have
this "sure word" for our guide; every thing else may vanish away,
but the written word remains, litera scripta manet. Lastly, the
Protestant rule is an immutable one ; it is not like the Romish rule,
continually altering and changing. Mr. Hughes has this day denied
part of the decrees of the Council of Trent. He says what was defined
and decreed by that infallible Council has ceased to be obligatory.
He accused me of mistranslating a decree of the Council of Trent ; I
appeal tothe Chairman, and will put the book into his hands to see
whether I have done so.
With regard to tradition, I have a proposition to make. Let the

ii FIRST DAY— SECOND POINT FOR DISCUSSION.
Church of Rome prodtice one single tradition, handed down from the
Apostles', and proved to have been sanctioned by Christ or the Apostles,
on. as good' evidence as we have for the Bible being the word of Gpd,;
andl will gladly embrace it. But I affirm that she cannot. If^a;
tradition have not received the sanction of Christ or the Apostles, it is
novelty : away with it. If it agrees wilh the .Bible, it is useless", as we
have it in the Bible ; if it do not agree with the Bible it must be false,
and we should not receive it. ¦-
(Here Mr. Stoney's time expired.)
Mr. HUGHES. — The question at present under consideration is, that
Mr. Stoney should prove from his rule of faith, the Scriptures inter
preted by private opinion, the mystery of the blessed Trinity, and the
incarnation of Christ. He has argUed all this day, and we have had
but one question before us yet, whether the Catholic Church prohibitM
the circulation of the Scriptures. I have proved that she does not
prevent their circulation, when interpreted by the authority of the
church. This position was opposed by Mr. Stoney ; I endeavouring
to prove his statement wrong, and he to prove it right. Mr. StPney
occupied the first twenty minutes of his time in proving the doctrine
ofthe Trinity, but after that returned to the rule of faith. He said that
theScriptures interpreted by private judgriient was the Protestant rule
of faith, and then he denied it. I do not like to attribute to him what
he has not said ; but 1 put it to you to say ifhe has not said, that Scrips
ture interpreted by private opinion is not the rule of faith.
Mr. Stoney. — The Bible is the Protestant rule of faith.
Mr. Hughes. — Very well. That Bible is the common property of
mankind. Every one ofthe seventy-three sects 1 hnve mentioned teach
their faith from the Bible. The Lutheran has it, and reprobates all
the others. The Calvinist does the same ; and the Baptist the same.
The rebaptizers and all other heretics say the same. (I hope I am not
offensive, but 1 wish to refresh your memory.) The Arian says that
you are all going wrong except himself. These are the glorious fruits'
of private interpretation, of all your elaborate arguments. The tree
is known by its fruits ; and if these be the fruits, we may estimate the
value of tbe rule by them. The Arians denied the divinity of Christ,
and, the Macedonians that of the Holy Ghost ; and both appealed to the
Bible. The Gnostics denied the reaUty of the Incarnation, and said it
was only the shadow of a raan that was nailed to the tree of redemp
tion.-, If-asked for their authority, they hold up the Bible, and say that's
my rule. Calvin appealed to the Bible to justify his burnino- Servetus,-
The Puritans, who in the time of Cromwell were guilty of so much
bloodshed, confiscation of property, robbery of temples, and sacred
vessels, were followers of Mr^ Stoney's rule of faith. There was a
very religious man inthis country a short time ago, Mr. Hargrove, and
he gave up his parish, worth £350 a year, because he thought Mr.
Stoney and those who believe as he does were all wrpng. His accpunt
of himself and his brother Protestants is, that they were going headlong
to destruction. That is another fruit ofthe frightful rute of faith set
up by Protestants.

MR. HUGHES' FIRST SPEECH. 4^
You said, Mr. Stoney, that I had no authority to prove that the
Catholic Church is the Church of God. I have said before that Christ
said to Saint Peter, " On this rock 1 will build my church, and the
gates of Hell shall not prevail against it,'' again, "As my Father sent
me, so I send you.'' — "The same authority that I have I give .you, " Go
and teach all nadons, baptizing them in the name ofthe Father, and of
the Son, and ofthe Holy Ghost." How long was this church, to con
tinue ? Was it for a day or a century 1 No ; but to the end of the
world. The Apostles and their successors must continue, or Christ is
a liar. The Holy. Ghost will guide them and show them all
truth. WiU Mr. Stoney put his private interpretation into the scale
with that glorious jiromise of Christ. In the 2nd of Acts, we are told
that "they were persevering in the doctrine ofthe Apostles, and inthe
communication ofthe breaking of bread, and in prayers.'' fs this the
way with the seventy sects ? Were they following the doctrine of
the Apostles when they were persecuting one another } In Ephesians
we are tpld that "he gave some Apostles, some Prophets, and other
some Evangelists, and other some Pastors or Doctors." Mr. Stoney
avoided this text ; if he repeated it, it would have prostrated his rule
of private judgment. He is very flippant in those parts of Scripture
which favour himself, but blinks those parts proving the living, speaking
authority pf the church. In Heb. xiii. 17, Saint Paul says, "Obey
your Prelates," Mr. Stoney says, " disrespect your Prelates.'' Take
up the Bible and judge for yourself. Saint Paul says they must
render an account for your souls, for they have a sacred obligation
which renders them accountable for the souls ofthe people.
Mr. Stoney says, take up your Bible and be accountable for yourselves.
The humblest person is not bound to follow the opinion of another,
neither Pope, nor Bishop have any right to lay down a rule of faith
for me. I reject them all.
The authority which I follow is the congregation of Bishops assem
bled together from every part of the Christian world, to deliberate on
what is matter of faith, and what is not. When they define a point of
faith, 1 receive it ; but any thing under that is no rule to rae.
Mr; Stoney contradicted himself. He said the Bible interpreted by
myself, is ray rule of faith. He laboured strenuously to prove that,'
and afterwards endeavoured to deslrey it. This is npt the last cpntra-
diction I will detect hira in.
Let it not be imagined however that I am forgetting the subject before
me. Mr. -Stoney says he believes the Trinity, and asks rae do I
believe it myself. I do believe it: not however on any private inter-
pretatipn of Scripture, but on the authority of the church, which is the
pillar and ground of truth, that the Holy Spirit, will be with his church
to the end of the world, and therefore cannot err. If the Church
did not teach me the doctrine ofthe Trinity, I would not beUeve it.
Christ established a church, and 1 hear that church, because he basin
the most earnest manner, and the most intelUgible language impressed
that command upon me. Oh, that Mr; Stoney would open his eyes,
(I do not intend any offence) and see the frightful consequences pf
inculcating a principle so untenable.

46 FIRST DAY— SECOND POINT FOR DISCUSSION.
I believe the doctrine of the Trinity on the authority of the church,
and though he rejects church authority, he would be glad to base his
creed on a splice of it. My belief in the Trinity is based on the author
ity of the church. No other authprity is sufficient. I will now show
from reason, that the Anthanasian creed and Scripture are opposed to
one another. The doctrine of the Trinity is this ; there is one God,
in three persons^— Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The Father is God,
the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. Mind, the Father is
one person, the Son is another person, and the Holy Ghost is another
person. Now, according to every principle of mathematics, arithmetic,
human wisdom, and policy, there raust be three Gods : for no one
could say that there are three persons and three Gods, and yet only one
God. No human coraprehension can fathom this. Can you conceive
by any rational rule that these three books, (Mr. Hiighes here took up
three books to illustrate his argument) are one book ? Each has its
own personality : I cannot comprehend • how three can be one. Am
I singular in ray interpretation of the Scriptures. No : this is the
construction that Arius put upon it, and that is private opinion. I will
go down to the North of Ireland, to the Presbyterians — men of great
learning — to such men as Mr. Montgomery, and they are most of them
Arians. They deny the divinity of Christ. Why so ? Because they
conceive it impossible that there could be three Gods, and still only
one God. The Socinian says this Bible was given us to be our guide ;
and that God gave nothing which could- not be comprehended by
man. But to say that three are one is absurd, and therefore he says
that this is not the meaning of it. Therefore, I will not believe the
Holy Ghost to be God : nor the Son to be God. The Socinian will
say that is the way to interpret the Scriptures by reason, and we have
as good a right to interpret them from reason as any other man.
I corae now to the Book of Common prayer, in which I find
the Aihanasian Creed : and then I will go to the Scriptures. I will
shed a blaze of evidence from Scriplure, proving the doctrines of that
creed impossible. I hope I will not shake your faith hy my argument :
those are not my objections, but those of the Socinian. If I were
called upon to disprove the doctrines ofthe Socinian, I would do so
quickly. Let a man get a sraall lever, and he will produce powerful
and glorious effects with it ; as Archimedes said, that if he were given
a place to stand on he would move the world.
• The Athanasian Creed gives the universal opinion of the church,
that the Father is uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost
uncreate : that they existed from all eternity. Now, the Son was
born of the Father : and if born must have been created. The Holy
Ghost must also have been created, as he came from the Father and the
Son, And if so, there must have been a time when they did not exist
If they did not exist, they raust have been created : and therefore to
assert that they are eternal is absurd, and bangs nonsense. Each has
his distinct personality ; each has his own essence : How then can they
be one eternal ? How can they be all God ? Absurd. The Atha
nasian Creed says that they are three persons, and still only one God,
Absurd; extravagant. This is rejected by Arians, Socinians, Presby-

MR. HUGHES' FIRST SPEECH. 47
terians, and every man following human reason. The Creed further
says, that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God and of man, npt by
conversion ofthe Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood
into God. Now I ask you, did the divinity absorb the raanhood. He
could not be at the same time one person and two persons. 1 have now
proved the Trinity opposed to human reason, and that no man can
prove by private interpretation of the Scripture the truth of this
doctrine. I now come to the Scriptures, Christ says in the fourteenth chapter
of Saint John, " my Father is greater than I,'' could any one be greater
than he, if he were God ? Therefore he is not God. He says in
anpther place, "I can do npthing of myself,'' John v. 31. If he
was God he could do every thing: therefore by his own declaration he
is not God. In the seventeenth chapter of Saint John, third verse,
Christ says, " This is eternal life, that they may know thee the pnly
true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." Christ here talks
of the Father as the only true God. If Christ was God he could not
have been sent by the Father ; because he could send the Father, as
well as the Father send him. Christ and the Holy Ghost must be
false Gods, and the Father the only true God. And this conclusion is
forced upon us by his own showing, in language adapted to every capa
city. In Matthew xix. 17, he says, " One is good, that is God."
If Christ were God, he would be good ; but he says there is none
good but one, that is God. Therefore Christ cannot be God. The
mother of Zebedee's children asked a request of Christ, that they might
be permitted to sit on his right hand and on his left in his kingdom :
But he said these are not mine to give, but they shall be given to
them for whpm it is prepared of my Father. Not mine to give. If
Christ were as great as the Father he could give it. Wherefore Christ
was not God. This is the fruit of Mr. Stoney's Bible, and my private
opinion. I do not claim to be infaUible; nor does he. What is his
private opinion more than mine ? If Scripture contradict itself, what
authority has he ? I have more : I have the authority ofthe church.
But I must sum up. God never gave the Bible to be interpreted by
private judgment, and so to fling amongst men the apple of discord and
to create confusion.
(Here Mr. Hughes's tirae expired.)
Mr. stoney. — Mr. Hughes has argued with great ingenuity and
force of reasoning .'on behalf of the Socinian who denies the Trinity !
I proved that he could not argue with the Socinian except on my
grounds : as th,e Socinian would laugh to scorn his infallible tribunal.
He has displayed cleverness and tact against the doctrine of the "Trinity,
and in endeavouring to prove that the Scripture contradicts itself. Mr,
Hughes says he is not infallible : 1 agree with hira. But does it there
fore follow that he could not answer the Socinian from Scripture ?
He stated that I contradicted myself in speaking ofthe Protestant rule
of faith. I did no such thing. I said that the Protestant rule of faith
is the Bible and the Bible alone. 1 denied that the Protestant rule of
faith was dependant on the varying fancies of heretics, even though

48 FIRST DAY— SECOND POINT FOR DISCUSSION.
they should be found in the church of Rpme. All Prptestants have
the same rule pf faith, uppn which every individual is hound to exer
cise his private judgment. Mr. Hughes has failed to answer the Scrip
ture proofs which I have brought forward in defence of the doctrine
of the Trinity. He has attributed to the Puritans the destruction of
property, the desecration of churches, and various other crimes. • He
has alluded to abominable practises, and attributed all this to the indis
criminate perusal of the Bible. This charge comes with ill-grace from-
a church, which has caused more bloodshed under the pretence of reli
gion, than all the wars that ever raged in the worid. When St. Do
minic set up the Inquisition, he was guilty of more crime and bloodn
shed, than the worst of those heathen emperors that made havoc of the-;
church of God. He taunts rae with Mr. Hargrove's secession frora us.
This comes with an ill-grace from Mr. Hughes, out of whose church
at this very time, many a Roman Catholic priest is dropping, one by
one. Mr. Hughes. — Thank God I
Mr. Stoney. — Amen. "
Mr. Stoney. — If Mr. Hargrove abandoned the Protestant church,'.
we can point to many similar departures from the church of Rome.
We can refer to the Crottys of Birr ; men of most respectable charac
ter, 1 know them personally, as they belong to my own town. They
have openly abandoned the church of Rome, and have been followed
by 1200 Roman Catholics in Birr. They are now teaching and
preaching the gospel of the Saviour, and not the corruptions of the
church of Rome. Also, Mr. O'CroUy, parish priest of Aglishand
Ovens in the county of Cork, has pubUcly separated from that' church
and joined the Protestant church. So has Mr. Nolan, who recently
preached in this town, and whose pamphlet has ably exposed the errors
of the Mass. He cannot then taunt us with separations from; our'
church, when so many are abandoning his own communion.
Mr. Hughes next quoted Matt, xxviii. 19, " Go ye" therefore and
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name ofthe Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things what
soever 1 have commanded you ; and lo, 1 ara with you alway, even unto
the end of the world. Amen." Christ (says Mr. Hughes) issued an
authoritative command to his apostles, to preach the gospel to every ,
creature ; promising to be present with them, and to keep ihem. He '
commanded them to teach all things which he had taught them, and
promised to be wilh them to the end of the world. I admit that Christ
did say these things to his apostles ; but to whom was it that he gave
this promise } Not to Mr. Hughes, nor. to the Roman Catholic church,
for they do not teach all things, whatsoever Christ has commanded. I
impugn thera publicly of teaching falsehoods. There is no proof that
the church of Rome is the Catholic church; nor that the clergy of
Rome have this promise. They have no right lo it — they teach other
things than what Christ commanded — they teach for'doctrines, thecom-
maudraenis of men. (Matt. xvii. 8, 9.) They do not teach all things
that Christ commanded. Lo, says our Lord, I am with you to the end
of the world — with them in their writings— yes, I will go farther-—

MR. STONEY'S SECOND SPEECH. 49
with the faithful ministers of his church, to the end of the world. He
will fever guide his church in the true path ; but what church is that?;
Is it the chuTbh df Rome? — No: she has apostatized,, she has; shed.t
the blood of the innocent and the righteous, therefore she cannot be.
the church' tP which the promise was made. > ' . ¦., ,
Mn Hughes also quoted Heb. xiii. 7, i'' Obey your prelates; them
ihat have the rule over you ;" and again recurred to the refuted position,;
that every individual is to submit to the imcontrouled guidance of :thei
clei^y of Rome. Protestant ministers claim from their flock respect
ob^ience, and attention ; but I disclaim, for myself and my fellow-
ministers, the intolerable position, that we are to usurp the place and-
assume the authority of church guides, as divine oracles. This ; text,
is therefore set at rest. I beg leave to refer you to 1 John iv. 1,
" Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are
of God ; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.'
Here you are commanded to try your guides, and to beware of false
prophets. I say the Roman Catholic clergy are false prophets. Let
any man read 2 Thes. second chapter, fron;, the 3d to the lOtb verse,
and he will find there a description given of the Bishop of Rome* as
suming great power.,over what he calls the Catholic world. I will read
one or two extracts from that portion of Scripture, third and fourth
verses, " Let no roan deceive you by any means : for that day shall not
cpme, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be ;
revealed, the son of perdition ; who. opposeth and exalteth himselfi
above all that is called God, or that is worshipped'; so that he, as Godj
sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.'' Here
is the Pope of Rome, as it were, in the teraple of the Lord, assuming
to himself an authority, not given by the word of God. I say that, not
one of the proraises made by Christ to his church, were made to the
church of Rome ; for her doctrines and practises, ' are opposed to the
Scriptures — the only real test of truth and purity. St. Paul says, in
his epistle to the Romans, xi. 19 — 22, "Thou wilt say.then. The
branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well ; because
of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not
high-minded but fear ; for if God spared not the natural branches, take
heed lest he also spare not thee." Observe here how the church of
Rome is reminded of her liability to error, and cautioned of the dan
ger of her apostatizing from the truth, so as to be utterly cut off. '1 Take
heed that he.spareUot thee.f . And now mark the comment which
Milner (the Pope's Vicar Apostolic) makes on this passage, in his
"End of Controversy" :— ¦' -s
" Supposing the (jubtatibri to be accurate, and that the threat is partioijJ^
larly addressed tb the Christians of Rome; what is that to the present pur
pose? ' We never supposed the promises of Christ to belong to thenfi or
their ancestors, more.than to the inhabitants of any other city, Indeedif,
is ihe opitdon,<f some of our most learned commentators, that before the end of
the piorld Rome will kelapse into heb. formek pAGA^fSMl— Par^^J,
Let. 12, p. 129.
Is not this anadmission ? Thatthe church pf Rome has notprpmises
made exclusively to her, that she may I'aU away,: and that at som«
D

50 FIRST DAY— SECOND POINT FOR DISCUSSION.
future time Rome will relapse mto her former paganism ! Hpw do
ypu know that she has not already dpne so ? We can prove that she
has; and that there is good reaspn fpr keeping this beok out of the
hands of the people, which contains the proofs of it. Mr. Hughes says
that many of the Presbyterians are Socinians. I am very glad to hayje
this opportunity of testifying my respect and brotheriy love for the
Presbyterians— we differ in some matters of church government, but
we agree in dpctrinesr— we acknowledge pne Lord, one God and Father
of allr-we have np dependance on the superstitious observances to be
fpund in the church of Rome. This accusation of Mr. Hughes is an
uncalled for slur on that upright and Christian churcb.
The Socinian's question was untouched by Mr. Hughes. I called
upon him to answer it, but he could not. He referred to the authority
of the church ; and endeavpurs to show that Scripture is subversive of
the doctrine. He helps the Socinian, but brings forward few texts 'ii;i
his support. Mr. Hughes has referred to the Athanasian creedy-I
believe that creed to be true, not because of the supposed inspiration
of its author, but that its doctrines may be proved from Scripture ; not
because of its antiquity, pr that it has been sanctioned by Rome. Mr.
Hughes has given his rule of faith, not the Pope, not the bishop but
the congregation of bishops. Mine is the Bible, and the Bible alpne.
The bishops assembled in Trent, whose decrees are held to be infal
lible. These Mr. Hughes threw down as his rule of faith, and yet has
exterminated one of them which forbids tfee reading of the Bible.
The Bible alone is the Protestant rule of faith, and I hope will soon be
that of the Roman Catholics too.
(Here Mr. Stoney's time expired.)
Mr. HUGHES. — Gentlemen, you are all aware that the point gt
present under consideration is, that Mr. Stoney shpuld prove from the
Scriptures, interpreted by private opinion, the doptrine of the Trinity,
and the incarnation of the Son of God ; and if we allude to any otKer
question we digress, we wander from the subject. I submit to you
whether he has not done so ; I avoid no question, and I leave it to the
assembly to judge why he did. No chaii'man called me to order, and
1 hope I shall not be. In his last speech Mr. Stoney has not attempted
to answer a single argument of mine. My forte is to bear on the sub
ject in hand. My opponent has not observed that rule; he has not refuted
me from reason ; I argued against the Trinity from the Athanasian
Creed, and 1 brought forward seven texts, and have twenty-fqur moCe.
He has wasted his tirae in endeavouring to make you swallow ihe gild
ed pill Qf private judgment. l?,i|it you will find it h.trd to reconcile or
digest it, .if you consider the importaiit and irresistible authority which
I have broi^ht forward — that of the Church^-of the church of Ro ,e.
But this is not our question ; he knows that I must avoid it. It is the
same as to challenge a man who is bound over to keep the peace. He
could not prove his doctrine, and therefore spent his time in talk, upon
a question which is not to be discussed. As we have seven days, you
will have an opportunity of having submitted to you the doctrines of
the Catholic churcb. You will have six days to consider the force of

m. HH.GHES? SECONP SPEECH. §1
my stuthprities, and to contrast fairly and dispassipnately my principHe|
with his rule. He is utterly unable tp get over my objectipns-r^he is
skelping over them — he goes to the Crottys — I know thera well, t was
in cpliege vyith Michael Cretty, and 1 dn not like talliing about hinji ;
^ut he acts quite contrary to St. Paul's qoraraapd. He proraised tq
obey h,is superiors ; but he \vas not two years on the raissipn whe.n h?
broke his splemn vpw. In the presence of God he promised obedience
to his bishop ; but he has become a rpck of scandal. He has npt a
flock of 1200, but he has gathered round hira all the ragamuffins of the
country. With respect to Mr. Nolan, I have in ray possession a pam
phlet, written by a person who knew hira weU : it would raajce the hairs
df your head stand pn end to read it. You know how the archbishop
pf Dublin treated that renegade, pitiful, dirty appstate ! After he was
kicked put ofthe Catholic .church, Dr. Wh9,tely found hira so misera
bly ignorant of the Scriptures, that he would not ^Upw hira to preE^cJi
in his diocese. If there was a Judas amongst the twelve apostles,
is it any wonder that where there is such a nuraber of Catholic piiest;s,
a bad raember is tp be found. This was the case with Arius, Luther,
and Nestorius, who picked up heresies. In the Catholic church, the
clergy are watched, and as sopn as we can lay p,ur finger on a rotten
member, he is cut off. Ctptty was suspended repeatedly fpr immPia,!-
ity. With re,?pect tp the Cathplic chm'ch.-7-lT is very probablip
that the cpuRCH OF RpME WILL ERR. Mind this. This jls
our faith. We believe St. Peter was the prince of the apostles. If I
yvere cabled on tp prove it, 'tis I that wpuld prpve his supremacy to
your satisfaction. We helieve that St. Peter aijd St. Paul djed the same
day at Reme : ene was c,rucified with his head dow-n, the other was
beheaded. This is the proof of the supremacy which St. Peter got.
Christ said to -Peter " I will give untp tjiee the keys o/ the kjngdora of
Heaven.'' He did not say this to any other apostle. He said to Peter
". On this rock I will build my church''7T-P,eter is that rock. He s^id
to Peter, " Feed my she,ep, feed my lambs." This was giving hini
authority over the pastors and the church. "There is put one fold, ai^d
Peter was appointed his vicegerent when Christ was about ,tp lejlVS
the world. He said to Peter, " Simpn, Siraon, Satan hath de,sir^ to
have you, that'jhe may sift ypu as wheat; hut I Ijaye prayed fpr thee
that thy faith fail net ; and thpu heing pnce eonveited, con
firm thy brethren." Luke xxii. 31, 32, Peter's ;^ith never failed. Jle
was the rpc^ on jyhicli Christ built his church, and agaipst which the
gates of hell shall never prevail. He was converted on the day of
Pentecost^ after the despent of the Holy Qhost in tongues of fire ; ai^d
confirmed his brethren by preaching tlje gospel as far as Rome, tbew
the seat of 'civilization and power ; and there established his See upon
a rock, vvhich he ceiQented \r>th iji^ blopd.
We are not bound to believe that the church established in Rome is
infallible— that place is not the centre pf unity. The Pope might go
tp Pa^ris, pr Lpndon, or publin, and any of those in which he might
take up his abode, would becpme the centre pf Cathplic unity, as being
the residence ef the Vicar of Christ. The diocese o_f Rome mSY e.fr
as a private ci^urch ! 'Tuam as a ^utch may err-'. AU Ireland may

52 FIRST DAY— SECOND POINT FOR DISCUSSION.
err 1 The church of Rome may err ! I The infallibility of Rome is
not my faith ; but that of the universal church represented by the suc
cessors of the apostles, the bishops, presided over by the Vicar of
Christ ;' 'regularly convened in peace and harmony, ecumenical in its
convocation, celebration and result. That is our authority, that iswhkt
We consider infallible, but not the church of Rome territorially coni
sidered. ¦ ' '
¦ Mr. Stoney says he will allow me to answer the Socinian. He is
very kind that way. For God's sake deal with the Socinian as you
wishi I'll meet my own points ; and do you the same to yours. Com*
on now, I resume. What tirae have I ? (four minutes from Mr. Loftus)
Oh that's enough. I refer you to Luke ii. 57. " Jesus advanced in
wisdom and age and grace with God and men." If God iand raan
dould he be increased in wisdom ? God is the centre and fountain and
author of grace : therefore he is not God. Again Mark xiii. 37. " Of
that day and hour no raan knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor
the Son, but the Father." He was talking of the day of judgment. If
God he must have the same knowledge as the Father. I must have an
answer to these texts. He has evaded them. 1 have produced 50 dif
ferent authorities, and I solemnly declare he has not taken a feather
from the wing of them. If he had 1 protest I would candidly acknow
ledge it, John xiv. — " As the Father hath given me commandment
sol do.'' If God he could not be commanded, therefore he is not
God. Matt, xxvii. 4*^. — " My God, my God why hast thou forsakeii
me?" Ifhe were God he could not be forsaken. The God that
created the world and keeps all things in the most harmonious order to
be forsaken: yet he complains" of God's having abandoned him. John
XV. 10. — "As I have kept my Fathers commandments.
(Here Mr. Hughes's time expired.)
Mr. STONEY.— Mr. Hnghes has argued vex^y cleverly for the Socis
nian ! Now I have brought forward many passages of Scripture to
prove that the man who does not believe the doctrine of the Trinity iS
going headlong to perdition-. For further proof I refer you to the 19th
of Revelation, where Christ is described in all his divine power. Rev.
xix. 1 1 — 1 6.; — " And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse ;
and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in right
eousness he doth judge and make war." " And he hath on his vesture
and on his thigh a name written, King of Kings, and Lord pf Lords." ,
There the divinity of Christ is established : all texts brought agaiost'f ,
such a passage are futile. I again call on my Socinian opponent to
accompany me to the 1st Epistle of John v. 7. — " For there "are three
that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost :
and these three are one." Mr. Hughes takes the place of a Socinian and
calls on me to contend with an infidel, a servant of Satan. Socinian as he
assumes himself to be, he could briiigforward no text to impugn my scrip
tural arguments. My first argument was not touched ; nor has he told us
how he would meet him. Even supposing that I could not meet him
Mr. Hughes could not either : for what authority has he more thani ?
I am satisfied to let the subject of the Trinity gp to the pubUc as it is.

MR. STONEY'S THIRD SPEECH. 53
With respect to Mr. Hughes observations on the Rev. Messrs. Crolty
and Nolan, the answer I have to give is a text of Scripture. Mr.
Hughes calls Mr. Nolan a renegade and a ¦poor pitiful dirty apostate,
because he has left his church ; his conscience having told him in the
exercise of private judgment whether right or wrong that the,Church of
Rome was a corrupt, apostate church. Oh shame, to have a raan atro
ciously abused because he had obeyed the dictates of his conscience !
We shall, however, find a parallel for this in the conduct of those who
reviled the apostles and our Lord hiraself. " Blessed are ye, said
Christ, when men shall revile you and persecute you, and shall say all
manner of evil against you falsely for mysake."— Matt. v. 11. Blessed,
I say, are those men whom Mr. Hughes reviles because they have left
his church.
We now corae to another subject, the traditions respecting Peter and
Paul. Mr. Hughes says they died on one day, that Peter was the first
Pope of Rome, and that the Pope is his successor. We have no record
in Scripture that Peter was ever in Rome. In the epistle to the Gala
tians St. Paul informs us, that St. Peter was at Antioch, and that he
acted with such dissiraulation that Paul withstood him to the face,
which disproves St. Peter's primacy. How could he be the rock, of
the church who was afraid of standing up for the truth before the Jew
ish converts at Antioch. Gah ii. 11, 12. — "But when Peter was
come to Antioch, I withstood hira to the face, because he was to be
blamed.'' " For before that certain carae from James, he did eat with
the Gentiles : but when they were come, he withdrew and separated
himself fearing them which were of the circumcision.'' C hrist said not to
Peter, " Thou art the rock," but " Thou art Peter and on this rook 1
will build my church.'' I will prove that Christ is the rock.
Mr. Hughes — Prove the Trinity first.
Mr. Stoney — I ara following Mr. Hughes through every parf of his
speech. [Great- interruption- and shouts from the crowd, hurra for Mr.
Hughes.] Mr. Loftus — Mr. Stoney you are out of order, the question under
discussion is the Trinity.
Mr. Nangle — Mr. Stoney is only following My. Hughes.
Mr. Hug-hes — Mr. Nangle it was your business to have interrupted
me, and Mr. Stoiiey has no right to touch upon that question.
Mr. Stoney — Well, let it go forth to the public that I would not
be allowed to answer the arguments of my opponent. I took notes of
his arguments and should be permitted to follow him all through. As.
Mr. Hughes, however, is afraid to have the battery of God's word
brought against his rock I give up the point.
I will now conclude what I have to say on this subject. I have
brought forward a great many texts of Scripture, which prove the
doctrine of the Trinity quite sufficient to convince any man who was
wiUing to receive the truth. But I could not convince a man who
would not be convinced, nor could Mr. Hughes either. I ask any
reasonable man if I have not satisfactorily proved from Scripture the
truth (pf the doctrine of the Trinity, But if the Socinian wiU not be

54 FIRST DAY— SECOND POINT FOR DISCUSSION.
satisfied with any evidence, how ebtild Mir. Htighes satisfy htin ? I
a'sft every sensible man whether 1 ha«e libl brought fotwafd a variety of
texts which fully ptove my poifit ? Mi'. Hughes could do no more. I
fidw rest thy cause On public opthion. I iharik the meeting for the
attention with which they have heard rafe. They have cenducted
themselves with the greatest pfppriety and respect. If I have said any
thing whi'dh hds given offence, I beg leaVe tp assure the meeting that
I have no wish to bfl^nd. I have spoken all through what 1 conceiVg
tb be the truth; and I am willing to ailoW taf statements tp gp to the
ptrblifc. I would have fpllowed my oppfoiieflt inhis assertions abotit
the supremacy of St. Peter, but 1 have been Refused permisstpU to do
so. I have Waived what I conceive tb be my right, attd the public Will
judge of my opponents motives in preventing me.
I close here.
(Here Mr. Stoney's tirae expired.)
Mr. HUGHES— Then ybu close by saying yftU cpuld npt atiswer my
objections. Mr. StONEY— I said nb sUfch thing : when I was abbtlt tb disptov^
what ypu ^serted about Peter being the rOck ybu would not permit
me. Mr. HotiliEg-^He has brought forWafd Scrtfrtore authorities to
prove his point, btft he haS hot met oiife of mine. He has qtioted a text
dfcout three bearing record in heSVeii, but he did hot quote the nejlt
Ve^se, because he knew I would catch him. I Will pick him up how
ever. " There are three that gi^e teMimony fan earth ; the spirit, thfe
¦water, and the blood, and theSfe three are onfe." Here i^ a compari
son instituted between three in hea'veri and three ih earth : and thsrt
these three are one. The same in hetiveh and fearth. Now I ask ji'pu
are they onfe en earth ? Are Water and bleod the same thing ? They
are not ; for I would drink a glass of water, but not pf blood. The/
are as much opposed as heat and cold. Therefore by this compariton
Mr. Stoney's argument is blasted.
I now refer you to our prpceedingg this merning. I first
stated the dectrine of the Catholic Church respecting the ScriptureS;
^ Mr. Nangle — Mr. Hughes you must cbrifine yburself to the qUes-
tion under discussion. The Subject to which you are now alltlding
has been disposed of.
Mr. HuGHfis. — Very well, my friends, one of my objections against
Mr. Stoney was, that he cbUld hpt prbvcj by his rule of faith— tH6
Bible interpreted by private judgment— that dofctrine of the Christiari
Church, that there is one God in a Trinity, of persons. If the Trinity
is not proved, away with the Unity. One object of this ijuestion waS
to prove the rule of faith. His is the Scriptures, and the Scriptures
aloiie interpreted by private judgment. I opposed him dn the groiihd
of reason. He advocates reasca. I dp alsp. Yet lie has npt ^ivfeft
me pne answer ftpm reaspn. My arguments stand : he is unable td
meet me.
One of my arguirietits against the doctrine df the Tritiit^ was taked
from the Athanasian creed, which Mr. Stoney is bound td read every

MR* HUGHES' THIRD SPEECH. 53
Sunday. But he in vain endeavoured to meet fhe arguments of his
antagonist the Socinian. Nothing could enable him to meet the Soei-
nian. The Scripture is Mr. Stoney's fort, and yet he could not kefep
tothe Scripture. At one lime he says that Scripture interpreted by
private opinion is his rule of failh : at anothor time he says
it is not.
I gave you a variety of texts which I explained to you and showed
you the meaning of them. Mr. Stoney did not explain to you the
meaning ofote of his. Mr. Sioney from his rule of fahh could not
meet that arch-enemy of religion, tbe Socinian, who lavs the axe at
the root of ail religion and scatters it tp the winds of Heaven. Mi**
Stoney admits himself unable : and why ? owing to the defectiveness
and error of his not having established a rule of faith.
If God has given us a rule to go by, be must have a way to inters
pret that rule, whereby lo defeat and overpower the enemies of religion.
Here is an essential point of the Christian religion assailed, and Mr.
Stoney is not able to defend it. That is owing to the badness of tbe
rale of bis faith, which is not able to protect tbe doctrine of Christy
and therefpre must be abandpned. Mr. Stpney cannct prove the
doctrine of the Trinity, and the incarnation of Christ, So he must
allow the Whole fabric of Christianity to be overturned by the Socinian.
The Church of God is Somewhere. No raatter where.
My Protestant friends have heard the description. Mr. Skoftey crJ-fiS
that I have no strength of arguraent- Protestants, I never attacked
your religion privately or publicly. I never made use bf difty
offensive epithets.
Mr. Nangle. — I call you to order Mr. Hughes.
Mr. Hughes. — Mr. Stoney was unable to defend the rule of faith.
Therefore it is not the rule. Christ left one faith, without which it is
impossible to please God, without which we can never go to Heaven.
Mr. Stoney, from his rule is unable to prove tbe dpctrine pf the
Trinity, therefore his is not the rule to teach us the truth, and to guide
men to salvation. Mr. Stoney asks me how I could manage the Soci
nian. There is many a thing 1 could say, but I raust bring my obser
vations to a focal point. I say he has not proved his point. I am
not called upon to prove it. If I atterapt it, I would he called to prder.
Mr. Nangle. — Mr. Hughes, ypuare at liberty tP dpsp, if ypu are
able. Mr. Hughes.— At liberty if I am able. If it were my place to do
sp, ¦ it's I that would soon do it.
Mr. Stoney. — I ask you to prove it by your rule pf faith.
Mr. Hughes. — I ara npt called upon to do so. Am I Mr. Nangle ?
Mr. Nangle.— If I stood in your place, I should as a professing
Christian, prove it if I were able. '^
Mb. Hughes — That is not a direct answer to ray question. I call
upon you to say yes, or no.
Mr. Nangle. — I again repeat that if I stood in your place, I should
endeavour to prove the dpctrine of the Trinity to the satisfaction of
the Socinian, as the most effectual means of demonstrating the superi
ority of my rule of faith.

56 FIRST DAy— SECOND POINT FOR DISCUSSION.
Mr. Hughes. — I accuse you of partiality. Ybu did not give a
direct reply to ray quesston.
Mr. Nangle. — I repel such a charge. I have stated my real
feelings. Mr. Hughes. — I say then the Socinian is left unanswered and the
whple fabric built up by Mr. Stoney is laid low. His rule of faith is
but a reed shaken with every wind, while mine remains immoveable
like the sturdy oak. Mr. Stoney will be obliged to fly and hide his
diminished head. It will be the same with every man who argues on
the same principle, he will fail in the sarae raanner. I promise you
Mr. Stoney will be in the same difficulty every day while the discus
sion continues.
I have now supported my character, and redeemed my promise.
He has told lies, and was not able to answer candidly. He would
give rae permission to do what I am not called upon to do. He would
stop me : he has stopped me. He would admit me to go wrong in
one place, and not in another. I know not what tp say pf his argu
ments : you, yourselves, will bring them home and form ypur pwn
ppinion. •¦ ¦ n^
Mr. Stoney has borne testiraony to the good order of the meeting.
I do the same. I am grateful to Protestants for the attention with which
they have heard me. Attend at the proper hour to-morrow morning,
and you will find that I will redeem ray promise, provided he appears,
of which I am not certain.
(The day's discussion ended here.)

SECOND DAY'S DISCUSSION.

QUESTION.
THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

SATURDAY, JANUARY 7, 1837.

Before the opening of the discussion for this day, Mr. Stoney begged
that he might be permitted to commence by defending his point,
as this would give him a closing speech : an advantage enjoyed by
Mr. Hughes, the preceding day.
Mr. Hughes. — That is one of your jpkes. I will net be humbug
ged by ypu any Ipnger. I have been too much so already.
Mb. Loftus. — I call on you Mr. Stoney to allow Mr. Hughes to
commence the discussion to day, by defending himself frora your
second charge.
Mr. Nangle, — It is but just that Mr, Stoney should commence to
day, as Mr. Hughes did yesterday.
Mr. Loftus, — That would be very fair if Mr. Stoney were not
the aggressor.
Mb. Stoney — I am not, I wUl read the chaUenge given by Mr,
Hughes two months ago,
(Mr. Stoney then read a challenge put forth by Mr. Hughes, offering
to meet Mr. Stoney, provided he would clear himself from charges
made against him by Mr. Hughes.)
Mr. Stoney. — (AUuding to these changes.) I thank you for that
language. Mr. Hughes. — You are welcome. I am sorry I ever met you in
discussion, but as I have, I will go through with it.
Mb. Stoney. — I have no doubt you are very sorry you have com
menced this discussion.

68 SECOND DAY'S DISCUSSION.
Mr.Nangle.— If you do not agree to allow Mr. Stoney to proceed,
the public wiU see that you are desirous to back ouf ofthe controversy.
We will, however, carry on the discussion, should you decline to do
so, and you can attend if you please.
Mr. Loftus.— The natural inference is that the challenged raust go
on first.
Mr. Nangle. — If it were a single accusation you would be right ;
but that is not the case, as Mr. Hughes gave a challenge, and my con
viction is, that if Mr. Stoney be not allowed to proceed, the Roman
Catholic clergymen are desirous to back out of the controversy.
Mr. Loftus  My conviction is, that such is not their desire.
(Mr. Hughes here read his hotter to Mr. Stoney, accepting the chal
lenge, and giving one himself in reiurn.) (Cheers and shouts.)
Mr. Stoney.— 1 answered every obe of your arguments yesterday.
I proved thai the Church of Rome prevents the reading of the Scrip
tures, and I am ready to proceed noW, if allowed to go on my de
fence. Mr. Loftus. — You are the aggressor, and it is fair to allow Mr.
Hughes to defend himself.
Mr. Nangle.; — There is a vulgar adage that wiU apply to this
occasion, " turn about is fair play." Mr. Hughes commenced yester
day — let Mr. Stoney commence to day.
Mr. Stoney. — I am ready to answer Mr. Hughes's second objec
tion, if permitted. It would be very great injustice that he should
have the closing speech on each day. It appears that you want to
have every thing your own way.
Mr. Nangle.— Rather than break up the discussion, which seeihs
to be the object pf onr dpponeht^j We Will alllow Mr. Hughes to prbCefeS':
I have, however, drawn up a protest Which I shall read for the meet
ing, and then hand tp the repprter. PROTEST.
"As Chairraan dn the part ef the tlev. W. B. Stpiiey, I cemplain
pf ihe injustice of deraanding for the Rev. James Hughes, the right
of making the closing speecli on each day pf the diScUssibn. As
seven ppints were to be discussed on eath side, it is but just that this
privilege should be enjoyed equally by each party. Rather, howeVef,
than break up the controversy, I ara willing on the part of Mr. StPiiey^
to concede, what I beUeve to be his just right.
Mr. Hughes — 1 now raake this prpppsitipn tp Mr. Stoney, in a
spirit of fair play — that he should give rae twenty minutes addiiioMl
for ray proof, and I Will give hira the sarae.
Mr. Stoney. — ^t Will abide by the regulations. I call on you td
prove the doctrine of Transubstantiation.
, MR. HUGHES then spoke as foUows, after having blessed himsleif
by cutting the sign of the cross dn his breast. Gentieraen, the order
which I propose to follow in proving the doctrine of Transubstantia
tion, is first to subrait to your consideration a very short proppsitipn,
which wiU contain in clear and intelligible language, the doctrine of

MRi amtim* fifegt spiEcii. ss
the Catholic Church dtf ttanStSbstantiatipn. I v^TU aft^r iiiii bring
my first proof from the Sacred ScriptUffe^, I will then sippM td hol^
Fathers pf the 1st, 2d, 3d, 4tb, and 5tN cfehturies. I Kdld in my pes-
sessipn authbrities on transubstantiation frOrii thirty-eight Fathers ot
these centuries ; but lest I should be tedions I Will confine myself td
nine authorities of the 1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, and Sth ceiifufies. I will
afterwards give the Council bf Trent, that you may have an opportunity
of comparing my first proposition with the Scriptures, the Fathefs, and
thej Council of Trent, and shbw that their unanimous tonfeerit is Suffi
cient to convince the candid irit|uirer. I wlU afterwards quote the
o/>inions of eminent Protestant divines. This i^ what I am determined
to doi and I will succeed with the assistance Of God, to ^onr satis
faction. My proposition is this. It is an sbtitle bf beUef in the Catholit
Church, that in the moSt holy sacrament of the Eucharist theffe is truly
and really contained the body of Christ, which wais delii/er&ct for us,
and his blood Which was shed for the femissidh df sihs. 'The sub
stance of the bread being, by the pow^r bf Go'd, changed into the
substance pf the bPdy, and the substance pf the Wine into the blopd
of Christ ; the appearance of the bread and wine remaining the same
as usual. This change hasi been frtpperly called iRAftstb^tAfi-
TIATlOlfJ. To prove that proppsitipn from Scripture, I commence with the
6th chapter of John, wherein ai'e recorded the wOrds spoken by Christ
a year before his crucifixion, proinising to g'ive his flesh and blood for
the life of the worid. These I call the wbrds of prOmise. My second
argument will be taken from the institution of the blffsSed sacrament,
the night before he suffered on Calvary. My thifd dtguraeht will he
from St. Paul's first Epistle to the Cdrinfbisins, giving the Words Of
Christ himself spme years after the ascension. The Wbfds pf promise
are found in the 48th verse pf the 6th chapter df St. John.
Ih the first part of that chapter we have ah afccount of a glorious
miracle ¦wrought by our Redeemer, by which he ffed 5000 raen, with
five barley loaves and two fishes. After havitig perforraed this illus
trious miracle, he proceeds to impress dn his auditors the necessity of
faith in hira, in order to prepare theit minds for receiving the great
tnygtery which he was to proppse to thdm. In the 48th verse he says,
" i ara the bread of life. Your fathers did eit maniia in the desert
and are dead;" Because what they eat was manrta • but to show you
the superior excellence of the bread which 1 give ybu, "this is the
bread which cometh down frotn heaven : that if anjf raan eat of it he
may not die. I ara the living bread which cometh down from heaveb.
If any raan eat of this bread he shall live for ever." John vi. 48, 52.
He then eXpilains the description of bf dad he raeanS, and leaves no
doUbtS on their fflinds. He says, *' the bread that I will give iS idf
flesh for the life bf the World." v. 52. As soon as the JeWs heard
hira mention his fleSh, they at once objected to it. "Thejr *' sfrof 6
araong themselves, saying : how can this toan giVe us his flesh ib eat ?"
V. S3. Yes, my friendsi this is not the first contradiction, *hich (hia

60, -SECOND DAY^S DISCUSSION.
divine institution received. No sopner did Christ promise his flesh,
than he was ppppsed. Whovopposed him? The Jews ; andthisday
Mr. Stoney does so. And not only by Mr. Stoney, but every
innovator in religion, every heretic in the country. I do not apply
the terra to Mr. Stoney, but every heretic is doing what he is doing
now. Mind now : how does the Saviour raeet the Jews. Instead of
answering tbeir objections, and saying that he did not raean his real
flesh, he renews his language, and adds his blood also. "Except you
eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not
have life in you." v. 54. Mark how he uses stronger language. He
connects eternal life with eating his flesh and drinking his blood. If
his meaning was not figurative, it would be his duty to say his words
were not real. In the same intelligible language, he says,, "he that
eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me,. and I in him;
As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, so he .that
eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that
carae down frora heaven. Not as your fathers did eat raanna and are
dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever." y, 57-59' -
When his disciples heard this, they also objected. It was first
objected to by the Jews who crucified him. But here we find that even
his disciples were unfaithful. " Many therefore of his disciples, hearing
it, said, this saying is hard, and.,who can hear it ?" v. 61. How can
we beUeve that Christ can give us his flesh to eat ? Jesus answered
them. If you would not believe my words ; when ye see the miracle
of my elevation to heaven, ye ought to believe what I say. about my
flesh. But " it is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth noth-,
ing," V. 64 ; that is, if my fleskwere eaten, it would not profit unless
the Divinity were in it. It is*^»«^(py simple flesh, but the Divinity
united with it, that makes it prontable. "The words that I have
spoken to you are spirit and life," referring to those spiritual, divine,
and holy thing?, which give eternal Ufe. " After this many of his'
disciples went back, and walked no more with him," v. 67. Why.J
allow his disciples to go away, if his meaning were only figurative.
But no; he left them in the same incredulity in which he left the
Jews. Then he turns to the twelve, saying, " will you also go away,''
V. 68. Mind the answer St. Peter makes. " Lord, to whom shaU wfe
go ? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed
and have known that thou art the Christ the Son of God," v. 69, 70»
He knew that he had promised his flesh, and that he would perform his'
promise. This is my first proof.
My second argument is from the words of institution. Matt, xxvi.;
26-28. " And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and.'
hroke : and gave to his disciples, and said : take ye and eat : this is my,
body. And taking the chalice he gave thanks: and gave to them;
saying : drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the New
Testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins."
Mind on what occasion, and in whose company did he say this. In
^he company of the twelve aposdes, the night before he was betrayed,
When the bloody tragedy was bearing heavily on bis divjne heart,

MR. HUGHES' FIRST SPEECH. 61
he took bread and gave thanks tp his eternal Father, and by the sarae
power by which he created heaven and earth out of nothing, he said,
" this is my body."
Mind the time, raind the company, raind the hour, before the tra
gedy on Calvary. What did he say ? Take, eat, this is my body
which shall be broken : thisis my blood which shall be shed to-morrow.
But I am only in the'.raiddle of ray proof. I am only half done.
I thbught I had longer time. I will not leave any thing unanswered
by, and bye.
; (Here Mr. Hughes was informed he had twenty minutes remaining.)
"Oh! never heed, I have twenty minutes yet. Well, then 1 ^o to
Mark. xiv. 23, 24. "And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread :
and blessing broke, and'gave to them, and said : t.ike ye, this is my
body. And having taken tbe chalice, giving thanks he gave it to
them. And they all drank of it. And he said to them, this is ray
blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many."
What does he mean by many ? Are the whole world called to be
saved ? I cannot say all will be saved, only a few. This is his
meaning. St. Luke also, says, " And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake,
and gave to them saying : this is ray body which is given for you.
Do this for a coramemoration of me. In like raanner the chalice also,
after he had supped, saying : this is the chalice, the New Testament
in my blood, which shall be shed for you." (Luke xxii. 19, 20.)
Here he declares it is the same blood which will be* shed. I ask
you, was it his real blood which was shed on the cross, and not figu
rative ? There were other persons along with Mr. Stoney who said
this. The Gnostics and Novatians said that Christ's human nature
was absorbed by his Divinity, and that it was only an appearance of
Christ's body, which suffered on the cross. These were heretics of
the fourth century. In a similar manner, Mr. Stoney says it was not
Christ's real blood that he gave them ; although Christ says, " this
is ray blood which will be shed for you to-raorrow." Christ says,
this is my body which will be sacrificed on the cross. But Mr. Stoney
says it was not. The language of Christ is intelligible and cannot be
misconstrued. Which will you believe, hira or Mr. Stoney ?
Christ, on that awful occasion, when he was about td offer the sacri
fice of rederaption — when his sacred hands and feet were to be pierced
With nails — his head crowned wilh thorns — when he was to be abused;
insulted, bound to the pillar with cords, whipped, mocked, injured,
spit upon— when the recollection of his sufferings weighed heavily on
his heart ; this was the time when he said to his twelve Apostles '• take
eat, this is ray body which wiU be delivered for you." 'Was it his
real body which was offered upon the cross ? If it was his very body
and blppd which was offered upon the cross, will Mr. Stoney, with
• The- reader Is requested to observe the argument Jlr. Hugfie%jMdeaW)urs to
derive ftom the ¦words, "will be'sheA." Iii discussing the sacrifi(!e'pfjgie mass
he will be found quoting the same passage, <'is shed," and endeavouring to argue
from it !

m SECOND DA¥^S PI^USSION.
Iji;pv?J;iB, ^ve the imj^e^ tp say it yvas nPt his very bpdy and blPod
jyhici^ he gi^ye ? „ , /^ • .>• j
I come now to St. Paul. In the 10th chapterof 1st Corinthians and
16th verse, he says, "The chalice of benedictipn which we bless, is it
npt the cpmmunipn of the blppd pf Christ ? and the bread which we
break, is jijt net the partaking pf the bpdy of the Lerd?" And, again,
in the llth chapter and 23d to 26th versej « For I have received of
the fiOrd that which ?lso I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the
same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and giving thanks,
broke and said : Take ye and eat ; this is my body which shall be de
livered for ypu ; this do for the commemoratipn pf me. In like man
ner, also, the chalice, after he had supped, saying : This chalice is the
New Testament in my blood ; this do ye, as often as ye shall drink,
for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread
and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he
come." Here, St. Paul says, the same body which was crucified was
taken at the Sacrament, and adds, do this for a cpramemoration of me.
They Jews put Christ to death, they crucified him, and were thus
guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. The same crime as it was
to nail Christ to the cross, the same crime is it to eat and drink un
worthily. For, says St. Paul, "Therefore whospever shall eat this
bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord .unworthily, shall be guilty of
the body aijd blood ofthe Lo;d. Fpr he that eateth and drinketh un
worthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the
body of the Lord :" 1 Cor. xi. 27, 29. The Protestant version renders
j(t " eateth and drinketh daranation to himself." Why guilty of the
i>ody and bipod of the Lord, if his body and blood is not in it ? How
.cpuld oji.e discern y^hat i? hot there ? If Mr. Stoney were not in town
l)ow could I discern him there before me. But because he is there,
I do discern him. It would be hard, it would be impossible, to dis
cern the bp4y and blood in the ^crament, if not in it. And yet if I
do not discern it, I eat and drink my own damnation. How could it
he impcsed as an obligatipn and cpndjripn pf salvation, if npt in it.
I nnw conclude. Compare the woVds of promise given by Christ
in fifteen clear texts, with thpse which will be brought ' forward by ray
opponent by and by. He will bring forward a great many mutilate'd
texts, disto,rted and forced from their natural meaning. He will put a
ffilse construction Pn tiie wprds pf Christ, hoping this way to baflie my
arguments, as the Jews contradicted and opposed, with infidelity and
faithlessness. Would to God he had the humility and faith pf the twelve Apostles,
and could say, " Lord, to whom shall we gp ; thou hast the words of
eternal life, ^e believe, and are sure, that thou art the Son of the
Living Goijl. I Wiish to God, he and bis predecessors, frora Simon
Magus tP Mr. Stpney, wpuld follow the example of the twelve Apostles,
and not rend asunder the seamless garment of Christ bj- their fancies.
Compare the vi^ords pf prpmise with the words of institution, and they
snust ^hed a light upon your minds, as manifest as the sun at twelve
o'clock.

MR. HUGHES' FIRST SPEECH. 6,3
I know Mr. Stoney wiU stand up and blaspheme the doctrine of 19
centuries. He did so yesterday, but the Almjgljity God did not allojv
his blasphemous impiety to pass. The thunder of heaven— r(cries of
order, order) — the lightnings of heaven rpUed about us.
Mr. Nangle. — Mr. Hughes keep to the question. You had better
leave the thunders in the hands of Him who wields them.
Mr. Hughes — You know the fate pf Judas. The devil tpek pps-
sessipQ pf him, and he hanged hiraself. Arius also-r-
Mr. Nangle. — I insist, Mr. Hughes, upen ypur cpnfining yourself
tp the ppint under discussion.
Mr. Hughes. — Very well. You will see, just npw, hpw the words
of Christ will be twisted and perverted from their simple meaning.—
These distortiens, and contortions, and garblings, have be.e;ni the habit
sad rule of every felse teacher, frora Sipion Magus to Mr. Stoney.
Mr. Stpney will raiKe Pne pbjection against this doctrine of the Ca
tholic Church. He wiU quote " it is the Spirit that quiclceneth, the
flesh profiteth_npthing." If Christ were a mere man his flesh wpuld
profit nothing, It is the divinity joined to the humanity which gives
eternal life. This is the meaning of St. Cyril, St. Augustine, and
other holy fathers. Mr. Stoney, indeed, will put a different meaning
on thera. He may make use of his prerogative pf private judgraejit,
and §ay, I haye the Bible and the .^pirit--;: so says every one of tl^
sects I mentioned yesterday ; but caB'o|lS,.God inspire such absurd and
contradictpry opinions? 'The spirit pftrutji is united. The spirit of
error and falsehood is divided.
Mr. Steney's secpnd objection will be, " I ^m the bread of life ; he
that cpmeth tP me shall never hunger.'' But this is np objection. It
is mW'fest tl^t Christ talks of faith — ^he talics figuratively. The figure
is this : — He that believeth in Christ shall not thirst ; shall ijpt thirst
in his soul. This is what he refers t9 when ,he says, that he that be-
Ueveth in him shall never hunger. It is useless tp argue with a man
.5»ho would hring forward such silly objections.
However, let us examine his Jhird objection. " Let ^ vanxi prpye
hiraself; and so let him eat of that bread and drink the chaUce.'' jjr.
Stoney will say that after consecration Christ call? it bread, and thait
,S.t. Paul does the same. I admit th^ they do; hot was it real bread
and wine ? No : but it had ^^ appearance. The rpd of Aaron \vas
turned into a serpent, and de.voured tht^ Other rods, and yet it w^
called a rod still. The waters of the Nile were turned ipto blood, aijd
yet were called water. In the 9tb chapter pf John, vpe read an account
pf a blind man, cured by Chrjist; yet, though restored to sight, he is
called blind still, because he h^d been hlind hefore.
The bread and wii^e are ea^ed by the sa^e name glijl^ fortw^ rear
sons: First, ihey haye the appearance of breaded ivi.ai'. ?Second,
they were made from fe.read and wipe ; in tbe same mauner .as the ser
pent is called a rod; the blopd, water; and the young man, blind.
His .next objeodon will be. If there be transubstantiation it must
be a miracle ; to be a rairdcje, it must be manifest to tbe senses, or it
will not be believed- With regard ,to transubstantiatipn ; there are tp
be CQOsideied tw9 things : first, the miracle ; segond, the n^^tery.

64 SECOND DAY'S DISCUSSION.
Can you see a mystery ? You cannot. Body and soul are united.
Do you see the connection ? Can you see the connection of the divine
and human nature ?
[Here Mr. Hughes's forty minutes expired.]

Mr. STONEY. — I shall commence my reply to the defence set up
by Mr. Hughes by reading the doctrine of the Church of Rome on the
subject of transubstantiation. Mr. Hughes stated as his doctrine, that
in the eucharist there is a change of the bread and wine into the body
and blood of Christ. But he omitted to mention the entire doctrine^
The Council of Trent states, inthe 13th Session, 1st Canon, " If any
one shall deny, that, in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there
is contained, truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood toge
ther with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and conse
quently whole Christ, if any one shall say that, he is only in it as in a
sign, or figure, or power, let him be accursed.'' This is the doctrine
held by Mr. Hughes, but he did not avow it. It is also to be found in
the 17ih article of the creed of Pope Pius the IV.
Now observe that the doctrine of transubstantiation is one involving
palpable contradictions. It states that the body pf Christ Pur blessed
Lprd and Redeemer was broken, when it was not. It also involves
the absurdity that the Lord Jesus Christ held his body in his Own
hands, and was even put down into the stomachs of his twelve apostles !
A miracle which shocks our understandings, and overturns all evidence
necessary to our belief ip a miracle. It was a miracle accompanied
by no wonder. Ope whicft. has outlived the age of miracles, although
indeed there are some who pretend to the power of working miracles,
but we cannot see them performed.
Transubstantiation, if true, would be the most astonishing, astound
ing, and overwhelming of all miracles. No miracle is like this.
Christ performed none comparable to it. By it, raan a creature,
creates his God; and thus raakes God hiraself a creature, dependent for
his creation on the intention of man's will !
Mr. Hnghes divided his proposition into proofs derived from the
Scriptures, the Fathers, the Council of Trent, and Protestant Ecclesi
astics. He has brought forward the 6th of John, as the raain founda
tion of this dograa of his religion, although able writers of his own
creed, openly declare that that chapter has nothing whatever to do
with transubstantiation. Let us go, however, to that chapter, and X
will follow Mr. Hughes through his Scripture quotations, for I like to
refer to Scripture. In the 27th verse our blessed Lord says, " Labpur
npt for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth
unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you : fpr
him hath Gpd tbe Father sealed." This admpnitipn was extorted
by the multitude demanding from him a sign frora heaven, after his
having performed the ¦wonderful miracle qf feeding so raany with a
few loaves and small fishes. "Our fathers," said they, "did eat
manna in the deSert ; as it is written. He gave them bread from
heaven to eat," v. 31. Our blessed Redeemer took advantage of

MR. STONEY'S FIRST SPEECH. 65
every opportunity that presented itself, to draw spiritual instructicn
frpm visible ebjects, and was frequently misunderstpod. Thus in the
third chapter pf Jphn when he declared to Nicodemus, " except a raan
he born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Nicodemus
misunderstood him, and asked, " how can a raan be born when he
is old." Our Lprd perceiving that Nicoderaus misunderstood him,
reiterated his assertion, and showed that it was of the Spirit he was
speaking. Again, in the fourth chapter of St. John, we have his
conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well, in which he com
pares the gift of the spirit of God, under the erablera of water. He
repeated the observation, " whosoever drinketh of the water which I
shaU give hira, it will be in him a well of water, springing up
into everlasting life." When his disciples came and asked hira to eat,
he said, " I have meat to eat that ye know not of," comparing doing
the Father's will to eating meat. In a similarly figurative manner, he
speaks to the Jews of his body and blood. In the 33d verse he says,
" The bread of God is he which cometh dow.n from heaven, and giveth
life unto the world." When he had said this they answered, " Lord,
evermpre give us this bread." Tp which he replied, " I am the bread
of life : he that cpmeth tP me shall never hunger, and he that believeth
on me shall never thirst. Here he calls hiraself bread : did he tran
substantiate hiraself into bread ? No ; but he ccrapares the efficacy
of his doctrine in feeding the soul to that bread in supporting the
body. This siraple raethod pf teaching was usual with hira. In the
tenth chapter of John he says, " I am the door." Was he also tran-
substantiatecL into a door ! or rather, did he not employ this figurative
language to teach us that as the door is the only .entrance into a house, so
it is only by him that we can enter into the true church ? Again, he
says, (John xv.) " I am the true vine, ye are the branches." Was this
literal ? Was he really a tree ? No : but he makes a comparison
illustrative ofthe spiritual union between Christ and his people. I shall
return to this figurative raode of expression, and examine other's now.
Mark now what he .says in John vi. 35. " I am the bread of life :
he that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me
shall never thirst." And again in v. 40, " And this is the will of
hira that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and beUeveth
on him, may have everlasting life : and I will raise him up at the last
day." We are informed that, " The Jews then raurraured at him
because he said, I ara the bread which came down from heaven ;"
and that he answered unto thera, saying, . , " Murmur not among
yourselves. No man can come to me except the Father which hath
sent me draw him : and I will raise him up at the last day." Was
Christ changed into bread ? And yet if we interpret the flesh and
blood literally, there is no good reason why we should not interpret
the bread literally. This is a position which cannot be disproved.
Again, in the 49th and 50th verses, he says, " Your fathers did eat
manna in the wilderness and are dead. 'This is the bread which
cometh 'down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not die."
He speaks here pf bread which came down from heaven, and from this
E

m SECOND DAY'S DISCUSSION.
as well as from the whole context, it is evident he is not speaking of
his literal body, for this did not come down from heaven, but was
born of the blessed Virgin Mary. There is, therefore, no transubstan
tiation in that chapter, and I defy any one to controvert my proofs.
Again, in the 51st verse, he says, " I am the hving bread which
came down frora heaven, if any man eat of this bread he shall live for
ever : and the bread that I shall give is ray flesh, which I will give for
ihe life of the world." Here he says he is bread as well as flesh :
and if the bread in one place is transubstantiated into flesh, by parity of
reasoning it follows, that his flesh is here transubstantiated into bread."
It appears, indeed, that the Jews misunderstood hira, and "strove
araong themselves, saying, how can this man give us his flesh to eat ?"
" Then said Jesus unto them, verily, verily, I say untp you, except ye
cat the flesh of the Sen pf Man, and drink his blnod, ye have ne life
in you," v. 53. «
If this passage be taken literally, it would exclude almost every
Roman Catholic from salvation, ahd I would be sorry to assert that.*
The passage states that we raust eat and drink ,• and if it be taken
literally, it would be daranation to the majority of Roraan Catholics,
as none are allowed to drink of the cup but the priests alone. In
taking the wafer they do not drink his bipod, and therefore, the hope
of every Roman CathpUc would be overturned by the Uteral interprg-
tion of this passage. But such an interpretation inyplves Ptber absui--
dities. " Whpso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blopd hath eternal
life ; apd I wiU raise him up at the last day." If tjiis be taken
literally every one who receives the sacraraeht has etejlnal life. No
murderer, says the A|^ostie John, has eternal life. But the murderer
niay have received the ^sacraraent. Therefpre, this passage cannpt he
taken literally. *
On the other hand, if we take it spiritually it is mpst true, *'As
the living Father hath sent me, and I Ijve by the Father : sp he that
eateth rae, even he shall live by me," v. 57. He that feeds on me
by faitb^he that feeds in his soul on the spiritual food which I will
give him, h? shall live fpr ever, Let a raan of any sense and under.-
Standing, apply his rational powers to these passages, will he not see
that he can prove with equal force and certainty, that Christ was
changed into a loaf pf bread, as that bread was changed into his flesh,
when he said, " This is my body,"
The Jews had referred to the manna which their fathers had eaten
in the desert. And he took advantage of the opportunity of turning
their attention from the manna which only fed the body, to the spiri
tual food which he would give. His disciples taking him literally said,
" This is an hard saying, who can bear it ?" v. 60. As Nicodemus misun
derstood hira, as the woman at the well, and even the Apostles erred,
by taking his meaning literally, so these imagined that he was speaking
of literal flesh, when he was really speaking of the spirit. Christ
said to them, " What, and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up
where he was before!" v. 62. They did see him thus ascend. They

MR. STONEY'S FIRST SPEECH. 67
saw his glorious body ascend up tp heaven, where it is to remain until
the restpration of aU things. (Acts iii. 21.)
The 63d verse, however, settles the controversy, however my
opponent may attempt to gloss it over. He denies that he is speaking
of eating flesh. He asserts that this would be useless. He denies
that that cannibal act can be of use, even supposing the monstrous
doctrine possible, yet there would be no profit in it. " The words
that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life," v. 63. This
shows that our Lord through the whole chapter, from beginning to
end, employs common terras altogether as illustrative of spiritual truth,
of feeding upon hira in their hearts by feith. " But, says he, there
are some of you that believe not." Certain of them from that time
walked no raore with him. What was the reason ? Net because of
the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ ; but because they
were displeased at his heavenly and spiritual doctrine — at the conse
quences which they knew would follow, if they embraced his despised
and persecuted reUgion. When he saw raany of bis disciples leaving
hira, he said to the twelve Aposdes, " Will ye also go away ?" v. 67.
Mark the words of St. Peter in answer. No reference to Christ's
changing bre^d and wine into his body and blood. No : his answer
is '' Lord to whom shall we go ? Thou hast the words of eternal life.
And we beUeve and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the
living God," v. 6*8, 69. What 1 no reference to this wonder of won
ders — changing bread intn his bpdy, and wine intp his blppd I Npr
did he say either that it was alsp changed into his divinity.
Mr. Hughes. — This is not our doctrine. We do not believe that.
Mr. Stoney. — St. Peter said, " we believe ,^hat thou art the Christ,
the Son of the living God." But he did not say, " we believe that
thou canst change bread into thy flesh that we'may eat t^ee ;" as men
now Say, they can change bread and wine inte the bpdy, bipod, soul,
and .livinity of Christ!
Mr. Hughes. — (In a most violent manner.) — I will shew that that
is false. (Shouts and hurrahs.)
Mr. Stoney.— Oh 1 you are afraid of the discussion now.
Mr. Hughes. — Mr. Chairman, I call on you to read the deiit'ee of
the Council of Trent.
[Mr. Hughes then read the decree as given already in the opening of
Mr. Stoney's speech, and drew a distinction between the bread and wine
being changed into the body and blood of Christ, which body and
blood contained his soul and divinity; and the bread being changed
into the body, blood, soul, a'nd divinity of Christ.
Mr. Stoney attempted to proceed with his ariswer, but he was so
interrupted by Mr. Hughes vociferating, " bad Latin," assisted by the
shouts and yells of his partizans, that it was a considerable time
before he could go on. Order being at length restored, Mr. Hughes
said, " You -gave us bad Latin yesterday," to which Mr. Stoney re
plied, " I will give you Greek now."]
Mb. Stoney. — I now turn to the words of institution. In Matt.
xxvi. 26, we have the institution of what Mr. Hughes calls the mest
e2

68 SECOND DAY'S DISCUSSION.
wonderful miracle pf all miracles. « And as they were eating, Jesus
took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and
said. Take, eat ; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave
thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Diink ye all pf it ; fpr this is my
blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many, fpr the remission
of sins." We have another transubstantiation — a cup changed into the
blood of the New Testament ! . Why not take this literally, as weU as
the rest of the sentence ? I like fair play. The Irish love fair play.
Let us then have it here. Mr. Hughes in order to assist his argument
for the reality ofthe change, read these words, " This is ray blood of
the New Testament which shall be shed for raany, for the remission,
of sins." Like his other arguments, this, upon examination, wiU be
found to fail him. The words are, " which is shed " Wherever this
sacred ordinance is spoken of in the New Testament, the same words
are employed. Thus Matthew, Mark, Luke —
[Here Mr. Stoney quoted the Greek.]
Thus we find that the Greek original settles this question. Mr.
Hughes's doctrine would make it appear that there were two sheddings
of the blood of Christ, and two breakings of his body. One by him
self at the last supper-; the other by the Jews upon the cross. Was
there ever such a doctrine ! But I have not. yet done with the mani
fold absurdities into which this literal interpretation would lead us.
In Luke xxii. 20, our Lord says, " This cup is the New Testament
in my blood." What ! was the cup also transubstantiated into a New
Testament. Oh ! say the priests of the Church of Rome, you raust
take this figuratively. What rautilating, shuffling, and altering, they
are forced to resort to, in order to prop up this discordant doctrine.
Mr. Hughes spoke of mutilating texts, and corapared Siraon Magus
and Mr. Stoney. It would be belter for him to prove his point than
to call hard names, which, after all, are no arguments. But I willnot
retort; I will leave to hira this way of treating the subject.
I will now prove, by reference to Scripture, that the verb " to be''
is often used fbr " to represent.''
As you understand a little grararaar, we will run the verb "to be"
through the indicative mood, present tense : —
" I AM — the true vine." John xv. 1. Is there transubstantiation there?
Is Christ a vine ?
"Thou art — this head of Gold." Dan. ii. 38. Daniel interpreted
Nebuchadnezzar's dream of a large image with a golden head. Now,
wasuNebuchadnezzar transubstantiated into a head of gold?
" He is — the rock." Deut. xxxiii. 4. Moses here described God as
a rock, .upon which the church is built. Now, is God transubstantiated
into a rock ?
"This Agar is— Mount Sinai, in Arabia." Gal. iv. 20. WasHagar,'
the Egyptian, Abraham's maid-servant, a mountain in Arabia.
"We are — one bread.'" 1 Cor. x. 17. Is the whole church turned
into a loaf of bread !
" Ye are— the body of Christ." 1 Cor. xii. 27. Are all Christians.
the body of Christ? '
« The seven candlesticks are— seven churches." ilev. i. 20.

MR. STONEY'S FIRST SPEECH. 69
We have here, too, a very wonderful transubstantiation ; the church pf
Christ into seven candlesticks !
St. John also compares ministers to stars. Does he mean they were
transubstantiated? No.^ but this is the comraonScripture method of speak
ing. To illustrate spiritual things by sensible objects. You see, then,
the very priests themselves are forced to allow that " is" is used for
" signifies" or " represents." And so in the J.ord's supper, when he
says "this is ray body" — "this is the cup ofthe New Testament," he
speaks spiritually, and not of a change, according to the monstrous
doctrine of the Church of Rome. In the 26th of Matthew, and 25th
verae, we find him calling the wine, after consecration, the fruit of the
vine. "I say unto you, I will not henceforth drink ofthis fruit ofthe
vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in ray Father's king
dom. How then could there be transubstantiation there ? The bread
also, is several times called bread after canseeration. In the llth
chapterof 1st Corinthians, and the 26th verse, the Apostle Paul says,
" as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the
Lord's death till he come." How could they show his death, if he
were present alive with thera ? But, again, the Apostle says, " drink
this cup ? Will the Church of Rome undertake to say the wine was
transubstantiated into a cup ? Oh no, she replies, you raust take this
figuratively. Agreed ; but let us do the same with the rest ; and then
away ifith transubstantiation.
I have thus shown that it is the coraraon practice of our Lord, the
Apostles, the Prophets, and,- indeed, throughout the whole Scriptures,
to speak in a figurative raanner.
But Mr. Hughes lays great stress on anothe; passage, the 27th, 28th,
and 29th verses of the saraechapter. " Wherefore whosoever shall eat this
bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the
body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine hiraself, and so let
him eat of that bread, 'Snd drink of that cup. For he that eateth and
drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not dis
cerning the Lord's body.'' ,
I am not afraid to grapple with this passage. I will show that it is^
altogether on my side. Mark his words, " Let a man examine him
self, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup." No al
lusion to transubstantiation here, even after consecration. I say, the
Scriptures would not deceive us. The word of God would not call it
bread and wine if it were not so. Oh ! but let us look again at this
passage, and perhaps we will discover some grpund fpr this doctrine.
"He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damna
tion (or judgment) to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." Ha !
says the Church of Rome, we have you now 1 (Laughter.) You have
not a word to say for yourself now ! Well, let us see ; let us examine
this boasted prop. " Not discerning the Lord's body." Wlio discerns |
the Lord's body ? Do you see his body in the wafer ? Can you dis
cern his blood in the wine ? But what discernment are you allowed,
to exercise? You wiU not be allowed to express your judgment oqv
Is not the discernment of ypur senses directly against you ? It is flour
and water, and not a human body.

70 SECOND DATS DISCUSSION.
It is not a literal discerning of which the Apostle speaks I it is a
spiritual discernment, and therefore it raust be a Spiritual object. The
true meaning ofthis passage is, that he that eats and drinks the bread'
and wine in the sacrament, without knowing the value, tbe inestimable
worth, and feeling the power of the precious work which Christ did
when he gave his body on the cross for our salvation, is eating and
drinking his own condemnation. Bui my opponent thought he would
knock me to pieces by another passage, the 16th verse of the lOth of
Isi Corinthians. I shall add lo this the 17ih verse, diid we shall see
how tar his literal interpretation will bear him out. " I he cup of bless
ing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ?•
Tt^e bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of
Christ ? For we being many are ' one bread, and one bodyj
for we are all partakers of that one bread*'' Oh, says Mr.
Hughes^ there is the body of Christ. But let us examine the next
verse. " We being many are one bread." Is it possible that the Church
is transubstantiated into a loaf of bread ? Yet this would follow from
the literal interpretation. Therefore we must conclude that there is no
change, no transubstantiation, and that the Scriptures are diametrically
opposed to this doctrine of Mr. Hughes ; and even thfe very passages
which he has brought forward are clgainst him. Had I time, I would
examine this passage further, and bring forward many other *^rppfs.
I have shewn ypu that, accprding to this dpctrine, there must have
been two transubstantiatiens. Before his death he was changed intd
bread; and since, the priests of the Church bf Rome pretend to change
a bit of bread and a drop of wine into the bedy, blood, soul and di
vinity of that glorious and eternal Beingj whom the heavens cannot
contain ! If we apply our rational understanding and our senses to
this subject, Tvithout going into abstruse speculations, we will be con
vinced that there is no such thing as transubstan'tiation.
I have Scripture authority for appealing to the senses on this subjetiti
When our Lord appeared to his Apostles, after his resurrectiOUi thdf '
doubted the reality of his presence. They could scarcely believe that
such a thing coUld happen. When in the assembly of the Apdsties,
he wished to convince them of the reaUty of his resurrection, he ap
pealed tp their senses. «« Handle me and see, fpr a spirit hath nOt flesh
aiid bones as ye see me have." — ^Luke xxiv. 39. And, upon another
occasion, when Thomas continued unbelieving, ahd Would not receive,
the testiinony pf his feUpW Apostles, how did our Lord reraove his
dPubts ? An Elppbal tp his senses flashed cenvictipn pn his raind.^^^
" Rfeach hither thy finger, and behold ray hands ; and reach hither thy
hand, and thrust it intP my side ; and be not faithless but believing."
Jdhn tx. 27.
f If such an appeal to the senses was a just test in our Lord's days,
, why should it not be so now ? Try this absurd and extraordinary doc
trine by your senses. If it be a miracle it wiU be manifest to them.
At the marriage of Cana, in GalUee, there was a real transubstantiation.
When the water was turned into wine, the senses bore ready testimony.

MR. HUGHES' SECOND SPEECH. 71
to the reality of the miracle, and witnessed to the glory of Him who
wrought the wondrous change. The sight, the taste, the smell, all
convinced the by-slanders that it was, indeed, changed into wine 
When the disciples ate the bread and wine at the last Supper, did ihey
taste Uke flesh and blood ? Had they the appearance of humanity ?
No ; because there was no transubstantiation. When the Roman Ca*
tholic now eats h does it taste like flesh — does it look like flesh— does
it feel like flesh? No ; because u is not flesh. When his priest is on
the altar; how does he know that he is there, if his senses do not inform
him ? Ifow does he know that mass is celebratingj if the senses do
not tell him ? And so it is, also, with this imaginary miracle, upon
which I wiU have more observations to raake when my turn to speak
comes again. I have now answered most of the objections of my op
ponent, and would have met them all, had I longer time.
[Here Mr. Stoney's time expired.]
Mr. HUGHES. — Mr. Stoney is after reading for you a passage out
of the Council of Trent. That passage is false ; and 1 wiU prove it
now. Either the Council of Trent is false, or Mr. Stoney is false. If
the Council is false, it is a proof that this doctrine is false j and if Mr.
Stoney put a false construction on it, may God forgive him. He told
a falsehood. (Cheering.) He read a passage from the Council, and
I interrupted him, because he told a big bouncer. (Tremendous cheer
ing.) I wonder it did not stop in his throat. I would rather convict
a man in a falsebopd, than bring fifty spund arguments against hira.—
(Cheers and shouts.) I will convict him publicly of falsifying the
dpctrine cf the Cathplic Church. He said that the bread and wine is
changed intp the bedy, Wppd, spuI, and divifeity of the Lord Jesus
Christ. I will now read the Council. My friends, baptus est. Is there
anything like it in this proposition.
Mr.Chairman, wiU you read that passage^ Stop — I wiU read it myselfi
Quoniam autem Christus Redemptor noster, corpus suum id, quod
sub specie panis offerebat, vere esse dixit : ideo persuasum semper in
eeclessia Dei fuit, idque tunc deraid sancta hiec Synodus decMrat, per
consecratipnera panis et vini cpnversionera fieri totius substantise panis
in sttbstantiam corpprus Christi Dpraini nostri, et tptius substantive vini
in suhstantiam sanguinis ejus. QnSe conversip cpnvenienter et prppri^
a Santa Cathplica ecclesia transubstantiatio appellata—Coun. of Trent,
Sess. 13, chap. 4.
" As Christ our Redeemer truly declared that what he offered under
the appearance of bread was his body, therefore the Church pf Gpd has
always been persuaded, and this sacred Syncd npw declares, that, by
the censecration of the bread and wine, there is a change of the whole
substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our
Lord, and ofthe whole substance of the wine into the substance of his
blood ; which change is suitably and properly called, by the Catholic
Church, transubstantiation."
Si quis negaverit in Sanctissimse Eucharistise Sacramento contineri
yerS, realiter et substantialiter corpus et sanguinem una cum anima et
Divibitate Domini hostri Jesu Christi, ac ptoinde totum Christuni> sed

27 SECOND DAY'S DISCUSSION^
dixerit tanturarapd6 esse in ep ut in signp, vel figura, aut virtutrej ana
thema sit. — Sess. 13, can. 1.
" If any one shall deny that in the most holy sacrament ot the
Eucharist, there is contained truly, really, and substantially, the body
and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and consequently whole Christ ; but shall say, that he is in it only
as a sign, or figure, or efficacy, let him be accursed."
There are two things asserted here ; first, the chsinge of the bread
and wine, into the body and blood of Christ ; second, that in the
sacrament are cpntained the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.
Is there any such thing in that passage, as saying that it is changed
into his divinity ? 1 call upon you Mr. Stoney to account for your
falsehood ! I must have an answer. I will wait here 'till evening 'till
I get an answer. (Cheers and shouts.)
Mr. Stoney. — I see very plainly the cause of all this — ^you are
afraid of the discussion, and want some excuse to break it up. We '
will Parry it on whether you attend or not.
Mr.- Hughes  Mr. Loftus, you are my chairman, read the passage
out for the meeting.
(Mr. Loftus read the passage for the meeting.)
Mr. Hughes. — Is there any transubstantiatipn pf the bread into^^^
the divinity of Christ there ?
Mr. Loftus. — I do not see it.
Mr. Hughes. — (With great violence.) — Cpme now, stand up and
answer for yourself. (Treraendous yells and shouting. Cries of pull
him down out of that — from a section of the meeting near Mr. Hughes,
and frora sorae in the gallery.)
Mr. Stoney. — I will when it comes to my turn to speak.
Mr. Hughes. — Well then come on, I have convicted Mr. Stoney of
that falsehood. It is not surprising that a raan would circulate false
hoods about our religion, when he has the impudence to ray face'to
misrepresent the Council of Trent. He had the effrontery to make
such a monstrous assertion as that the Catholic Church believed that
the bread and wine are changed into the divinity of Christ. When
he was not afraid to assert in this meeting, where he knew he would .
be detected, an atrocious falsehood, who can estimate his credibility ?
Where is the falsehood too egregious for him ? Protestants, I call on
you to reflect and consider well the character of that raan. (Cheers,
yells, shouts, tear him down, &c.)
Mr. NANGLB.^Mr. Hughes, transubstantiation is the subject, and
not Mr. Stoney's character.
[When order was restored, Mr. Hughes continued.]
Mr. Stoney has drawn me away from ray argument by stating false
hoods, and has consumed my useful time in refuting thera. I could
answer all Mr. Stoney's objections if I had time : but it is worn away
in exposing his statements.
He says Nicodemus conversed with Christ, and says Christ to Nico
demus, " you must be born again." " Oh" says Nicodemus, " how can
that be ? Can a man enter the second tirae into his mpther's wpmb ?
Nicodemus was then fifty er eighty years oW. Hpw could a man of

MR. STONEY'S SECOND SPEECH. 73
eighty years old be born again ? Our Saviour spoke figuratively :
and where the figure was misunderstppd he corrected it. He must be
born of water and the Holy Ghpst, says our Lord, correcting the mis
take where the figure was misunderstood. Our Lord said to the Jews,
" except ye eat ray fiesh and drink ray blood ye have no life in you."
The Jews understood him to spe'ak of real flesh and blood. Well, if
they misunderstood him, would he not have corrected iheni and re
moved their error ? Did he say, it is not real flesh and blood that I
speak of, it is figurative ? No such thing. He confirms his assertion
by two asseverations. " Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man
and drink his blood, you have np life in ypu."
When the paralytic was brpught tp him, he said, " raan, thy sins are
forgiven thee.'' The Jews which heard it raurmured at hira, saying,
" how can this man forgive sins ?'' If this was figurative would not
Christ have explained it ? Not at all : he confirms it by an illustrious
miracle. " Why do you murmur ? which is it easier to say thy sins
be forgiven thee, or to say rise up and walk ? But that ye may know
that the Son pf Man hath power on earth to forgive sins, he saith to
the sick of the palsy, rise up and walk." He restored him sound and
safe, and sent hini. home to his house : convincing the Jews that he
was not speaking figuratively but Uterally.
In the same manner, in the eucharist, does he say, I am speaking
figuratively ? No : " Amen, amen, I say unto you, except you eat the
flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood ye have no life in you."
Mr. Stoney talks of figures- "J am the rock — lam a door — a vine."
It is manifest he speaks figuratively. If a man is called a lion, it is
because he has the properties of a lion. As a door is the entrance
into a house, so Christ is the entrance into heaven. Is this the sarae as
taking bread the night before he suffered, and raising his blessed eyes
to heaven, and saying this is my flesh and blopd which I promised
a year ago, and which if you do not eat and drink yo^ will have no
life in you ?''
Will Mr. Stoney say that Jesus Christ on this soleran occasion told
a lie? (Here Mr. Hughes' tirae expired.)
Mr. STONEY. — I beg leave to state at the commencement, that I
raised no outcry when Mr. Hughes misrepresented my doctrines yester-
iday. I still beUeve that 1 did not misrepresent his, notwithstanding
all the distinctions which he has endeavoured to draw. But if 1 had
done so, he ought to have taken the benefit of it without resorting to
the very questionable course of calling opprobrious names. I utterly
deny that I have rais-stated his doctrines. We are told thatin the sacra
ment, those things which compose the sacrifice of the mass before a
ft)rm of words is pronounced over thera, are nothing but flour and
water, and the juice of the grape : but when four words {hoc est corpus
meum) are pronounced over thera, these things on the altar are no longer
flour and water, but the body and blopd, the soul and divinity pf the
Lord Jesus Christ. Is it any raisrepresentation to say, that the priest
pretends to convert bread and wine into the body and blopd, soul and
divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ ? i-: , * -

74 SECOND DAY'S DISCUSSION.
I shall make a very, few Observations upon the case ofthe paralytic^
When Christ told him his sins were forgiven, how did he prove his
power to do so ? By healing his disease. How did this convince the
Jews? By the evidence of their senses. They saw him able to take
up his bed and walk, who was before carried by others. But if he had
Iain where he was, would they have believed that he was cured? In a
similar manner we are told, that theie is a great miracle performed jn
transubstantiation. We are told that the flour and water are no longer a
wafer, but flesh and blood. Will any one believe it, if it contradicts
the evidence of his senses? If he does so, he gives up himself blindly
to the guidance of those who are leading him astray. Christ said, I
am a door. Did he change himself into a door ? Suppose a convert
from heathenism were to read in the New Testament that Christ said
he was a tree — a vine ; and that he set up a tree in the chapel and
knelt down and worshipped it, would he not have as good authority
from the XV. chapter of John for doing so, as the Church of Rome has
for setting up a miserable morsel of a wafer, and comraanding it to
be worshipped as the body, blood, soul, and divjnity of the Lord
Jesus Christ ? I hold in my hand a Roman Missal, published by the
authority of the " most holy Council of Tjent," and^dited by order
of the " Sacred Pontiff, Pius the VI." I will read some passages and
prove to your satisfaction, there can be no such thing as the conver
sion of a wafer into the body and blood of Christ. I will prove to
you from this book that even supposing the doctrine true, no Roman '
Catholic can be certain whether it has been rightly consecrated or not,
and therefore he cannot be certain ^jhether it is God or not: and
therefore he cannot be certain whether he is guilty of idplatry or not*
For it is idolatry to worship a wafer, if it be hot really changed into
God. I will read some extracts frem the chapter entitled "cf the defects
pf the matter" (in cpnsecrating the best.)
[Here Mr. Hughes attempted tp prevent Mr. Stpney from reading
the passages.]
And recollect that these passages are set forth by the authority of
the pope and Council of Trent. — " Defectus ex parte materise possunt
contihgere si aliquid desit ex Us quae ad ipsum requiruntur. Requiri-
tur eriira ut sit panis triticens, et vifaura devite: et ut hujusmodi
materia consecranda in actu consecrationis sit coram sacerdote."
" Si panis non sit triticens, vel si triticens, sii admixtus granis alte-
rius generis in tanta quantitate ut non raaneat panis triticens, vel sit
alioqui corruptus : non conficitur sacramentum."
" Si sit confectus de aqua rosacea vel alterius distillationis : dubium
est, an conficiatur." "Dedefectu vini."
" Si vinum sit factum penitus acetura, vel penitus puttidum, vel de
uvis aeetbis cere nOn maturis expressum, vel adraixtum tantum aquee
ut vinum sit corruptUm : non conficitur sacramentUra."
" Deffects, as respects the matter, occur, if any thing is wantihg in
those things which are required for it. For it is required that the

MR. STONEY'S SECOND SPEECH. 78^
bread be wheaten and the wine from the vine : and that materials df
this sort, to be consecrated, be before the priest in the act of conse
crating." " If the bread be not wheaten, or, if wheaten, there be mixed with it
grain of some other sort in such a quantity as that it does not remain
wheaten bread, or if it be in any other way corrupted : THE Sacra
ment IS NOT COMPLETE. If it is prepared with rose water or other
distillation : it is doubtful whether it is completed.''
« Of the defect in the Wine."
" If the wine have become altogether sour or putrid, or have been
made from sour or unripe grapes, or have been mixed with so much
water as to be corrupt wine : the sacrament is not completed.''
Oh I into what a sea of uncertainty is a conscientious Roman Ca
tholic plunged. Unless he have fully ascertained that the host had
been made of wheaten flour ; upon the authority of his own church,
he cannot tell whetiier he may be committing the awful sin of idolatry
or no.
If the paste composing the wafer had been raade with rose water
his church decrees it lo be doubtful whether he is worshipping God or
a wafer ! Again, he must go to Portugal or France to ascertain whe
ther the wine had been raade of unripe grapes or notj in order to sa
tisfy his conscience whether what he is worshipping is an idol or the
true God. (Yells and groans from a crOwd in the gallery ; but marked
attention from other parts of the vast asserably.)
I beseech your attention tb the doctrine of intention, as set forth by
the same pretended infalUble authprity, I qupte frpm the same Rpman
Missal. .,
" De defectu intenticnis.'' .
" Si quis npn intendit cenficere, sed delusorie aliquid agere^"
" Item si aliquse hpstise ex oblivione reroaneant in altari 5, irel aliqua
pars vjni, vel ahqua hpstia lateat, cura nen intendat censeCrare nisi
quas videt."
" Itera si quis habeat cprara se undeeim hpstiasj et intendit cpnsecrare
splum decem, npn determinans quas decem intendit : nen consecrat,
quia requiritur intentio."
" If any one does not intend to consecrate, hut does somethiflg
sportively." " Also if any hosts through forgetfulness remain on the altar, dr
some part pf the wine, er sprae hpst escapes cbservatipn, since he ddfes
net intend to consecrate except what he has seen."
"AlsOj if any one have before him eleven hostSj (that is, wafers)
and intends to consecrate only ten, not determining which ten he
intended, he does not consecrate, becailse intention is requisite;"
New I have it frpm Roman CathoUc R:iests, that for upwdrds of a
year before they left that church they did not beheve the doctrine of
transubstantiation, but were in a doubtful state of raind^ and yet were
deterred frora leaving it through fear of persecution, and other causes*
During that time they did not believe they could make this marvellous

76 SECOND D-WS DISCUSSION.
change, and it is my firm conviction that there are many priests sliU
in the Church of Rome who do not beUeve it, and as intention is
necessary in the officiating priest, they were involving their congrega
tions in idolatry. , . , .^ r .u~
(Bravo ! from Mr. Hughes and some other priests— shouts from the
-rallery.) You may raise a disturbance, but this is what is set forth m
your own Mass book, compiled by comraand of the Council of Trent.
But this is not all. We are told in Scripture that the human nature
of Christ triumphed over death and ascended into heaven, now no
more to return to corruption. (Acts xiii. 34.) But according to the
doctrine of the Roraan Catholic Church, the omnipotent Christ may
be thrown up in a vomit, and expelled from the filthy stomach of a crea
ture ! Am I stating this on my own authority ? It is not my inven-
tion. 1 am ready to hand it to Mr. Hughes' chairman to read ; and he
must acknowledge that this blasphemy is part and parcel of his own
Mass book. Here is the passage : —
" Si sacerdos evomat eucharistiam, si species integrae appareant,
reverenter sumantur, nisi nausea fiat ; tunc enim species consecratae
caute separentur, et in aUquid loco sacro reponantur. , Quod si species '
non appareant, comburatur voraitus, et cineres in sacrarium pro-
jiciantur." " If the priest vomits the eucharist, if the parts appear whole,
let them be reverently taken, unless they are too nauseous:
then let the consecrated parts be carefully separated, and laid up in
sorae sacred place. But if the parts do not appear, let the vo.mit
be burnt, and the ashes throwrf into a consecrated place." The
Lord Jesus Christ, to be burned and his ashes to be buried ! Accord
ing to that doctrine the humiliation of Christ is not over, for if
the priest take sick and discharge his stomach, he leaves in helpless
impotency, the Lord of heaven and earth sprawling in his vomit !
Who will have the hardihood to say that this is consistent with truth,
with the word of God.
[Here Mr. Hughes started up with violence, and the crowd were
instantly in great commotion. Mr. Stoney attempted to go on, but his
voice was drowned in savage yells, and cries of drag him dpwn.j
Mr. Stoney. — 1 have only read your own missal.
Mr, Hughes, — You lie ! You are a liar !
Rev. Paul M'Gbael. — He is a d  d liar !
Mr. Hughes. — I will manage you well !
Mr. Loftus. — Let him prove it to be true.
Mr. Hughes  Leave hira to me fpr ten or fifteen minutes, I wiU
make him commit a felo de se.
[After a rather protracted period of similar excitement amongst the
priests, and shouting frora the people, silence being restored, Mr, .Stoney
continued] the missal (mass book) further says, "Si non adsit clericus
vel alius deserviens in missavel adsit qui deservire non debet, ut mulier ;
si non adsit calix cura patena conveniens, cujus cuppa debet esse aurea,
vel argentea, vel stannea ; non aenea vel vitrea : 'si corporalia non
sint munda, quae debeut esse ex lino, nee serico in raedio ornata, et
ab episcopo vel alio haue bstbente potestatem benedicta ; si celebrat

MR. STONEY'S SECOND SPEECH. 77
capite co-operta sine dispensatione. Si non adsit missale licet
memoriter sciret missam quam intendit dicere (defectus contingit.)
" If a clerk is not present or some other person serving mass — or if
some person is assisting who ought not to serve (mass) as a woman—
if there is not a suitable chalice with a patena, whose cup ought to be
gold, or silver, or tin — not brass or glass— if the corporals are not
clean, which should be of flax, not adorned wilh silk in the middle,
and blessed by the bishop, or some olher person having this power;
if he celebrate with his head covered, without a dispensation — if he
have not before him a missal, although he can repeat by memtiry, the
mass which he intends to say" (a defect occurs.) According to this
undeniable authority, can any Roman Catholic be certain whether the
mass is not defective. I have proved there can be no certainty of
mass being rightly celebrated.
Again. " Si musca vel aranea vel aliquid aliud ceciderit in calicem
ante consecrationera, projiciat vinum subtus altare, et aliud ponat in
calice, misceat parum aquse, offerat et prosequatur missam. Si post
consecratipnera ceciderit rausca, aut aliquid ejusmodi, et fiat nausea
sacerdoli extrahat eam et lavet earn vino ; finita missa comburat ; et
combusto ac lotio hujusmodi in sacrarium projiciatur. Si autem non
fuerit ei nausea, nee ullum periculura timeat, sumat cum sanguine."
Also. " Si nostia consecrata dispareaf, vel casu aliquo, ut vento
aut miraculo, vel a mure accepta vel alio animali, et nequat reperiri,
tunc altera consecretur (ab So loco incipiendo. Qui pridie quam
pateretur ; facta ejus prius oblatione) et illud animal si capi potest,
occidatur et comburatur et cineres ejiciantur in sacrarium vel sub
altari." " If a fly, or a spider, or any thing else shall fall into the chaUce,
before consecration, let him throw the wine under the altar, and put
other (wine) into the chalice, let him mix a little water, offer it up,
and then continue the mass. If the fly, or any thing of that sort
should fall in, after the consecration, and it would cause nausea in the
priest, let him take it out, and wash it with wine ; having ended mass,
let him burn (the fly), and let this burning and washing be thrown
into a sacred place.
" If, however, it would not be nauseous to him, and that he fears no
danger, let him take it with the blood."
Also. If the consecrated host disappear, whether by any accident,
as by the wind or a miracle, oR by being taken by a mouse,
or other animal, aiod cannot be found, then let another be consecrated,
(beginning from that place, " Who the day before he suffered, haying
made his oblation) and if that animal can be caught, let him be killed
and burned, and the ashes thrown into a sacred place, or under the
altar!" Can that system be true, which would degrade the God of heaven
and earth to be eaten by a mouse, and then burned to
ashes ! Those directions cannot be frora heaven, which leave the
worshippers in an ocean of uncertainly, whether he is worshipping
the eternal God or an idol, and thus be guilty of a damning sin, God
forbid that I should pronounce any man to be damned. , Btjt, I accuse

78 SECOND DAY'S DISCUSSION:
the Church of Rome of involving her votaries in the danger of idola
try, Uppn her own showing, if the priest did not intend to do so,
there is no consecration, no transubstantiation, uo body and blood,
soul and divinity ; and, therefore, the worshippers even according to
Roman CathoUc doctrine are idolaters.
[Here Mr. Stoney's time expired.]
Mr. HUGHES. — Mr. Stoney, I told you awhile ago, that you were
guilty of a palpable falsehood. I proved that you misquoted the
CouncU of 'Trent. You read a passage from that Council, and from
that had the effrontery and the reckless courage to declare, the dpctrine
pf the change of the bread and wine into the divinity pf Christ. I
cpnvicted ypu of this lie from that chair.
He said nothing in reply though he got leave tp dp sp. I waited
until the termination of your speech for a reply, but ypu have net.
I have convicted you of a falsehood, which will indelibly stick tp ypu.
SP that the waters of the sea will not wipe it off. After making that
statement, I come now to falsehood the second — a frightful egregious
falsehood. Come now, stand up and afiswer for yourself. (Shouts,
groans, &c.) Protestants, think when that man goes into his pulpit —
think of the lies — the deliberate falsehoods — the frightful caricatures— •
the distorted pictures he will give you of the errors of the Church of
Rome, when he has the impudence tp put fprth before this enlightened
assembly, such abominable falsehoods. I am surprised there is such
harmony between CathoUcs and Protestants, when the latter are
brought up with such feelings towards our church. I am not surprised
that they should believe the Roman Catholic religion is damnable,
idolatrous, and superstitious, if this were our faith. It is not surprising
we should be shunned by humane and generous Protestants, when
Roman Catholics are so described.
[Here Mr. Hughes crossed himself, repeating aloud, in the narae of
the Father, and of the Son, and of ihe Holy Ghost. This ceremony
of self-protection from the contagion of poUuted wretches, was imT
mediately imitated by the crowd surrounding him. Then turning
to Mr, Stoney, he said, " may God fprgive you." Renewed sheuts
and yells.]
We are tpld in Spripture, that if a man transgress against the Father,
and the Sen, it will be forgiven him — but that if a raan transgress
against the Holy Ghost, it will not be forgiven — ^that is, if a man
transgress against the known truth, there is no forgiveness for him.
And that is your sentence ! (pointing to Mr. Stoney.) (Shouts.)
Mr. Nangle. — Mr. Hughes you are not keeping to the questien.
It is net your place to pass eternal sentence on any one.
Mr. Hughes. — -Here is falsehood the second, if the vestments be
not blessed there is no consecration. Give rae that raissal, or give it
to the chairman. Mr. Loftus, take that, and try if the vestraents are-
not blessed, will there be no consecration.
Mr. Stoney — I did not say that. I said there would be a defect
in the raass, and I say so again.
Mr. Loftus— The best way is to read the part in Latin and
English.

MR. HUGHES' THIRD SPEECH. T>
Mr. Hu&hes.— Let Mr. Nangle read it.
Mr. Nangle. — I have no objection.
(Mr. Nangle then read the passage about the vestments, already given
in page 76.)
Mr. Hughes. — Is there any thing about consecration in that ?
Mr. Nangle. — The paragraph is headed, " Of the defects arising
in the consecration of the mass," and it remains for Mr. Hughes to
prove that the absence of blessed vestments is not a defect vitiating the
consecration. Mr. Stoney. — 'Where there is a defect the cpnsecraticn is npt
perfect. Mr. Hughes.— Ypu are cpnvicted pf twp frightful falsehppds, and
I npw cpnvict ypu pf a third. Ypu say that if there be a defect there
can be np consecration. I call upon you tP prpve that. It is a lie !
[Shputs and yeBs, uppn which, Mr. Hughesjuraped uppn the table and
cried out, for God's sake order.] Mr. Chairraan, count this tirae and
allow it to me. How much tirae have I ? Seventeen rainutes. Very
well. I convicted you before ot two falsehoods, and now a third.
The first was this, that the bread and wine were changed into the
divinity of Christ — this was falsehood the first ; second, that if the
vestraents ¦were not blest, there would be no consecration — this was
falsebopd the secpnd ; the third was, that if there was any defect,
there was np cpnsecratipn. This assertipn stands against ypu, this is
lie the third; Why do I call it alie? The Scribes and Pharisees
were guilty df crimes, and it may be thought that I am speaking
harshly of Mr. Stoney, when I say he is Uke them. But I am only
following the example of our Saviour, towards the Scribes' and Pha
risees' hypocrisy. He stigmatized them as hypocrites. I call Mr.
Stoney a liar ! I stigmatize him with that fi}ul epithet which I cannot
repeat too often.
He speaks of the defects of the mass. Mi"<^ ' the raass was insti
tuted by our blessed Redeemer. There are three things essential to
this Sacrament: — ^the matter, the form and the intention. First, the
matter : who instituted the raatter ? Christ. What matter did he in
stitute ? Bread and wine. If these essentials were corrupted or al
tered, it would no longer be the matter appointed by Christ. He ap
pointed wine ; not beer, or spirits, or punch, but wine. To substitute
corrupted wine would not be the wine appointed by Christ. There
would, therefore, be an essential defect in the matter. The bread he
appointed was flour bread, hot from barley, or rice, or Indian meal.—
(Laughter.) To substitute any of these instead of flour, appointed by
Christ, would be an essential alteration in the essential matter, and
therefore thei-e would be no consecration.
The words, too, are defined. They were appointed by Christ. —
What were they ? " This js my body." These are the words of con
secration. Who appointed thera? Christ. Who appointed the Sa
crament ? Christ. Who appointed the words? Christ. Am I to
have the impudence to substitute a form of my own — a human form ih
the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood ? Therefore there would be
no Sacrament, if there was a defect in the essential matter or form.

(^ SECOND DAY'S DISCUSSION.
The third essential is, intention. To celebrate mass is a moral act;
performed like every other, and requiring intention. Therefore these
three were always necessary. Intention was determined tp be neces
sary at the Cpuncil pf Florence in the 13th century.
[Mr. Hughes here read the decree of the Council respecting inten-
tipn.] As these three things were commanded by Christ, we have no right
tP alter them ; and if we did so there would be no consecration.
There are other defects which are non-essential ; for instance, holy
vestraents. If the vestments were worn by me in celebrating the hply
mystery, and if they were npt blessed, it would not be an essential de
fect. If 1 had np clerk, and that I answered myself, it wpuld npt in
validate the sacraments. If I had np candles, that is non-essential.
If the chalice were not blessed, it would be non-essential. If the cor
porals were bound with silk, it would be non-essential.
These things are comraanded for the sake of order, to show respect,
and to celebrate, with soleranity and respect, the hol^ mysteries. We
do respect these commands, though they are non-essential. We are
comraanded to reverence the bles^d Sacrament. We pray, not to a
wafer — a bit of bread, but to the body, bipod, soul, and divinity of
Christ ; and that alone we adore. .
I do not want to be humbugged by you, Mr. Stoney. Come forward
and clear yourself from your falsehoods.
[Here Mr. Hughes paused, folded his arms, and fixed his eyes on Mr.
Stoney, as if awaiting an answer. As usual his partizans supported him
by shouts.]
Mr. Nangle. — Mr. Hughes, when the report is printed, the public
will judge whether Mr. Stoney has mistated your dpctrines, Cpntinue
ypur subject, and let us have no blinking of the real question.
Mr. Hughes. — Well, Sir, stand up and refute your three falsehoods.
I now come to falsehood the fourth. You declared that the missal in
your hand was put forth by infallible authority. Show me any authority
for the missal being infallible. If not, I must set this down as false
hood the fourth.
The reporters on both sides will observe the regulations.
You say that we command the Lord Jesus Christ to be burned. Ob,
there was more than that done to hira. He suffered more than that for
that man there (pointing to Mr. Stoney), though he forgets it now. 
(Great shouting.) The Lord Jesus Christ, though the Creator of heaven
and earth, carae down in goodness and mercy. He took upon him the
nature of man, and lived in this world for 33 years. He suffered every
ill treatment the night before he was crucified. His enemies spit upon
.him ; they threw the filthy phlegm of their vile storaachs upon his di
vine countenance. They struck hira with their blaspheraous hands.
Yes ; they beat hira ; they nailed him to the cross. His enemies blas
phemed him, saying, come down from the cross. They put an old
purple garment upon his body ; a crown of thorns on his head ; and a
reed in his hand, to revile hira with a feigned, fictitious, mock, royalty.
They knelt before him "with a false divine adoration. Where is the
insult, the contumely, the outrage, the malediction, which was not

MR. STONEY'S THIRD SPEECH. 81
heaped upon his head. He cried out, " Oh, all ye that pass by, attend
and see if there be any sorrow like tp ray sprrow." Aye, fpr that man
there. (Shputing.)
And now, because in his. mercy and love lo mankind, he conde
scended to give his flesh and blood and divinity, are we to ridicule his
charity and love and profane and ridicule him before any Christian
congregation. [Here Mr. Hughes was informed by the chairman that his time was
out ; and was with some difficulty called to order. He concluded with
exclaiming, — " Come now, refute my four falsehoods."]
Mr. STONEY. — I request the reporters will accurately take down
my first sentence.
If this discussion was held in a place where there was a large ma
jority of my profession of religion, and if I endeavoured to inflame their
passions against ray opponent, by such language as Mr. Hughes has used
towards me, wpifld not the conclusion inevitably be drawn by the pub
lic, that, because I was unable to meet ray opponent in fair argument,
I" endeavoured tp silence hira by viplence and clarapur.
Reporters, put that down.
I read a passage frera the Roman Catholic missal upon the defects of
the raass and other important matter, in my last speech. I read for
you, frora it, that if the wine were raade from unripe grapes, or mixed
with water in such quantity as to corrupt it, the Sacrament is not per
fected. In another place that if the paste' of the wafer were made with
rose-water, or other distilled water, it would be doubtful whether there
was a consecration.
I will leave the resolution ofthis doubt to Mr. Hughes; but 1 again
maintain my position, that no Roman Catholic can be sure that there
is not an essential defect in the mass.
He called for my authority for slating that the missal was put forth
by infallible authority. Its title declares that it was published by the
Most Holy Council of Trent, and edited under the authority of Pope
Pius the Fifth.
I now go to show you, whether you will hear or not, whether you
win allow me or not, that what is worshipped on Roman Catholic altars
is not turned into God. In the 1 9th chapter of Acts, we find, that De
metrius abused Paul on tbe same grounds as Mr. Hughes has hated and
persecuted me ; who has exhibited towards me anger and rage, because
he cannot meet my arguments. (Shouts and yells; upon uhich Mr.
Hughes sprung up on the table, and cried out, "Order; for God's sake,
order.") Now mark the arguraent used by Demetrius, and the accu
sation made by him against the Apostle : —
" A certain man named Demt-trius, a silversmith, which made sil
ver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain unto the craftsmen ; whom
he called together, with the workmen of like occupation, and said, —
Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth : moreover, ye see
and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia,
this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying, that

82 SECOND DAY'S DISCUSSION.
they be no gods which are made with hands ; so that not only this our
craft is in danger to be set at nought, but also that the temple of the
great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should
be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth."
I say there is an expression which undeifies the wafer. " ITiey be
no gods which are made with hands.'' The wafer is made with hands,
therefore it is no God. (Shouting.)
We are further informed, that " when they heard these sayings, they
were full of wrath, and cried eut, saying. Great is Diana of the Ephe
sians, and the whole city was filled with confusion." — v. 28, 29.
Yes. They shouted as you do now. They were greatly enraged,
and shouted " Great is Diana of the Ephesians."
This doctrine is not to be found in the Bible, or supported by the
authority of reason, but can only be upheld by the shouts of the mob.
The prophet Hosea gives us the sarae rule by which to test the object
of our worship. In the Sth chapter and 6th verse, he thus reasons
upon the absurdity of idol worship: — " The workman raade it, there
fore it is not God." The wafer is made by a workman, therefore it is
not God. It is no god, for it is the work of men's hands. The Bible
tells us this ; and the Bible is better authority than Mr. Hughes with
all his fables.
But Scripture furnishes us with many similar examples of the just
ness ofthis reasoning. In Isaiah 44th chapter and 14th verse, &c. the
prophet thus ridicules the senseless worship of the people : —
" He heweth hira down cedars, and taketh the cypress and the oak
which he strengtheneth for himself among the trees of the forest : he
planteth an ash, and the rain .doth nourish it. Then shall it be for a
man to burn ; for he will take thereof, and warm hiraself ; yea, he
kindleth it, and baketh bread ; yea, he raaketh a god, and worshippeth
it ; he raaketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto. Heburneth
part thereof in the fire ; with part thereof he eateth flesh ; he roasteth
roast, and is satisfied ; yea, he warmeth hiraself, and saith. Aha, I am
warm, I have seen the fire ; and the residue thereof he maketh a god,
even his graven image ; he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it,
prayeth unto it, and saith. Deliver me ; for thou art my god."
Is not this exactly what the Roman CathoUc priests have done with
the wafer ?
• [Again interrupted by Mr. Hughes.]
I put it tp the consciences of those reverend gentleraen present, and
ask them, were they in peril on the sea, and in danger of their ship
sinking in the waves, through the violence of the tempest, would they
in the moment of danger, take the wafer out of their pocket, and cry
to it, " Deliver me ; for thou art my God ?''
f We would, we would, was simultaneously exclaimed by Mr. Hughes '
and a numberof Roman Catholic priests I acccmpanied as usual by the
shouts of their partizans.]
I have shown frpm six passages pf Scripture that the wprd is pften
means represents — I have shown that our Lord constantly uses a figura
tive mode of teaching — I have shown thatthe6thof John abounds with

Missing Page

Missing Page

MR. STONEY'S THIRD SPEECH. 86
How do you know ?
It was once paste, but how can you tell but a miracle may havebnen
wrought upon it, and that it is not now converted into flesh ? or whe
ther the wine has not been turned into blood ?
They have not been changed, replies Taste.
I was present at some of the Lord's miracles. I was at the mar
riage of Cana in Galilee, I tasted the water that was made wine, and
discerned its superiority to all the other wine that was drank there.
I was present on two occasions when our Gracious Saviour fed the
hungry multitudes. I tasted the loaves and the fishes and found that
they were real loaves and fishes. 1 shared in the enjoyment caused by
the food that satisfied their craving appetites. I have now tasted these,
and pronounce thera to be bread and wine still.
Smell. — Come forward and tell us whether this 5me/& like wine
or blood ?
It is not blood Smell answers; it is wine still.
How do you know ? May not a niiracle have been wrought upon it,
and may it not retain the smell of wine though it is really blood ?
No, replies Smell ; I was present when the mighty miracle was
wrought df changing into wine the water of Cana. T shared in the
agreeable sensations caused by its smell. Were this blood I could as
easily discover it ; — but it is only wine stiU.
Feeling. — Examine this wafer and tell us does it feel like a body
and bones ?
It does not, testifies Feeling. 'I was present when our Lord con
vinced the doubting Thomas ; when with mild dignity and compla
cent humility, he subjected hiraself to a strict exaraination. I shared
in the Apostle's faith, when, having /eft his hands and his feet, he ex-
clairaed, my Lord and ray God 1
Hearing. — Come forward and tell us whether you can corroborate
the testimony of your fellows.
Oh I I am caught here. You do not, says Mr. Hughes, know whether
it will make any sound. The Church of England is overthrown now.
But, let us not decide too hastily. I drop this wafer. Come
Hearing tell us whether that sound is like the fall of a human
body. Mr. Hughes. — Christ says it is a human body.
Hearing. — Christ must have spoken figuratively. I can scarcely
perceive any sound. Were it a human body which fell, I could not
but know it. I was present on the day of pentecosl and heard the
miracle of tongues. I heard the various languages spoken by the
Aposdes. I heard too the wondering exclamations of the astonished
multitudes. This is not a human body. It is a wafer still.
Such is the unanimous testimony of these five faithful witnesses,
which were given by God himself, to convey inforraatiom to our minds.
Whoever contradicts the united testiraony of these, 'exalts his private
authority against the testiraony of God. But this is what we are
forewarned that the Pope would do "who exalteth and opposeth him
self above all that is called, God or that is worshipped." (2 Thess. ii.
4.) I say then the Pope is the man of sin.

86 SECOND DAY'S DISCUSSION.
Mr. Hughes. — That is false. (Shouts and yells from a part pf the
crpwd.) Mr. Loftus. — I call you to order Mr. Stoney.
Mr. Stoney. — I have brought forward all the senses — I have been
supported by the authority of the Bible — I have shown that the pas
sages atterapted to be brought against rae are in my favour. I have
brought forward incontestable evidence against the supposed mystery
of transubstantiation, and am most willing that the controversy should
go forth in its present state to the public, persuaded that the thinking
portion of it will agree with me. I have not indeed the mob on ray
side ; and even ifl had, I would not endeavour to inflame their passions
by using exciting language.
[[Mr. Stoney's time having expired the discussion of the question of
transubstantiation ended here. '
As Mr. Stoney had to open the discussion of the questions'proposed
by Mr. Hughes, and tp speak an hour together, he requested some
minutes to rest, being a good deal exhausted by the exertions the dis
turbed state of the court obliged hira to raake. This was agreed to by
Mr. Hughes.]

SECOND POINT— SECOND DAY'S DISCUSSION.

SUBJECTS.

INFANT BAPTISM — THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY GHOSf — THE
translation of THE SABBATH — BAPTISM BY ASPERSION^
THE LAWFULNESS OP THE USE OP BLOOD AND THINGS
STRANGLED.
Mr. Loftus. — Mr. Hughes calls upon you, Mr. Stoney, to prove,
according to your rule of faith, Infant Baptism, — The Procession ofthe
Holy Ghost, as well from the Son as from the Father, — The Translation
pf the Sabbath, — Baptisra by Aspersion, — and the Lawlulness ef the
use of Blood and Things Strangled.
Mr. Hughes  Come now, pick them out of your eye.
Mr. Stoney. —I ara sorry I am obliged for a while to speak so low
as that every individual in this large asserably will not be able tP
hear me.
Mr. Hughes. — Mr. Steney is exhausted ; it is but justice to allow
him tp recover himself.

MR. STONEY'S FIRST SPEECH. 87
Mr. STONEY. — I ara called upon in this second proposition of Mr.
Hughes, to prove, according to ray rule of faith, Infant Baptism ; the
Processipn pf the Holy Ghost, as weU frora the Son as frora the Father;
theTranslation of the Sabbath ; Baptism by aspersion ; and the lawfulness
of the use of blood, and things strangled.
These five points which Mr. Hughes has called upon rae to prove,
are in return for one which I have objected against him. I will say
nothing ofthe propriety of giving rae j^«e questions to discuss this day,
instead of one ; but I will add one little word, and say before this re
spectable raeeting, that they are five frivolous questions.
In these objections there is a triumph given to the Protestant religion
of which we may well be proud. Here are five questions not impugn
ing my faith. They contain no charge of gross idolatry, or false doc
trine, like the one which I have this day fastened upon the Church of
Rome. In coraparison with this I denorainate thera frivolous ques
tions, and I leave it to the public to judge whether 1 ara not justifiable
in doing so. Having firmly settled, yesterday, the value of my rule of
faith, I ara now called upon to prove by it the Divine authority of In
fant Baptism. Time will not permit me now to do justice to the five
questions proposed to rae ; I must defer the consideration of some of
thera to my next speech, and will now apply myself, without further
preface, to this bruium fulmen levelled against Protestantism. If they
were not answered by any person in my Church, they would not in
volve the destruction of the soul of one ignorant of thera. I, therefore,
again say that these five frivolous questions are a glorious triumph to
Protestantism^ No false doctrines could be imputed to us, such as we
have satisfactorily attributed to the Church of Rome.
I shall now prove that Infant Baptisra is accordant with the Bible. I
will do so to the satisfaction of every reasonable raan. I do not hope
tp convince pne who is determined not to be convinced. Such a man,
though with eyes in his head, could not be persuaded that the sun does
not shine at midnight.
In support of the first of these five precious frivolous objectiens
against the Protestant Church, Ibegtoreferyou toGal. iii. 17. "And
this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in
Christ, the law which was 430 years after, cannot disannul, that it
should raake the proraise of none effect."
Here is a covenant that cannot be disannulled. From this I argue ;
that God gave to Abraham his covenant in Christ. This glorious,
blessed covenant, was given to Abraham 430 years before the law. This
was the covenant of grace — a ccvenant pr agreement between the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; and was given as a free gift to Abraham
and his seed, not according tp the flesh but accprding to the spirit. I
ara interested in that covenant. Every beUever is interested in it. He
subsequently promised great temporal blessings ; but here we are in
formed that God gave to Abraham his covenant in Christ.
The next position I lay down is that we inherit Abraham's bless
ings — that is his church privileges and spiritual blessings. This I
prove by the sarae 3d chapter of Galatians, 13th and i-ith verses:
" Christ hath redeeraed us frora the curse pf the law, being made a

88 SECOND DAY— SECOND POINT FOR DISCUSSION.
curse for us: for it is written. Cursed is every one that hangeth on a
tree : " That the blessing of Abraham may come on the Gentiles
through Jesus Christ: that we might receive the promise ofthe Spirit
through faith.'' We had violated God's holy law, and broken his
commandments. This had brought us under its tremendous curse, and
Christ redeemed his people from that curse : mark for what purpose —
"that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles that we
might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." Here, then it
is plain that we inherit Abraham's promised ble-ssing, and Church pri
vileges. These promises were made 430 years before the giving of
the law from Mount Sinai.
Now I ask what is the token of the covenant of grace which God
confirmed to Abraham. When God promised to Noah that He would
bring no more upon the earth the waters of a flood, he gave him a
token— that beautiful bow formed by the sun and rain. God also gave
to Abraham a token of his covenant of grace, as we find in Gen. xvii.
10, 11: " This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and
you and thy seed after thee ; every man-child among you shall be
circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your fore-skin ; and
it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt Me and you.'' There the
token of the covenant, the blessing of which, we Gentiles inherit, was
put upon every man. "And he that is eight days old shall be cir
cumcised among you, every man-child in your generations, he that is
born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is
notof thy seed." " He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought
with thy money, must needs be circumcised : and my covenant shall
be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.'' From the 21st chapter
of Genesis, we learn that Abraham circumcised his son Isaac, as God
had commanded. Thus we find that the token of the covenant — that
glorious covenant of grace and mercy which I have proved we inherit
frpm Abraham, was circumcision. Infants were circumcised then, and
I ask the denier of Infant Baptism why should a child now forfeit the
blessings or privileges of that covenant.
I was met by a Socinian yesterday: to-day I have to contend with
a Baptist. The token ofthe covenant of grace was put upon Abraham's
children. Infants were the inheritors of its outward privileges. My
opponent has a right to answer when they lost, and where did they
forfeit the rights and privileges of church membership.
I have established my first position that we are interested in Abra
ham's covenant. Circumcision was the token of that covenant. In
fants were circumcised. They have done nothing to forfeit its privileges.
Therefore they have a right to Baptism, which I shall shortly prove to
have been substituted for circumcision, as the token of that covenant.
Mr. Hughes will say that males only were circumcised, and yet we
baptize females as well as males. To this 1 answer, we are warranted
by the New Testament in so doing, for " in Christ Jesus there is neither
male nor female: for we are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal. iii. 28.
The Apostle declares that females have a right to church privileges,
and church membership. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor
female, in this dispensation.

MR. STONEY'S FIRST SPEECH. 89
I say, therefore, here is a certain proef of the rights of infants to
Baptism, and call on my friend the Baptist to controvert, if he can, the
position I have advanced. I meet him in the same way that I met the
SociiMan yesterday — on the authority of the Scriptures — the oniy sure
and infallible rule we have. I meet him, indeed, with far different
feelings from those wilh which I met the Socinian ; though 1 am sur
prised to see how he advocates so untenable a position. I acknow
ledge the Baptist as my brother, though we differ on Infant Baptism.
He believes with me in one God, one faith, one spiritual Baptism — the
Baptism ofthe Holy Ghost, without which no one can be saved.
This is my first position. Let ray opponent, if he can, show how it
is wrong. [Here Mr. Hughes interrupted Mr. Stoney with a sarcasm, to which
Mr. Stoney replied, "You will not provoke me, thank God.'']
I corae now to my second line of argument. In Matt, xxviii. 19.
Christ commanded his Apostles to baptize all nations.
Mr. Hughes. — A celebrated passage.
Mr. Stoney. — I am not afraid to finish the verse. " Lo, I ara with
you always even to the end of the world." Yes, blessed be God,
Christ has fulfilled that promise. But I will not go out of my subject :
I say to my Baptist brother — my friend, my brother, for I love him as
. such —
Mr. Hughes  You took a good way to show it.
Mr. Stoney. — Yes, 1 do love him notwithstanding our compara
tively trivial differences. I love hira as a fellow heir of the same glory,
bought with the same blood, and sanctified by the same Spirit.
Christ said to his Apostles, go, raake disciples of all nations, baptis
ing thera and teaching them. The word disciple means simply a
scholar or school-boy. It is not those who have knowledge, but those
who want it, that are fit subjects for admission into a school. So in
the School of Christ, that is, His Church upon earth. That School
contains all who are to be saved. Infants are c.ipable of salvation, and,
therefore, should not be refused the rite of admission into it.
The Christian Minister is first to receive disciples; second, to baptise
thera ; third, to teach them. This is the line laid down "by Christ him
self. In that passage He comraands his ministers to preach the gospel,
to admit into the outward visible fold — the Christian Church. They
are to make disciples, or learners, to baptise thera in the name of the
Father, Sop, and Holy Ghost, and afterwards to teach them the doc
trines ofthe Christian religion.
I, therefore, conclude that the Baptist cannot, with any show of rea
son, deny that Christ permits and enjoins us to make disciples of
infants, and to baptise them. Such is my authority for Infant Baptism.
In Mark xvi. 15, we read, " Go ye into all the world and preach
the gospel to every creature ; he that believeth and is baptised shall
he saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." I know I ara
takin" up a text which some would bring against ir.e, but Uke raany
which we ex^amined yesterday, 1 can show that it is not. In this pas
sage our Lord commands us to preach the gospel to every creature, and
declares that " He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved." From

90 SECOND DAY'S DISCUSSION.
this the Baptist argues that none should be baptised but believers : but
our Lord makes no such statement. In these words we find, first, a
coramand,-^second, a declaration. The command is to preach the
gpspel ; the declaration, the baptised beUever will be saved. But does
it, therefore, follow that an unbaptised person will be damned-? Our
Lord's declaration is, "He that believeth not shall be damned," but not,
he that is not baptised shall be damned.
1 maintain that unbaptised believers can be saved, theugh it is the
duty of Christian Ministers to baptise, according to the Lord's com
mands. Where circumstances render this impossible, a person could
be saved if a partaker of that baptism, of which water is only a figure—
the regenerating grace of the Holy Ghost. In comparison with this,
water is nothing, though it ought not to be omitted.
I now turn to the Apostolic practice, and refer you to the 16th chap
ter of Acts, 14th and 15th verses : " And a certain woraan, named
Lydia, a seller of purple, ofthe city of Thyatira, which worshipped
God, heard us, whose heartthe Lord opened, that she attended unto the
things which were spoken of Paul. "And when she was baptised, and Aer
household, she besought us, saying, if ye have judged me to be faith
ful to the Lord, come into my house." Observe, the Lord opened her
heart to attend to the Apostle's preaching ; and if he did not open the
heart no human being would attend to the things of the Spirit of God,
for the carnal mind is at enmity with God. She heard the gpspel
preached; many others also heard it at the same moment; but of
this happy woman, we read that the Lord, by his grace, opened her
heart, and blessed her with the knowledge of a free salvation by Christ.
We read that when she beUeved, not she alone but her household
with her were baptised. Here then is the Apostolic practice to baptise
the household, when the head of it becomes a believer.
As we have already noticed in the conduct of Abraham, in the 17th
and 21st of Genesis, Lydia was anxious the self same day to bring her
children into a participation of her privileges — to introduce them into
the Christian school that they might enjoy its blessings and privi
leges. I now go to Ephesians vi. 1, and read, " Children obey your pa
rents in the Lord.'' And again to Col. ui. 20: " Children obey your
parents in all things, for this is weU pleasing unto the Lord." Here
we tind the Apostle addresses children as having been admitted into
the glorious covenant of grace, and as belonging to the Christian
Church. I now call my dear Baptist brother's attention to another text. Col.
ii. 11, 12: " In whora also ye are circumcised with the circumcision
made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by
the circumcision of Christ : Buried with hira in baptisra, wherein also
ye are risen with him through the faith pf the operation pf Gpd, who
hath raised him frora the dead." Here we have the unity and identity
of Church raerabership and privileges between the Abrahamic and
Christian dispensations. Circumcision and Baptism are spoken pf in
the same breath, as types ef the sarae spiritual blessing.
I say tp my Baptist brother, the conclusion is inevitable that we are

MR. STONEY'S FIRST SPEECH. 91
not wrong in follpwing the example of Abrahara, and that Infant Bap
tism is perfectiy lawful and agreeable to the institution of Christ.
But I have one text more : 1 Cor. vii. 14. In that chapter St. Paul
had been giving directions with respect to raarriage, where one of the
parties was a Christian, and the other a heathen ; as was probably a
frequent occurrence in those days, a question of sorae difficulty arose
as to what was to be done. Shpuld ihe wife forsake her lawful husband,
if he was willing to live with her : or shpuld the husband, converted
from heathenism, separate from his idolatrous wife, if she were willing
to remain with him ? The Apostle decides that they were not to sepa
rate, and employs this remarkable language — " For the unbelieving
husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified
by the husband : else were your children unclean but now are they
holy." He denominates the children of such a marriage holy.
There is a relative holiness where there may not be a real, inward,
spiritual sanctification. What do I mean by a relative holiness ? The
vessels in the temple were holy; the Children of Israel were holy,
because they were professedly the Lord's people. Many of them in
the wilderness were ungodly, yet, as a nation, they were holy. And I
believe the Jews will be brought back to their own land and become a
natipn holy in the sight of God.
I say then to ray Baptist brother, or rather tp the starter of this, on
the present occasion, frivolous question ; is there not a license, a li
berty, nay raore, is there not authority to baptise infants. They once
had the right of raerabership in the Church of God. When did they
forfeit this privilege ? Circuracision was commanded of old to be
practised upon infants ; why not baptise them now ? Whatever argu
ment my Baptist brother may bring forward, I have now proved the
propriety of Infant Baptism. There is the word of God and the prac
tice of the Apostles. There is the comraand to make disciples, to
baptise, to teach. But I may be asked are infants disciples ? what
can they be taught ? They can be taught the most important lesson
which is to be learned in the school of Christ — they can be made the
subjects of regeneration. This they may receive before they are able
to speak — before they are able to understand one word of this blessed
volurae, which nevertheless should be put into their hands as soon as
possible. I wiU now read for you a portion of the 16th chapter of Acts : —
" And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God :
and the prisoners heard them. And suddenly there was a great earth
quake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken ; and imme
diately all the doors were opened, and every one's bands were loosened.
And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the
prison doors open, he drew out his sword and would have killed him
self, supposing that the prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried with
a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm : for we are all here. Then
he called for a light, and sprang in, and carae irerabling, and fell down
before Paul and Silas ; And brought thera out, and said. Sirs, what
must I do to be saved ? And they said. Believe on the Lord Jesus
Christ, and thou shalt be saved and thy house. And they spake unto

92 SECOND DAY'S DISCUSSION.
hira the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he
took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes : and
was baptised, he and all his, straightway.'" The Philippian jailor was
on the point of committing the awl'ul crime of suicide. Paul cried out,
" do thyself no harm.'' The astonished and conscience -stricken jailor
asked the most interesting question that man can put — " what shall I
do to be saved ?" What answer did Paul raake this suicide in inten
tion, who had just been on the verge of eternity? " Believe ou the
Lord Je.'sus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
[Here Mr. Stoney was informed that his time had expired.]
Mr. HUGHES. — Gentlemen, I intreat your silence. There is no
profit except by hearing. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the
word of God.
Gentlemen, Mr. Stoney has taken upon hira to call upon me to prove
seven points of my doctrine. He did so under the impression that I
would fail in the defence of them. I did not imagine that Mr. Stouey
had a right to do so without my calling on him to prove an equal num
ber of points in his religion. I will not mention, at present, how
successfully I defended my points, or he failed in his. In the first
point under discussion I proved four misstatements of Mr. Stoney's
with respect to my doctrines, from the Council of Trent, which he held
in his hands.
Mr. Nangle. — That question is disposed of already.
Mr. Hughes. — I put five questions to Mr. Stoney to-day : or one
question involving five. He put to me a question involving two : for
Transubstantiation involves two questions — the real presence of Christ,
and transubstantiation.
Mr. Nangle. — Mr. Hughes, that question has been already dis
posed of.
Mr. Hughes. — If Mr. Stoney put one question involving two, I had
a right to put one to hira involving three or more. I will put five or
six more, and so on for six days more. Why did I put thera ? Because
I knew he was unable to answer them, although they belong to his faith.
He says they are frivolous. If so it is the easier to answer them. But
I say they are not frivolous. Is Infant Baptisra frivolous, after Christ
declaring, that if we believe and are baptised we will be saved. Baptism
is another condition of salvation. The first is as necessary as the se
cond. It is a condition, on the fulfilment of which our salvation
depends. This opinion is not mine or any man's : it is to be found
in Mr. Stoney's Bible. Though eternal salvation depends upon it, Mr.
Stoney declares it frivolous.
It is not because it is frivolous, but because he is unable to answer
if, that he said so. And why so ? Because his rule of faith is not perfect,
or good, or sound. And if he failed in proving Infant Baptisra he
will succeed in nothing.
My second question was the Procession of the Holy Ghost. This
is an article of his creed, " who proceedeth frora the Father ahd the
Son." If that article be npt believed there is no salvation. This

MR. HUGHES' FIRST SPEECH. 93
also he says is frivplpus ; and why frivolous ? because he is unable
to prove it.
Protestants look to ypur clergy — Ipok to the result ef private opin
ion. His rule of faith fails him ; and I will prove that it fails him
as well in fifty other instances on which pur salvation depends.
My next question was the Translation of the Sabbath ? Why did
he not go to it ? Because he was unable tp prove it. He calls the
translation of the Sabbath frivolous. Mind, my friends, the Jewish
Sabbath was on Saturday, as we are told in Exodus. One of the
commandraents in Exodus is " remember the Sabbath day to keep it
holy." This is the fourth coraraandraent : no, I correct myself, it is
the third, (to the reporters ;) take that down if you choose, and yet
he calls it frivolous.
If Mr. Stoney saw in the parish of Newport, to-morrow, (Sunday,)
a man with his cart working, he would say to him, you are com
raanded by Christ to keep holy the Sabbath day. I kept yesterday,
says the raan ; this is not the Sabbath. You raust show rae your au
thority frora the Bible, or you have no right to forbid rae to work.
What could he say to that ? Not a word. Oh it's all frivolous ; and
yet Mr. Stoney declares ruin and damnation upon the soul ; though
there is not one passage to justify his enforcing this frivolous and vex
atious command ! We call every thing frivolous and vexatious which
we cannot meet. Many commentators have written upon the Bible;
and they blink the difficulties because they are unable lo meet them.
So, says Mr. Stoney, why should I be troubled to prove these frivo
lous questions.
He was also called upon to prove Baptism by Aspersion. Bapti.im
signifies dipping. Dipping was established by Christ, and no other
is raentioned in the Bible. Christ was dipped in the Jordan ; and in
the sarae raanner Philip baptized the Eunuch in water. The signifi
cation of Baptisra is to dip. How does Mr. Stoney do it? He dips
his finger in the water and lets fly at the child, five yards off; and if
one drop comes in contact with it, good and well; but if not, there is
no more about it. Ail is done : the child is baptized I
Another question was the Lawfulness of Blood and Things Strangled.
We find in the Acts of the Apostles that tbe new converts were com
manded to abstain from these things. This was never countermanded
or revoked. It stands good still. What right has he to trifle with the
revealed wiU of God which forbids the use of blood ? But Mr. Stoney
would use blood ; and it is used in his house in pudding, for which
it is very good.
Here are four points that he did not speak to, because he could not
prove them by his rule of faith — Scripture interpreted by private
judgment. Protestants, you should not depend on this defective, imperfect rule,
which does not contain all the truths, without which you cannot ex
pect salvation. I am not misrepresenting any man's faith : if I am,
let your clergyman stand up and say So.
Mr. Sioney condescended to notice but one of these points, though
he considers thera frivolous and vexatious.

94 SECOND DAY'S DISCUSSION.
I will now gp Pver this ppint in a curspry way: With regard tP
Infant Baptisra there is not a word in Scripture to justify it, but rather
to prohibit it. We are told in the 28th of Matthew, 19th verse, that
Christ's last comraand was to go teach all nations, baptizing thera in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
First to teach, and afterwards to baptize. Can an infant be taught?
Is an infant capable of instruction ; or has he the faculties of under
standing and will ? How then can he be baptized until he is taught
first ? This is the clear interpretation of the passage, and puts no
force upon the word of God. It requires no comment from me. I
will now give a syllogism.
God requires the Baptism of believers.
Infants cannot believe.
Therefore infants cannot be baptized.
In the 16th of Mark, we find two conditions of salvation. "He
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." How can any pne be
lieve except he is first instructed and taught ? Christ tells us except
a raan believes he is net to be baptized. Unless a person believes he
cannot be baptized ; and unless baptized he cannot be saved. Infants
cannot beUeve ; therefore infants cannot be baptized.
Now let us look to Christ — the raodel of every virtue and of every
act of our lives. He suffered that he raight be a raodel of patience
tP us, and that we raight be saved. He prayed ; he fasted. He ful
filled all the coraraandments of tbe law, that we raight fulfiU it too.
When was he baptized ? At thirty years of age. : showing that in
fants cannot be baptized, because we have his own example.
Tbe next authority is the command given to do penance, and be
baptized. Now what penance can a child do ? A child never of
fended. How is he capable of it? He cannot raake an act of con
trition, for he cannot exercise reason. Net by penance, nor by sor
row for sin ; nor by prayer ; nor by faith. Christ tells us, do pen
ance and be baptized. These are the clear words of Christ, all show
ing that infants cannot be baptized. Mr. Stoney has not a vestige of
an argument left.
I now corae to the Procession of the Holy Ghost, which Mr. Stoney
did not atterapt to prove. He says it is an uniraportant question,
though he declares in his belief, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from
the Father and the Son.
The Nicene Creed originaUy contained only " from the Father".
The council of Florence a council of Catholic bishops added " filio
que," (and from the Son) which was not in it before. This was about
300 years after.
Mr. Stoney believes that creed : but it makes no matter, though he
damns any one who does not believe it. Thus frittering away and
annihilating the most serious doctrines of reUgion. No matter how
important or serieus, if it is not accordant with their fancies they say
it is frivolous, and discard it altogether. The Socinian says what sig
nifies the Divinity of Jesus Christ. The Macedonian says what s\g->
nifies the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. Mr. Stoney says what signi
fies the Sabbath. Because Mr. Stoney adopts private interpretation ;

MR. HUGHES' FIRST SPEECH. 95
thus putting himself on a level with the Socinian, the Macedenian,
and every ether heretic up tp Simon Magus. He fritters away Chris
tianity ; and shows the badness of his faith by stamping these doctrines
with the seal of being frivolous and insignificant.
He could not prove the Procession of the Holy Ghost, because there
is not -one word in Scripture of his proceeding from the Son. It is
said that he proceeded from the Father, but not from the Son. It is
also said that the Son sent the Holy Ghost. I will now give you some
thing that you may call logical reasoning, proving that sent is not tbe
sarae as proceeding. Christ says, " as ray Father sent rae, so send I
you," If sent were the sarae as proceeding, it would follow that
Christ proceeded frora the Father, which would be a damnable heresy,
because Christ was born of the Father, not sent. Therefore sent and
proceeding are different. If they were the same, it would follow that
because the Apostles were sent by Christ, they proceeded from hira,
which would be heresy.
Again he says, " 1 go to Hira that sent rae, for I proceeded forth
and came frora God." These are the words of Christ. If you believe
what these words convey, Christ proceedeth from the Father, and
¦was not born of hira. To say he was not born would be heresy. I
shall now gP to the Athanasian creed. " The Son is of the Father
alone, not made nor created, but begotten." The Holy Ghost is of
the Father, and of the Son ; neither made, nor created, nor begotten,
but proceeding.'' That is the Athanasian creed. Christ says, " I pro
ceeded fprth and came from God." The Athanasian creed says he
did not proceed from God ; and, that if we do not believe what it
says, we will be damned. It is stated in the first verse of it, that
whospever will not beUeve the Catholic faith, will have everlasting
damnation. What is the Catholic faith ? It is that the Son is begot
ten, not proceeding. Here you find Christ says, " I proceeded from
God." If you believe the Scriptures you oppose the Athanasian creed ;
and if you oppose the Athanasian creed you are damned.
In Isa. Ixi. 1, we read, " The Spirit of the Lord -God is upon me ;
because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the
meek: he hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim
liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them- that are
bound. What is raeant by the Spirit of the Lord ? The Holy Ghost.
It appears frpra this that Christ was sent by the Holy Ghost. Ac
cording to the Athanasian creed any person who would say that
Christ proceeded from the Father, when he was sent, would be daraned.
How will Mr. Stoney reconcile these ? He cannot.
The third question I put to Mr, Stoney was to show why he keeps
Sunday instead of Saturday. The fourth coraraandraent says, " re
meraber the Sabbath day to keep it holy." Christ says, " if thou
wilt enter into Ufe keep the coraraandments." He makes the keeping
of the commandments an indispensible condition, if we will be saved.
Mr. Stoney violates that comraand every Saturday.
I may keep the feasts of saints : though indeed Mr. Stoney has
more festivals in his book of Common Prayer than I have ; but he
does not keep them,

96 SECOND DAY'S DISCUSSION.
He has men employed on Saturday, in the teeth and face of the
cpmmand from Sinai, confirmed by our Lord.
With respect to Baptism by aspersion : the word baptism means
dipping. Christ was dipped in the Jordan ; the Eunuch in the water : and all
Christians were baptised in this way. Mr. Stoney, against the autho
rity of Scripture and the example of Christ and his Aposties ; takes
upon him to dip his finger in the water and let's fly at the child, at the
distance of some yards; no matter whether a drop touches him or not,
the baptisra is good.
Our next point is the use of blood and things strangled. I wiU read
the 2Sth and 29lh verses of the 15th chapter of Acts : " For it hath
seeraed good to the Holy Ghost, and to u?, to lay no further burden
upon you than these necessary things, that you abstain from things
sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and frpm
fornication : from which things keeping yourselves you shall dp well.
Fare ye well." St. Paul calls them necessary things. Mr. Stoney
says they are frivolous ; vvhich will you believe ? For Mr. Stoney also
claims inspiration. And so do the 70 heretic sects I mentioned, lay
claira to inspiration. Mr. Stoney says I ara right, and St. Paul, you
are wrong — (shouts from the crowd). With respect to his objections,
they are so very insignificant, that I think it unnecessary to answer
thera. Circumcision. That's true. He says it was substituted for Baptism.
Well, now, feraales were the tender objects of the tender solicitude of
our Divine Redeeraer. He carae into the world to be their Saviour as
well as ofthe human race. What raeans were provided for their sal
vation, if it was to be obtained by circumcision. If circumcision was
necessary to salvation they should have been circuracised. Baptisra is
necessary for salvation under the new law ; for except a person believes
and is baptised he cannot be saved. Every one of the Jews was cir
cumcised, and yet, when converted, they were baptised ; therefore
circumcision is not a substitute for baptism, for to reiterate baptism is
a blasphemous doctrine. He talks of faith — " Believe and you will be
saved." Christ says,you must be baptised too. But Mr. Stoney says,
" Do not baptise." He expunges and throws overboard the necessity
of baptism.
Now, Protestants, I call upon you to consider this matter. I have
proved these to be points of importance. Your Church professes them,
and your salvation depends upon them. Your Minister is unable to
defend them. In my opinion he will give no challenge again. This
specimen of the ignorance of a Popish Priest will be enough for hira.
I never read the Scriptures. Oh no: not I. No man reads them
but Mr. Stoney. They are his exclusive property. It would make any
man laugh to hear him.
By and bye you will hear a speech from hira. But what connection,'
what force of argument, what theological research, or theological lore;
will be found in it. I am better -acquainted with it. I spent my 25
long years in the study of it ; and 1 know what you do not know, Mr.
Stpney. ' >
(Here Mr. Hughes's time expired. "4

MR; STONEY'S SECOND SPEECH. 97
[On Mr. Stoney's rising, he was assailed with shouts and veils, which
did net cease until Mr. Hughes called for silence.]
Mb. STONEY. — I beg leave to commence, by stating, in answer to
Mr. Hughes, that we do challenge the Roman Cathplic Clergymen to
another controversy, and that we shall be at all limes ready to meet them.
I now again state that those questions brought forward this day, by
Mr. Hughes, in opposition to those which I have proved against his
Churcb are, comparatively speaking, frivolous. And if truth were on
his side, if he could successfully impugn the faith of Protestants, he
would have brought others forward ; but he has not charged us with
one false doctrine, though I have brought seven against him. Com
pared to these his questions are frivolous, though in themselves impor
tant. I proved the Scripturalness of Infant Baptisra, and received no an
swer. I brought forward various texts, not one of which Mr. Hughes
has answered, though assuming the place of an opponent of Infant
Baptisra. I proved that it was lawful in the Apostles' time, and that
it was then practised by the Christian Church. But Mr. Hughes has
not attempted to tpuch my arguments.
With respect to the Procession of the Holy Ghost, I refer you to
John XV. 26 : " But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send
unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth
from the Father, he shall testify of me." And again, John xiv. 26 :
" But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will
send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to
your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." Here we are
told the Father sends the Holy Ghost in the narae of Christ, and that
the Son also sends him, therefore, notwithstanding the dust which Mr,
Hughes has attempted to raise, we have strong Scripturalproof that the
Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. It is, therefore,
perfectly correct in the Creed to require from us the belief of this truth,
that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son.
I now turn to Rev. xxii. 1, "He showed me a pure river of watar
of Ufe, proceeding out of the throne of God, and of the Lamb."
Here we find that the water of Ufe proceeded from the Father and
the Son. And it is expressed by the very same Greek word
(eKiropevsTat) which is employed in the Athanasian creed. But
we may ask what was this river of life ? The 38th aud 39th
verses of the 7th chapter of John answer the questipn. " He that
believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall
flow rivers of living water." " But this spake he of the spirit,
which they that believe on him should receive : for the Holy Ghost
was not yet given ; because that Jesus was not yet glorified." That
passage shows that the Holy Spirit is compared to a river. I
maintain then that a river of water of life, proceeding from the
throne of God, and of the Lamb, is an emblem of the Holy Ghost
proceeding from the Father and the Son.
Again, he could not be called the spirit of Christ, if he did not
proceed from Christ. But in Rom, viii. 9, we read, " If any man

§8 SECOND DAY-SECOND POINT FOR DISCUSSION.
have not the Spirit of Christ he is none pf his." Therefore, the
Holy Ghost proceeds from Christ. In 1 Peter i. 11, he is again
called the Spirit of Christ, and in Gal. iv. 6, we read, " Because
ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your
hearts." This prpves on undeniable evidence that both the Father
and the Sen sent the Hely Ghpst, and that he cpraes from thera.
In Isaiah Ixi. 1, " It is written, the Spirit of the Lord God is upon me ;
because the Lord hath anointeth me to preach good tidings unto the meek;
he hath sent me to bind up the broken hearted, to proclaim liberty
to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound."
Therefore the Spirit was sent to Christ.
Christ was inferior to the Father as man, and this accounts for those
texts which speak of hira as such, though equal to him as God. As
man, Christ had the Spirit poured out on him.
Mr. Hughes. — That is not the Processipn pf the Holy Ghost, that
is the Trinity.
Mr. Stoney. — The Spirit was given to him as man, not as God.
I now come to the change of the Sabbath — (great shouting and inter
ruption.) Oh yes, you have a fine back in the shouts of a mob. De
metrius and the silversmiths of Ephesus had just as good.
We find in Scripture a certain day called the Lord's day. Thus, in
Rev. i. 10, the beloved Apostle says, "I was in the Spirit on the
Lord's day. From this expressipn we learn, that one day was especi
ally set apart for the wprship pf Gpd, which was called "the Lprd's
day." But I ara called upcn tp prPve why we dp not keep the same day as
that observed by tbe Jews. In tbe first place, I say that the first day of
the week was set apart for the purpose of comraemorating the resur
rection of our Lord. In Jpbn xx. 1 9, we read that the disciples were
assembled pn the 1st day of the week: and in the 26th verse we are
told, that in eight days after, that is on the next first day of the week,
they were again assembled. But I have more proof of this. In Acts
XX. 7, we are informed that Paul waited for seven days to raeet the
church. Why ? Because they did not meet together on the seventh.
Mark now that it was on the first day pf the week they met, that is
pn pur Sabbath pr Lprd's day. " And upon the first day of the week,
when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto
them, ready to depart on the morrow ; and continued his speech until
midnight." Here we find that he was obliged to wait tiU the first
day of the week, to have the privilege and opportunity of meeting
with his fellow Christians. Therefore, they did not meet on the
seventh day.
In 1 Cor. vi. 2, we have anpther proof beyond the possibility of
doubt that the first day of the week, or Lord's day, was kept in
commemoration of the resurrection. " Upen the first day of the week
let every one pf ypu lay by hira in stpre, as Gpd hath prospered him,
that there be no gatherings when I corae." We are, therefore, at
perfect liberty, and indeed have a right to keep the first day of the
week according to Apestplic practices.
I wiU now prove that they did not keep the Jewish sabbath. In

MR. STONEY'S SECOND SPEECH. 99
Col. ii. 16, 17, the Aposde says, " Let no man, therefore, judge you
in meat, pr in drink, pr in respect cf an hpliday, pr pf a new meon,
or of the sabbath days : which are a shadow of ihe things to come ;
but the body is of Christ." Here the Aposde declares that they were
not to be condemned for not keeping the Jewish sabbath.
I now come to Baptism by Aspersion. I will first read the rubric
in our service relating to it, " If they shall certify hira, that the
child raay well endure it, he shall dip it in the water discreetly and
warily, but if they certify that the child is weak, it shall suffice to
pour water upon it."
Mr. Hughes has passed many jokes upon sprinkling, and scoffs at
what he calls "letting fly" at the child. It iU became him to speak
thus lightly of a most merciful provision. The command of our
church is to dip, except in cases where the health of the child would
be risked by it. In such a case I say we have sufficient warrant for
aspersion, Mr. Hughes cannot prove that all were dipped, who were
baptized. Three thousand were baptized in one day, and I challenge
him to prpduce a single proof that they were all dipped.
The word baptism does not always raean dipping. In Heb. ix. 10,
the Apostle says, " which stood only in raeats, and drinks, and divers
washings, (/SojrTjff^iiow,) and carnal ordinances imposed on thera
till the time of reformation. Many of these washings or baptisms
were not dippings.
Again, 1 Cor. x. 1, 2, We read that all the Israelites were baptized
in the cloud, and in the sea. Baptism by a cloud was surely not
dipping. I have now only to examine the Eating of the Things Strangled, and
Blood. It is true, that tbe 15th chapter of Acts contains, a prohibition
frora the use of those things. But that chapter also assigns the reason
of that prohibition, proving that it was a merely temporary restriction,
"For Moses, of old time, hath in every city them that preach him,
being read in the Synagogue, every sabbath day." It would hurt the
weak minds of their Jewish brethren to eat thera ; but this being no
longer the case, the comraand is not obligatory on me, or Mr. Hughes
who might eat those forbidden things without any danger.
I have now answered every one of Mr. Hughes's questions. I defy
him to controvert what I have laid down. He may bluster and excite
the passions of the people, but he cannot meet my arguments.
I again say bis objections are frivolous objections.
He that beUeveth, says Christ, and is baptized, shall be saved. But
he does not say, he that is not baptized shall be damned. He com
manded the Gospel to be preached to all nations ; and in Matthew 28,
the word is, " make disciples."
[Here Mr. Stoney's tirae expired.]
Mr. HUGHES. — ^Protestants I call upon you again to well weigh
that gentleman's line of argument. He has not produced a vestige or
semblance of argument. He has eccupied the time of this respecta
ble assembly by quoting texts; and in talk, loud, empty talk,' without
one particle of authority or reason. He said, awhile agp, that Bap-
g2

100 SECOND DAY— SECOND POINT FOR DISCUSSION.
tism was a frivolous thing; and when I proved that it is of the utmost
importance, he said, though frivolous, it is important. Thus at one
time saying it is frivolous, and at another important. He has not
the candour to acknowledge the extent of his impiety. He did not
go so far as to say there is no salvation without Baptisra.
Christ said, "go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. If it was a useless thing to bap
tize, do you think Christ would have mentioned it ? But he left it to
his church as a sacrament ; as a means of imparting grace to our souls —
of bestowing upon us the mercy of Christ; otherwise, why have it?
Yet, Mr. Stoney declares it is not needed. "He who beUeveth
and is baptized, shall be saved." Oh, Mr. Stoney flings overboard
ceremonies in the church of God.
He who is not baptized, has not God for his father, nor the church
for his mother.
Baptism constitutes the difference between Pagans and Christians :
for unbelievers will not be baptized.
Mr. Stoney expunges an institution of our Blessed Redeeraer ; an
institution sacred and venerable to the present day. Luther, Calvin,
the Arians, the Nestorians, and other heretics denied raany doctrines
pf the Catholic church. But it reraained for Mr. Stoney tp declare
that Baptisra is not necessary. Let Mr. Stoney meet this in arguraent
if he can.
As to the Procession of the Holy Ghost, it is stated in the Athana
sian creed, that unless we believe its doctrines, we cannot be saved.
What are the distinctions made in this creed ?
" The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate ; and the Holy Ghostuncreate.
The Father incoraprehensible, the Son incomprehensible ; and the
Holy Ghost incomprehensible.
The Father eternal, the Son eternal ; and the Holy Ghost eternal ;
And yet they are not three eternals ; but one eternal."
Are these distinctions frivolous ?
" So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghpst is Gpd.
And yet they are not three God's, but one God."
" The Son is of the Father alone : not raade nor created, but be
gotten."
. Is that a frivolous distinction without the belief of which we can
not be saved ?
" The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son : neither raade,
nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding."
Is this distinction frivolous?
Mr. Stoney says it is frivolous, though he believes the Athanasian
creed, which declares there is no salvation to those who deny it.
Well, Sir, answer that. -
Oh, how he renders every thing frivolous ; and counts npthing sa
cred or venerable, though it may have been the doctrine ofthe Cathp
Uc church in all ages, if it does not enter into his pericranium to com
prehend it, or tP pick it out of the Bible. It shows the frightful con
sequences of that private spirit— the spirit of mischief dist°urbing the
harmeny of the church.—-

MR. HUGHES' SECOND SPEECH. 101
Mr. Nangle. — Ypu are put of order Mr. Hughes. That is not our
present question.
Mr. Hughes. — I raust get five rainutes time for that interruption.
I want to convince the Protestants that their rule of faith is a rope
of sand. It was the frightful and horrible effects which this pernicious
principle was calculated to introduce into the church of Christ, which
made that illustrious divine Bossuet exclaim, " a boisterous sea is not
agitated by a larger number of waves, nor an uncultivated field co
vered by a greater nuraber of brambles and thistles, than this princi
ple has caused to spring from the hot-bed of the Protestant reformation.''
Well, Sir, you say the Holy Ghost is a river flpwing out of a rock.
He raust either speak figuritively, or in reality. If figuritive, there
is no force in it ; if real, it was nothing but a comrapn river.
He talks of the Holy GhPst proceeding frora the Son, because he is
called the Spirit of Christ. If he is the Spirit of Christ, he is not
the Spirit of the Father, and therefore he cannot proceed frora the
Father. Though Mr. Stoney is to be daraned if he does not believe
that he proceeds frora the Father.
If sent and procession were the sarae thing, Moses was sent frora
God : the twelve Apostles were sent by Christ ; herefore we raight
say they proceeded frora God and Christ.
Mr. Stoney says these are frivolous, though he is bound pn pain pf
daranation to believe it.
I now corae to the Sabbath. He quoted Rev. i. 4. " I was in the
Spirit, says St. John, on the Lord's day." What is the Lord's day ?
The Sabbath, which Mr. Stoney would abrogate though the Lord desires
us to reraeraber it. It is one of the coraraandments which we must
keep, if we will enter intp life. There is theological reasoning.
The Disciples met on that day ! Did they not meet on any other ?
Oh, no ! they kept awayfrora each other on every other day ! This was
a pretty way to keep the comraandraents. Did they preach only on
Sunday ? They would be pretty raissionaries at that rate. This is
not the way I ara occupied. I have not a day of rest in the week. 1
have severe, heavy, corporeal labour every day in the week.
Suppose they did appoint another day — did they abrogate the Jew
ish Sabbath ? Show rae a passage saying "do not keep holy the
Jewish Sabbath, for the Sabbath is translated." No : it is not from
the Scriptures you believe it, but frora the glorious authority of the
Catholic church. He will say by and bye that I have not answered
him. Because St. Paul stopped with the disciples a few days, it follows
that they did not keep tbe Sabbath ! At that rate, next Wednesday
must be Sunday. We met here, let me see, on Thursday ; and, ac
cording to Mr. Stoney, next Wednesday, will be Sunday. Because
we are to abide here six days : at least, I hope he will not run away.
They met together on the first day of the week ; therefore, they could
not assemble on another day.
That is reasoning, I think, which Mr. Stoney cannot touch.
Baptism, by Aspersion comes next. Mr. Sioney says I indulged in
a good many jokes about baptism. I do not jest about it ; for I think

] 02 SECOND DAY— SECOND POINT FOR DISCUSSION.
baptism is essential to salvation. If I indulged in jest, it was when I
exposed the badness and weakness ofthe Protestant rule of faith, which
is worth nothing.
He says baptism does not signify dipping. Lopk into any lexicon,
and you will find that it does signify dipping. I defy him to show
any olher meaning for it.
The Jews were baptized in the cloud when they were going through
the desert. This was 1,400 years before baptism was instituted ; and,
therefore, could not refer to Christ's baptism, which was 1,400 years
after. He reasons in the sarae way about blood. Moses in the old law,
and St. Paul in the new, desired us to abstain frora it. Because they
both inculcated it, we ought to oppose it. This is quite in ppppsitipn
tp common sense.
How much time have I ?
Mr. Loftus  Three minutes.
Mr. Hughes. — Oh, that is enough.
I would be very glad to grapple with a difficulty, and not to lose
my time in exposing his nonsense. It is a poor case to occupy the
attention and waste the tirae of this meeting in grappling with a man
who is not able to meet an infant in discussion.
Are you not convinced of my theological lore. I have given proof
of it. I do not care to meet any man, whether in College or out of
it. What a theological Protestant he is 1 I tell you that you are not
safe while depending on the teaching of that man. 1 would be ashamed
that my parish clerk should be so ignorant of the principles of the
Christian religion as he is. It is an unpleasant duty to be exposing
his ignorance.
Mr. Nangle. — Mr. Hughes, you are quite out of order, but I will
allow you to go the fuU length of your tether. (Yells and shouting.)
Mr. Hughes.— He deserves no better treatment than the Scribes
and Pharisees, hypocrites.
Mr. Loftus — Mr. Hughes, your time is up.
[Here Mr. Hughes's time expired.]
Mr. STONEY.— In reply to the last speech of my opponent, I wiU
observe, that abuse is not argument, and railing is not conviction. You
can raise a shout; but this will not bring conviction to either Roman
CathoUcs or Protestants. People will consider upon the things spoken
here this day, despite of the endeavours of Mr. Hughes to divert their
attention from them by railing at me.
I have proved the lawfulness of the change of the Sabbath. I have
brought forward a variety of passages of Scripture, and have appealed
ttithe Apostolic practice. Notwithstanding all the cavilling and blus
tering of my opponent, he has not brought fotward one passage to show
that this change was not made. I have shown that it was right to
change the Sabbath to commeraorate the resurrection of the Lord
Jesus Christ.
Instead of arguing, he has resorted to scolding and railing, by which
he succeeded in raising a shout, but did nothing else.

MR. STONEY'S THIRD SPEECH. 103
I know, however, that the public will not follow hira in this. They
will think and consider and exaraine what has been said.
With respect to Infant Baptism. The greatest part of the Christian
churches thrpughout the world fpllpw the same rule as the Church pf
England. A rule confirmed by the practice of the Appstles.
1 have prpved that baptism was substituted for circumcision. That
prnof was not controverted.
I have proved the Prpcessipn pf the Hply Ghost. Mr. Hughes
sneered at the stream of water ; but he forgot that this is a Scriptural
illustration. If I compared the Holy Ghost to water, it was pnly fpl-
lowing the Scripture; for it is written in the last chapter of Revela
tion, that a river of water of life flows frora the throne of God and of
the Larab. I again maintain that this is an illustration of the Holy
Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son. I proved this by the
corresponding passage in John vii. 38, 39.
Believers receive the Holy Ghost, which teaches, guides and leads
thera. Bringing thera to Jesus, he sanctifies thera, and preserves
thera from railing and scorning, and heaping personal abuse. It should
teach us to argue as Christians should, and to follow the raeekness of
our Divine Master. As to Baptism by Aspersion, I wiU again read the
rubric. [Mr. Stoney read the rubric already quoted.]
This is a merciful and useful provision under such circumstances,
and perfectly proper.
I have proved every point which I engaged to prove this day. Every
rational man will be satisfied with what I have said. Although the
people are prevented by the noise and clamour raised by those who
wish to keep thera in darkness, from attending to these things here,
they will do so when they go home to their own houses. They will
think that my rule of faith — the Bible — is a better, surer, and more
certain one than any that Mr. Hughes has.
(Shouts and cries of, you are a liar, frora the priests and the mob.)
1 raaintain it ; these shouts are the evidence of it.
Mr. Hughes asks, what is the Lord's day ? We will spend here, he
says, three, four, five, or six days. He can joke very well, but he can
not disprove my position. I have referred to various places in Scrip
ture — John, Acts, Corinthians, Colpssians and Revelatien, — and I could
bring forward more proofs that we are perfectly justified in following,
in this thing, the exaraple of the glorious, catholic, and ancient Church
of Christ. I have sustained my charges against the Church pf Rpme. I have
answered the frivplpus objections brought against my Church — frivo
lous in comparison with the important business which breught us here.
There is no allegation pf false doctrine against me, but thirty com
paratively trivial points. I put it to this meeting, that even if they
could be proved against me, they would not involve the awful sin of
idolatry which I have fastened upon the Church of Rome. Mr. Hughes
speaks of the glorious Cathplic Church pf Christ, and pf the authority
he derives from it to change the Sabbath. I too, speak of the glorious
Catholic Church of Christ. The Scriptures tell us of the general

Ip4 SECOND DAY— SECOND POINT FOR DISCUSSION.
asserably and church of the first born, whose names are written in hea
ven, this glorious catholic, or universal church, is partly militant,
and partiy glorified. Some are gone before, and some are yet to come.
That is the true Catholic Church : but I deny the Church of Rome to
be that Church of Christ— for she has no Scripture authority for >he
claim. I do not derive the authority for the change of the sabbath
from Mr. Hughes, or from his church, but from the Scriptures ; nor do
I derive my proofs against the practices of his Church from any authp
rity, save the Scriptures. 1 do not derive the doctrine of the Proces
sion of the Holy Ghost from that apostate church, nor the other frreat
lous points brought forward this day. Some of them are of gfri-
consequence, yet, in coraparison with the raatter in hand, they are fri
volous. , . , A c
With respect to Things Strangled, and Blood, we find in the Acts ot
the Aposties, Si.James saying. Acts xv. 1 9,2 1 . " Wherefore my sentence
is, that we trouble not them which from among the Gentiles are turned to
God : But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of
idols, and from fornication, axid from things strangled, and from blood.
For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach hira, being
read in the synagogues every sabbath day." Moses being read in every
synagogue, was the reason assigned for this temporary comraand. It
was feared that weak Jewish converts might take offence at an innova
tion upon the usages impressed by that law.
St. Paul teaches us that we are now at liberty in this respect. Mark
this text frora 1 Tim. iv. 1, &c. : " Now the Spirit speaketh expressly,
that in the latter limes some shall depart frora the faith, giving heed to
seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils : speaking lies in hypocrisy ;
having their conscience seared with a hot iron ; forbidding to marry,
and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be
received wilh thanksgiving of thera which believe and know the truth.
For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be
received with thanksgiving : for it is sanctified by the word pf God and
prayer." Mr. Hughes calls me a liar. I will not retort the abuse he has
poured upon me. I meet him as a Christian minister should, and
with the courtesy of a gentleman. I could not do otherwise as a
Christian clergyman ; though he seems fo feel so littie scruple in
acting directly in opposition to what he professes to be — a Christian
minister. Mark — "For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be re
fused," — this proves that the former command was only tempprary,
because of the Mosaic prohibition of blood under the Old Testament
dispensation. Allow me here to make an observation. If I have said any thing
offensive to any person, I trust I will be pardoned, as I had no inten
tion of offending any one. I stand here as a Minister of the living God
to support the Scriptures as the only safe rule of faith, and to speak
the Lord's truth. 1 leave it to the public, how I have sustained my
cause. I have answered the questions put to me; and I pray this
meeting calmly to consider and weigh well what has been said. They

MR. HUGHES' THIRD SPEECH. 105
will see whether ray course, or that resorted to by my opponent, calling
names and giving personal abuse, is more congenial to the nature of
the subject under consideration. I again beseech this raeeting to exer
cise their private judgments, and consider whether we are right or
wrong. I exhort them to imitate the example of the noble Bereans
who, when the Appstle went amongst thera working miracles, took the
Bible, read and studied it, to corapare what he taught them with its
pages, and see whether his instructions were according to God. Because
they did so, many of them believed. " Prove all things ; hold fast
that which is good." " Tp the law and tp the testimony, if we speak
not accprding tp this wprd, it is because there is no light in us." Search
the Scriptures — ^that law ofthe Lord which is perfect, converting the soul
— that testimony ofthe Lord which is sure, making wise the simple —
Mr. Loftus. — Mr. Stoney you are not in order. You are giving
us a sermon. -
Mr. Stoney  Mr. Hughes calls this the spirit of mischief. He told
us of the dreadful and horrible effects produced by reading the Scrip
tures. He spoke of Luiherand many others, and says that they rejected
Infant Baptisra from reading the Scriptures. Facts prove that he is
mistaken in charging the errors of men upon the reading ofthe Scrip
tures. He says, that persons dying unbaptised cannot be saved. If cir
cumstances rendered it impossible to be baptised with water, such a
person, if baptised by the Holy Ghost, would be saved, whether bap
tised with water or not : for Baptisra by the Spirit is what saves us.
Mr. Hughes raade a flourish and raised a great shout, by saying, " Oh,
Mr. Stoney does away altogether with Baptisra !'' I do not put away
Baptisra. I ara here this day in defence of it and the Lord's Supper,
as deUghtful, glorious, and Christian ordinances, emblematic of the
inward washing and graces of the Holy Ghost. Christians should act
in these ordinances as in ancient times.
Except a raan be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God. Mr. Hughes has not answered my
arguments: assert as he may about it. — (Shouting.) Cry out as you
choose. The word of God has supported me in maintaining his truth : and
may the Lord God Almighty give his blessing to his own word.
Mr. HUGHES  I think this will be the last speech you will hear
upon this discussion. We will have to return a writ of non est inven
tus, for Mr. Stoney will not appear on Monday. I commenced by the
system of analytical argument; but as that had no effect, I will now
try the synthetic ; and instead of beginning at the beginning, I will
begin at the end.
You declared that 1 did not prove any objection against your
points. If you can believe that, you can believe any thing. You
have a raost felicitous belief. It is easy to form a belief for you.
You say that I abused you. I am sorry you did not act like a gen
tleman in Newport, when you insulted and reviled my religion, and
applied the raost abominable and degrading 

106 SECOND DAY— SECOND POINT FOR DISCUSSION.
Mr. Nangle. — Mr. Hughes I call you to order.
Mr. Hughes. — You did not call him to order. On the principle
of fair play I demand to be heard.
Mr. Nangle. — If he were out of order it would be the duty of
your chairman to call him to order. Any thing in the way of argu
ment, I am quite willing to hear from you ; but as Mr. Stoney's chair
man, I will allow no personal abuse.
Mr. Hughes. — You should have called him to order Mr. Lpftus ;
but as you did not do so, I should be allowed to follow him : either
his observations contained arguments, or they did not. If they did
not, you should have called him to order. If they did, I am bound
to reply to his arguments.
I am sorry he did not follow the example of the Bereans. He has
reviled the most solemn, glorious, cheering, heart-inspiring, consol
atory truths of my religion in language that no gentleman could use.
He has circulated through the cabins of my parishioners papers, which
show how little respect he has for the mild and conciliatory example
of the Bereans.
Again, he says, he intended no offence to Roman Catholics ; and
yet, in four public instances, he has grossly misrepresented your re
ligion ; and he had not the moral honesty or fortitude to come forward
and retract his falsehoods, after calumny and raisrepresentation — a
foul, lying, calumnious misrepresentation of your reUgion — he yet
offers no apology ; and after that says, " I intended no offence." Mr.
Stoney contends that he did not say I was a liar. But he deliberately
charged my church with lies. — What matter what he says of myself;
I am of no consequence — but my church is of consequence — my reli
gion is of consequence. I will be but a short time here ; and, if I
hope to be in a better place, it is by the aid of that church which he
has raost foully and grossly raisrepresented. He says to you, it is no
matter what I said to your reUgion, I did not speak of yourselves.
Very good, Mr. Stoney. (Groans, &c.)
He denies every ha'porth but what he finds in the Bible. He does
not bring a single word to refute my whole system of reasoning. You
say you refuted my five objections, but you did not refute a single one
of them. I appeal to the honest feelings of the gentlemen who were
listening, if he produced an arguraent worth caUing an argumenti
Your arguments are mere quibbles — empty, frothy quibbles. He gave
you, to be sure, a parcel of texts without any sense or force in them,
Corapare my consecutive reasoning with them, and you will see how
they will appear.
He talks of the gloripus, appstplic Catholic church, and yet he
calls the Catholic church apostate : though he says, I beUeve in the
Holy Ghpst, the Hply CathoUc churcb, as it is in the Apostles and
Nicene creeds. In one breath he calls her CathoUc and Appstate. He
says the church of Rome is not that church : but you said the Catho
lic, Christian church of Rome. With respect to the church of Rome,
who was her first bishop ? St. Peter ; and I could point out an un
broken line from him to the present Pope. There were sometimes
three contending Popes. It was doubtful for a time which was the

MR. STONEY'S THIRD SPEECH. 107
real Pope ; but this difficulty vanished after a while. The antipppe
was crushed^ and uncertainty removed. This did net prevent the ex
istence ef a true Pppe.
Hpw dpes the Rpman church stand new in the werld ? Catholic
bishops are appointed by the Pope in Araerica, Ireland, England, Ger-
raany, France, Spain, and throughout the Christian world. This is
the church that you have heard that man attack in such an audacious
manner. (Tremendous shouts.) Our time is not yet over. In four
days raore this question wiU corae on again, if he does not get rid of
it in the raean tirae. It is only in four days raore that we will be
able to judge of the real purity and truth of this church, which Mr.
Stoney calls apostate. Christ is a liar or the Catholic church still ex
ists. It does exist, and is one in its head, one in its doctrines, and
one in its succession from St. Peter.
In the Catholic church the infant child receives Baptism ; not by
sprinkling a little drop of water on him, but by pouring it upon him.
¦When that chUd grows up he is confirmed by a Catholic bishop.
As he advances further, if he has the misfortune tp fall into sin, he
has the tribunal pf cpnfessipn, and receives the sarae absolution from
every priest.
Mr. Nangle.— Are you nnw in prder Mr. Hughes.
Mr. Hughes. — I am. Wherever you go you find the same sacri
ficing priest. Wherever you go you find the sarae vestraents — the
same cross pn them : sorae have the cross behind, and some have it
before. The sarae sacrifice predicted by Malachi is offered up over
the world : and from the rising to the setting of the sun, throughout
the Catholic world, this offering is made. (Cheers.)
Mr. Nangle. — You are now speaking of the Mass sacrifice.
Mr. Hughes. — I am defending ray religion. I defy you to find a
country where you will not find a priest of the Catholic church.
Mr, NANGLB.-^-Unless you speak to the point I will not sit here.
Mr. Hughes. — I raust go on. Well, Sir, there is the CathoUc
church which Mr. Stoney reviled. When the sinner is departing 
Mr. Nangle  I will not sit here and listen to you going on in de
fiance pf all prder and regulatipn. I ara surprised Mr. Hughes that
you dp npt subrait tp the chair. Speak tp the subject, and you may
say what you please.
Mr. Hughes.— He says I talked of his knpwledge, and that I mis
represented him. I could not talk of his knowledge, for he has none.
He says his rule of faith is better than mine ; and that his religion
was before mine. If he can fancy that I wish him joy of it, he takes
an awkward raethod of showing it, and is able to prove nothing. I
proved every thing, and he proved nothing. We had one question yester
day : we have had five to day. We will have as raany raore on Mon
day. I have said enough. Go home quietly, orderly, and regular ;
and no shouts. (Great shouting.)
I implore you to take my advice : you have often taken it befpre.
Take it now. Let every one go horae quietly, and convince the pub
Uc of their respect for rae, by doing so.
(The second day's discussion ended here.)

THIRD DAY'S DISCUSSION.

QUESTION.
THE SACRIFICE OP THE MASS.

MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 1837.
Mr. Nangle. — Mr. Hughes, you are called upon to defend the
Sacrifice of the Mass.
Mr. HUGHES, (having made the sign of the cross.)— I stand here
this day called upon to defend ibis point of Catholic doctrine — the
most holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I regret much that I commenced this
discussion under a serious disadvantage. The greater part of ray proofs
were gone through before the bulk of the people carae in. So far my
adversary has the advantage of putting objections which 1 had removed,
but not in the hearing of the people. Thus my arguments lose a great
deal of their effect, because persons are not present to hear them. I am
very fond of logic. Logic is the most correct raode of arguing and
arriving at truth. It is a systera of argument approved of fpr more
than 3,000 years. I will now raake a syllogisra.
That doctrine is of Divine institution which was proraised in the old
law, and instituted by Christ in the new.
The Sacrifice of the Mass was proraised in the old law and insti
tuted by Christ in the new. Therefore the Sacrifice of the Mass is an
institution of Christ hiraself.
I will now prove my minor proposition, that this sacred offering was
promised and predicted in the old law, and instituted by Christ in the
new. In the old law there were two orders of priesthood. One of
Melchisedek, the other of Aaron. Both typical and figurative of Jesus
Christ the founder of the new law. Aaron offered a bloody sacrifice
under the old law. Christ fulfilled that in the new law, when he
offered the bloody sacrifice on the cross of his own body and blood.—
Christ fulfilled the sacrifice of Melchisedek in the new law by this
sacrifice of bread and wine. We find in Gen. xiv. 18: That Melchi
sedek, on this occasion, came forth and offered a sacrifice of bread
and wine. Why did he do so ? Because he was Priest of the most
High God. 1 will be told he wasa priest because he blessed Abraham;
but blessing is not exclusively a sacerdotal function. Abraham blessed
in the old law ; so did Jacob and the other Patriarchs. In France a
Catholic Bishop never sees his father, that he does npt ask his blessing.

MR. HUGHES' FIRST SPEECH. 1 09
My father is now dead. But 1 never met him that I did net ask his
blessing — thpugh I have the pewer of giving it myself, and I was
always the better of it.
Melchisedek did not exercise the sacerdotal function by blessino-,
but by offering the bread and wine, he pffered a sacrifice in this
way to Almighty God, as a thanksgiving fpr the victory obtained by
Abraham, in rescuing Lot. You will not find it recorded in any place
from Genesis to Revelation that he ever offered any other sacrifice.
Bread and wine was the only one he ever offered. He was a type only
in this. Therefore Christ fulfilled the Melchisedek priesthood in this.
Now I ask was Christ a Priest after the order of Melchisedek — He was :
for David, in the 2d Psalm, declares that the Eternal Father making
mention of his Divine Son, said, "Thou art my Son, this day have I
begotten thee." The penitent David, in the 109lh (llOth,) Psalm,
says, "Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek."
Here we find that Christ was a Priest for ever after the order of Mel
chisedek. The sarae thing St. Paul confirras in the new law, in Heb. v. 4, 6 :
" Neither doth any raan take the honour to hiraself, but he that is
called by God, a? Aaron was. So Christ, also, did not glorify himself,
that he might be raade a High Priest; hut He that said unto hira,
Thou art ray Son, his day have I begotten thee. As He saith also
in another place. Thou art a Priest for ever, according to the order
of Melchisedek.'' We find by this passage that Melchisedek offered a
sacrifice of bread and wine. Therefore Christ raust have pffered a
sacrifice of bread and wine.
We come now to the New Testament, and I will prove, from the
word of Christ hiraself, that he offered a sacrifice of bread and wine at
the Last Supper : and fulfilled the Melchisedek priesthood by the bread-
and-wine-sacrifice. I said that this institution of the Sacrifice of the Mass was predicted
in tiie old law 400 years before Christ. The Prophet Malachi says,
^' I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of Hosts, and I will not
receive a gift of your hand." In another place he says — " Incense shall
be offered in my name.'' Here Malachi rejected the sacrifice of the
Jews, and talked of another.
I may be told that the sacrifice which was substituted in the place
ofthe Jewish sacrifices was a sacrifice of praise. But that cpuld not
be, for the sacrifice of praise existed from the beginning of the world.
Nor the sacrifice of a pure heart, for that also existed. Then he says,
" That from the rising of the sun to the going down my name is great
among the ggntiles ; and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is
offered to my name a clean oblation, &c."
From this prophet Malachi, we find that from the rising to the setting
of the sun a clean oblation was to be offered in the name of the living
God. This could not be the difterent sacrifices I have mentioned and
therefore must be the Sacrifice of the Mass, which I will prove to you
here. There is not a countryjn the known world where this sacrifice is
not offisred. It is perpetually offering. When it is night here, it is

110 THffiD DAY'S DISCUSSION.
day in another place ; so that every moment the sacrifice of the mass
is offered. Now we wiU go to the New Testament, and consider the conduct of
Christ at the last supper. We wiU see whether it was his body and
blood that he offered at the last supper. Why would Christ say, « I
give you my blood, which is shed for the remission of sins." There it
was a sacrifice. In Matt. xxvi. 28, when he blessed the wine he said,
" this is my blood, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
It was shed, because the very blood which was running in his veins
was the very blood which was in the chalice. He said, " drink ye aU of
this." Mind, " my blood which is shed for the remission of sins"—
which is now shed : therefore, when he said this, he offered up a sa
crifice. Again, in Luke xxii. 19, he says, " and taking bread, he gave
thanks, and brake, and gave to them, saying. This is my body which
is given for you." Do this for a corameraoration of rae. At that very
time he gave thera to eat that very body which was offered up. In the
20lh verse he says, " This is the chalice, the New Testament in ray
blood, which is shed for you." Can any Words be clearer. He gave
thera the very blood which was running in his veins. Again in 1 Cor.
xi. 24, St. Paul says, " and giving thanks, broke and said, Take ye and
eat, this is my body which ife broken fOr youi"
Christ offered a sacrifice upon the cross, in a bloody manner ; and
as often as we offer up the sacrifice of the mass, we show forth the
death of Christ in the sacrament. Again, Heb. xni. 10 — 12, "We
have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat Which serve in the
tabernacle. For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into
the sanctuary by the High Priest for sin, are burnt without the camp.
Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own
blood, suffered without the gate.'' Here he compares the sacrifice at
the Jewish altar with that at the Christian altar. When did St. Paul
say this ? Twenty-six years after our Lord ascended up to heaven. At
the tirae that St. Paul said this, what altar was there of which the Jews
could not partake ? What altar but the Christian altar — the sacrifice
instituted by Christ at the last supper.
In Rev. V. 6, we have tbe words of St. John ; and raind when— sixty
years after Christ ascended into heaven. He was the beloved disciple —
he was present at the last supper, when Christ instituted this sacrifice,
and gave it to his aposties, saying, " This is my body, which is broken
for you." Sixty-six years afterwards he used these words, " And when
he had opened the book, the four living creatures, and the four and
twenty ancients, fell down before the Larab, having every one of them
harps, and golden vials fuH of odours, which are the prayers of saints :
and they sung a new canticle, saying, "Then art wprthy 0 Lord to
take the boek and tp ppen the seals thereof; because thou wast slain
and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every tribe and
tongue, and people, and nation : and hast made us to our God, a king
dom, and priests, and we shall reign on the earth.''
Here St. John says, he ordained us priests unto the coming of his
kingdom. What did Christ mean when he said, do this in remem
brance of me? The very thing that I do, do you." What priests were

MR. HUGHES' FIRST SPEECH. IH
to reign on earth ? The priests that Christ made, I have here prnved
my minpr prpposition, I have shewn that Malachi prcraised this sa*
cnfice—. that the words of Christ in varipus passages prove, that this
promise was fulfilled by Christ, when at the last supper he instituted
the sacrament of his body and blopd, under the appearance pf bread
and wine.
The next prpof, to which I beg your particular attention — the parti
cular attention of Protestants, who are in great ignorance as respects
the sacrifice of the mass, will astonish and surprise you. The sacrifice
of the raass is a great mystery ; and the greater the mystery is, the
stronger is the prejudice of those who do not believe it. The Trinity
is a great mystery — why do we believe it } — Because Christ revealed
it. It is contrary to our senses and understanding ; or rather is above
them. There is one God in three persons, and yet they are not three
Gnds but pne God. It is above our reaspn, and yet we believe it be
cause it is revealed.
In the sarae way, we cught tP divest ourselves of every prejudice in
the case of the sacrifice of the mass. Do you see God with your eyes ?
— 'No : but you believe he exists. You do not see the Trinity, yet you
believe it. In the case ofthe sacrifice ofthe mass, let us not call coraraon
understanding to our aid, but say I believe in that as in the Trinity,
because Jesus Christ has revealed it.
I will now, my friends, call your attention to the liturgies of the
Catholic church. Liturgies are the forms of prayer read in the church.
They are not formed by one man, but by the unanimous consent pf the
bishpps ; therefore, any thing contained in them is a more powerful
exppsitipn pf Cathplic doctrine, than a clergyman's own opinion. The
liturgies I will quote may be taken as the universal belief of the Catho
lic church." 'We have the liturgies formed by the twelve apostles.
These liturgies are twelve in number — if raore were necessary, I could
quote thirty-six liturgies, forraed first by apostles, and received in
churches estabUshed by the apostles. I will mention the names of the
liturgies, which I wiU read ; and I will show the book to any person
who wishes for it. The Alexandrian, the Constantinopolitan, .the
four apostolic, the Roman, the Ambrosian, the Syriac, the Nesto-
rian, the Coptic, and thirty-six raore besides. I will briefly prove
three things from these — the real presence, transubstantiation, and the
sacrifice of the mass. The Holy Spirit is invoked that he may make
this bread and wine the life-giving body and blood of Christ, to those
whp receive it for the remission of their sins. In this liturgy, estab
lished more than 1800 years ago, men offered the bedy and blood of
Christ for the remission of their sins.
With regard to the sacrifice pf the mass the liturgy says, " in thee,
O Lprd, we offer up this bread and wine, raake of thera the body
and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.'' Every one of the Uturgies ex
presses the sarae thing. Sorae of them say "change this bread and
wine into thy body and blood;" and others say, " coraraute these into
thy body and blppd :" but they all say either one or other. I next go
to the Liturgy of Constantinople. The priest says, we offer up this
Host, which is the sacrifice of thy body. The Syriac liturgy says.

112 THIRD DAY'S DISCUSSION.
" may thy Holy Spirit corae down and sanctify this bread and wine,
and make of them the body and blood of our Lord, for the remission
pf sins, to those that receive them.* (Mr. Hughes also quoted some
prayers to the Lord to receive those things which were offered to him.)
I will now corae to Protestant authorities, and would wind up by the
testimony of the holy Fathers, if I had time, but I cannot at this op
portunity. I shall quote two eminent Protestant divines; Archbishop
Wake, and Bishop BuU. 1 will simply read over their words, as I have
not time to do more. [Mr. Hughes here read two quotations from
Wake and Bull, stating, that where all the liturgies agree in one com
mon point, we may be sure they have not been corrupted. And he
also said that Bishop Bull acknowledged that three of the liturgies
were written by Peter, Mark, and James.] Now these liturgies aU
agree in transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the mass, and the real pre
sence. I ara sorry I have no raore tirae, and will wind up by again
stating my syllogism.
That doctrine is of divine institution which was promised in the old
law, aud established by Christ in the new.
I have prpved from Malachi, that the sacrifice of the raass was pro
mised. It was estabUshed by Christ, preached by the twelve apostles,
and practised the same as now, in substance, in the Cathplic church, all
over the world.
(Here Mr. Hughes' time expired.)
Mr. STONEY. — Mr. Hughes terminated the discussion on Saturday
evening, by predicting that I would be non est inventus this raorning.
My present appearance here is a proof that his prediction was not ac-
corapUshed. I hope the circurastance will cause the people not to
give implicit credence to all the predictions of Mr. Hughes.
I hold in ray hand a document which Mr. Hughes will admit lo be
genuine. That document is a paper in which my name sometimes
appears, without giving me many flattering compliments — ^it is the
Freeman's Jom-nal ; a paper which, with great power and talent, ad
vocates the principles of the church of Rome — and pne through which
Mr. Hughes very often gives his opinions to the world. In the num
ber of this paper, dated September 1st, 1835, we read this paragraph.
"The late Mr. Bryan Bolger of Little Longford-street, left the
Rev. John Roache £600 in cash ; his silver plate, jewellery, books,
horses, and jaunting-car, &c. for masses for his soul I" Six
hundred pounds — his plate, jewellery, horse, jaunting-car ! &c. &c.
They must have been very valuable indeed ; and all for masses for
his soul ! !
Mr. Hughes. — I call you to order : that is Purgatory you are now
talking of, and that question is to be discussed hereafter.
Mr. Nangle. — The Council of Trent says that there are masses
for the living and the dead.
* Mr. Hughes having declined to give a copy of his quotations, we are unable
to give the exact words of these liturgies. What is given above is, however, a
laithful exhibition of the substance of them.

MR. STONEV'S first SPEECH. 113
Mr. Hughes. — The Council pf Trent is an authority that deserves
great attention.
Mr. Nangle. — If you refer to the Council of Trent you will find
that the mass is a sacrifice offered for the Uving and the dead : and I
conceive that Mr. Sioney has a right to lake that decree, and make
any stateraent he pleases from it ; for how can he know the doctrines
of the church of Rome, if he is not allowed to make use of the
Council of Trent.
Mr. Loftus. — Mr. Stoney is contending for the non-existence of
the Sacrifice of the Mass ; and to that subject he must confine himself.
Mr. Nangle. — Is not that an arbitrary limitation ?
Mr, Loftus. — No : for the application of the argument Mr. Stoney
wants to employ, comes more properly in the doctrine of Purgatory ;
and it is prejudging the question to enter into it now.
Mr. Hughes.— I will read my challenge to Mr. Stoney — here is
the filth question, and all were to be discussed in the same order in
which they were to be delivered. Let him first prove that there is no
Sacrifice, and then he may bring forward his proofs that it cannot be
off'eied for the dead. But he is now entering on a subject which de
serves great attention, and which must be discussed on its own merits.
I have proved that the Sacrifice of the Mass existed always ; let him
prove that it has not.
Mr. Nangle. — Transub.stantiation was not the subject when you
were speaking to day ; but in consequence of the close connection ex
isting between it and the other, I allowed you to go on : and [ con
ceive there is a much raore close connection between the Sacrifice of
the M-.iss, and the point Mr. Stoney has introduced ; he cannot, with
any justice be limited ; it is merely an arbitrary limitation of your
own ; he is at full liberty to speak as to the purposes ofthe sacrifice of
the mass ; and the Council of Trent raakes the sacrifice lor the dead
one of these purposes.
Mr. Hughes. — Let us argue dispassionately, and we wiU agree I
think: lam a Catholic Priest for more than iwenty-one years, and
offering during that time the sacrifice ofthe raass ; but perhaps during
ray life I never offered a sacrifice for the dead.
Mr. Loftus, — If the subject of Purgatory did not follow I would
agree to allow Mr. Stoney to proceed.
Mr. Nangle. — If Mr. Stoney were to search through the writings
of Roman Catholic Theologians and find some statement that he
thought presented the subject in an advantageous forni for bim, you
would exclaim against it and declare that the decrees of the Council
of Trent constituted the legitimate authority. Yet now, that he Offers
lo proceed in compliance with that authority, you will not permit hira !
Perhaps Mr. Stoney raay introduce Deni Theology.
Mr. Hughes. — The subjects which Mr. Stoney attempts to con
found are two different ones.
Mr. Nangle. — I will read the third canon of the 22d Sessipn pf
the Council of Trent for you.
"If any one shall say that tiie sacrifice of the mass is only a sacri
fice of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare coramemoration of the
h

114 THIRD DAY'S DISCUSSION.
sacrifice raade by Christ on the cross, and not a propitiatory sacrifice ;
or that it is only useful to him who takes it; and ought not to be
offered fpr the living and the dead, fer sins, penalties, satisfactipns,
and ptber necessities ; let him be accursed."
Npw I would put it to the good sense of the . raeeting is it fair,
when the sacrifice of the mass for the living and the dead is contained
in this canon, to select one proposition, and tie up Mr. Stoney to it,
when the sacrifice of the mass without limitation is the subject of dis
cussion. Mr. Loftus — Mr. Stoney makes an objection to the doctrine of
purgatory : and he is prejudging that question by mixing it up with
the non-existence of the sacrifice of the mass. I think he has preclud
ed himself from that course bv the proposition he has made.
Mr. Nangle.— In reply to" that, I say that in the same way as Mr.
Hughes introduced the subject of transubstantiation, because it was con
nected with the one before us, Mr. Stoney has a right to allude to the
sacrifice of the raass offered for the living and the dead.
His challenge is to defend the sacrifice of the mass : and when he
attempts to speak upon the subject, because he alludes to its being
offered for tbe dead, Mr. Hughes and his Chairman start up and say,
you are not at liberty to speak about that part of the question. I put
It to the good sense of the meeting if this is fair.
Mr* Hughes. — I say 
Mr. T^angle. — Leave it between Mr. Loftus and me, Mr. Hughes.
Mr. Hughes. — 1 will not. I must offer a remark.
Mr. Nangle. — I will not allow Mr. Stoney to address the meet
ing except through me.
Mr. Hughes — I must speak. I will show that there is a difference.
between the dectrine pf purgatpry and the sacrifice of the raass.
Mr. Nangle. — I will read the preliminaries of the meeting.
Mr. Hughes. — Allow rae one word and I will then sit down.
Mr. Nangle.— I insist on reading the regulations which were
agreed tp.
[Mr. Nangle then read that part of the regulations which stated that
neither of the disputants should call the other to prder, but that both
should submit to the authority of the Chair.]
Mr. Hughes. — There is no connection between the doctrine of pur
gatory and the sacrifice of the raass : or between that and transubstan
tiation. Mr. Nangle — Did you accept Mr. Stoney's challenge.
Mr. Hughes. — I did.
Mr. Nangle — Then why not allow him to speak without interrup-
tion. The subject is the sacrifice of the mass ; and he is ready to go
on with the discussien pf that, as it is stated in the decrees of the
Council of Trent, and in the challenge which you accepted.
[As there was no likelihood ofthe matter in dispute being arranged
between the chairmen, they caUed to their assistance as was stipulated
in the preliminaries, two clergymen and a layman on each side. Mr.
Nangle chose the Rev. Messrs. Ellis aiid Baylee, and John Lar-
monie, Esq. Mr. Loftus chose the Rev. Messrs. M'Hale and Connor,

MR, STONEY'S FIRST SPEECH, 1}5
and a lay gentleman. After having conferred together fpi' some time,
Mr. Hughes' party were cenvinced pf the justness of the course taken
by Mr. Stoney, and consented to allow him to proceed in it.]
Mr. Hughes. — Mr. Stoney may now goto purgatory ifhe pleases.,
and I hppe he will go no further. I would have no objection that vye
should meet there, in hopes that we raay not raeet in a worse place.
Mr. Stoney. — I have gone already to purgatory. The blood of
Christ has already purged rae frora my sins. Blessed be his hply
name. The Canpn of the Ceuncil cf Trent is "If any pne shaU say that
the sacrifice pf the mass is only a sacrifice cf praise and thanksgiving-,
or a bare coraraemoration of the sacrifice raade upon the cross, and is
not a propitiatory sacrifice ; or that it is only useful to him who takes
it ; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for
sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other: necessities ; let him
be accursed."
" Other necessities 1 Mark that."
Mr. Hughes. — Let, thera. It is ray doctrine. I apknpwledge it,
every wprd.
Mr. Stpney  I will first make use of ray own arguments and
then return to Mr. Hughes'. The position laid down by the Church
of Rorae is this : That Christ offered hiraself a sacrifice for the sins pf
the Uving and the dead, the day before he was put to death. The
second part ofthis doctrine is, that Christ gave authority to the Apos
tles, the Popes, Cardinals, Bishops and Priests of the Church of Rorae
to offer up the sacrifice of the mass for the sins of the living and the dead,
and other necessities ! As I like to consult the word of God, I will first
call your attention to that blessed word. Jesus Christ says, "This is
my bpdy which is given for you." Now I argue, if Christ pffered a
sacrifice fpr the sins of the living and the dead — a propitiatory sacri
fice the day before his crucifixion, when it is adraitted that he offered
one upon the cross, — it is absurd, nay more, it is blasphemous and
impious to think that the Lord Jesus Christ offered two sacrificed, one
on Thursday, the other on Friday. Since he offered on the cross a
full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice for sin, it is absurd to say, that he,
the day before, offered another sacrifice for the sins of the living and
the dead.
The absurdity ofthe doctrine fixes the stamp of untruth upon it.
But supppse he did pffer himself as a sacrifice in the mass, where,
I ask, is the proof of this damning clause in the canpn of the Council
of Trent ; for it curses us if we do not beUeve it — where is the proof
that he authorized the Popes and Bishops and Priests of the Church of
Rpme tp dp the sarae.
There is no proof of this ; for eating is not offering. Christ cora-
manded his Apostle'sto take bread and wine in remembrance of him ;
but he <fid not comraand them to offer them in sacrifice for the sins of
the Uving and the dead. In short, there is not one word of proof that
it was at all a sacrifice, or that he desired the priests of any church to.
offer it for sins ; yet the upholders of this invention caU upon reason
ing, people to believe it.

116 THIRD DAY'S DISCUSSION.
Christ says, do this in remembrance pf me. Npw, remembrance
refers tp an absent persen, npt a present. The event commemorated
must be past. It must be done and completed, or how can we com
meraorate it ? Therefore it is evident there can be no such thing as a
propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead.
In the first chapter of Malachi, and llth verse, is the passage upon
which the Church of Rome endeavours to found her authority for the
mass sacrifice. " In every place frora the rising to the gping down pf
the sun, incense and a pure pffering shall be offered for my narae."
Oh, on what a feeble text, what a weak support, on what a prop has
she built the dpctrine pf the mass sacrifice !
Let us now examine what is the prophetical meaning of incense and
a pure offering. In the 141st Psalm and 2d verse, we read — " Let
my prayer be set forth before thee as incense, and the lifting up of my
hands as the evening sacrifice."
Again, Rom. xii. 1. " I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the
mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy,
acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." And again,
in Heb. xiii. \f>, 16. "By him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of
praise to God, continually, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks
in his name. But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with
such sacrifices God is well pleased." Here are the sacrifices, here is
the incense, the pure offering spoken of by the prophet Malachi — a
sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving — a dedication of body, soul, and
spirit, in holiness and righieousness to God.
Ill 1 Pet. ii. 5, we read, "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a
spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, ac
ceptable to God by Jesus Christ." Who is this holy priesthood ?
Every Christian is described in this passage of holy writ, as offering,
not a sacrifice for the sins of the Uving and the dead, but a spiritual
sacrifice acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
Is it by sacrifices offered for the sins of the living and the dead that
we are to attain to that holiness and pureness of heart which we must
possess as genuine followers of our heavenly Master ? No ; but by the
power of his Holy Spirit, which is far superior to all the sacrifices
raade by man.
The only other passage brought forward to give a colour to tiiis error,
is Gen. xiv. 18 : "And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread
and wine; and he was the priest of the most high God. And he
blessed him, and said, blessed he Abram of the most high God, pos
sessor of heaven and earth : And blessed be the most high God,
which hath dehvered thine enemies into thine hand. And he gave him
tithes of all." In the Latin Vulgate, which Mr. Hughes acknowledges
as authority, the word which we render " brought forth" bread and
wine, is translated proferens and not offerens. Had it been intended
to convey the idea of a sacrifice it would have been offerens.
This would be a strange sacrifice indeed. He met him coming
wearied from the slaughter of the kings, and refreshed him with bread
and wine: but where is mention made of any sacrifice ^
We were referred to Heb. v. 5, 6 : "So also Christ pIdMi^A nrvt

MR. STONEY'S FIRST SPEECH 117
himself to he made an high priest; but he that said untp him, Thpu
art ray son, to-day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another
place. Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec." In
the 7th chapter of the same epistle, the Apostie enters at large into the
typical character of Melchisedek. Why does he not speak one word
of the bread and wine ? Why does he only mention the blessing and
the tenth of the spoils, but not one word in the whole epistle with refer
ence to the supposed sacrifice of bread and wine. There is not the
slightest proof that it was offered in sacrifice ; indeed it is evident that
he brought forth the bread and wine to refresh him.
How could bread and wine prefigure the offering of the flesh and
blood, soul and divinity of Christ ? What analogy is there between
thera ? There is no mention, whatever, of sacrifice in the passage.
I now go on to show that the Sacrifice of the Mass is ppposed tp
the testiraony of God's word. I beg your particular attention to the
9ih and 10th chapters of Hebrews : " For Christ is not entered into the
holy places raade with hands, which are the figures of the true ; but
into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us :
nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth
into the holy place every year with blood of others : For then must
he often have suffered since the foundation of the worid : but now
once in the end ofthe world hath he appeared to put away sin by the
sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die,
but after this the judgment : so Christ was once offered to bear
the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the
second tirae without sin unto salvation." Mark this — "nor yet that
Ae should offer himself of ten." Here we are told in the plainest lan
guage, and raost positive terms, leaving no possibility of mistake, that
the Lord Jesus Christ raade one offering for sins ; and that he offered
himself but once ; and that as surely as it is appointed to man but
once to die, so surely was Christ to be offered but once. Again, in
the 10th chapter, 10th and following verses, it is said, " By the which
will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus
Christ ONCE for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering
and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away
sins: but this raan, after he had offered ONE sacrifice for sins,
for ever sat down on the right hand of God ; from henceforth
expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by ONE
offering "he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified ;
whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us : for after that he had
said before. This is the covenant that I will make with thera after
those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in
their minds will I write them ; and their sins and iniquities wiU
I remember no more. Now where remissipn of these is, there is no
more offering for sin." _
We raay be told that this alludes to the sacrifices in the Old Tes-
laraent, which were but types and shadows lo be put away when Christ
carae and offered himself. But is it not plain to any intelligent man
reading the passage, that there is a positive prohibition against offering
Christ more than pnc£_at— Paul rpr^o^t. *i-;= -Jaolaratipn pf Christ

lis THIRD DAY'S DISCUSSION.
being but once offered, as if foreseeing the attempts that would be
made tp get Pver it.
Again, he says, " Every priest standeth daily ministering and pffer
ing pftentimes the sarae sacrifices, which can never take away sins."
They needed to be repeated daily, and, therefore, could not take away
sins. Mark now the contrast which he draws between thera and the
Sacrifice of Christ. He goes on to say, "But this man, after he had
pffered ONE sacrifice for sins, fpr ever sat down on the right hand of
God." The Lord Jesus Christ having offered one sacrifice for sins
for ever sat down on the right hand of God, and is to reraain there
until he shall come back again to bless his people.
In verse 14 he says, " By one offering he hath perfecteth for ever
-thera that are sanctified." Yet we are told he is to be offered up every
day and every night, because when it is day here, it is night in ano
ther place !
Mr. Hughes. — I call you to order, Mr. Stoney.
Mr. Stoney. — Mark this. By one offering you are perfected.
Your salvation is completed. The work is done. If this one offering
has made you perfect, what need is there of raass offerings. In verses
15 to 18, he says, " Whereof t\\e Holy Ghost also is a witness to us :
for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will
make with them after those days, saith the Lord ; I will put my laws
into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them ; and their
sins and iniquities will I remember no raore. Now where remis
sion of these is, there is no more offering for sin." The Holy Ghost
teaches us that God's covenant is, " I will put my laws into their hearts
and write them in their minds, and their sins and iniquities will I
remember no more,"
Now mark the fruits of this, " Where remission of these is, there
IN NO more offering FOR SIN.''
With respect to the Old Testament dispensation, the Apostie says,
that Christ's sacrifice was the fulfilment of those ; and that the perfec
tion of Christ's sacrifice was that it was never to be repeated.
The repetition of the former ones proved their imperfection. But the
perfection of Christ's sacrifice consists in this, that we need no more
an offering for sin — not even the Sacrifice of the Mass, althouo-h the
Council of Trent describes it as an offering for the sins of the living
and the dead.
The 9lh and 10th of Hebrews then settles the questipn. I put it to
the judgment of every inteUigent, rational man, were not the sacrifices
under the law imperfect because they needed to be repeated, (v. 1 )
but the ONENESS of Christ's sacrifice proves it to be a sufecient atone
ment for sin, and never more to be repeated.
But there are other errors in this Sacrifice of the Mass. In the 22^
verse of the 9th chapter, the Apostle declares, " without shedding of
blood is no remission."
What is a Sacrifice ? It is an offering to Almighty God for the sins
of guilty men. It is the substitution of an innocent victim for the
guilty creature. It is the merciful and most gracious gift offered to

MR. STONEY'S FIRST SPEECH. 119
the divine justice for his fallen, sinful people : when he graciously
accepted the guilty through an innocent atonement, making his beloved
Son a sacrifice for sins, and declaring that " without shedding of blood
there is no remission."
According to the doctrine of theChurdh pf Rorae the Mass Sacrifice
is an unbloody offering, therefore, there is np remission of sins by it.
The word of the Lord tells us there is no remission of sins without
shedding of blood. God's word raust be true, and his justice cannot
be satisfied without the shedding of blood.
Observe, the imperfection imputed to the offerings ofthe priests un
der the Jewish dispensation, and the similarity between their practice
and that ofthe Roman Catholic priests now. Heb. x. 1, 2, 3 : " For
the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very
iraage of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered
year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then
would they not have ceased to be offered : because that the worshippers
once purged should have had no raore conscience of sins. But in
those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year."
Then sacrifices were constantly repeated, just as in the mass sacrifice
the Church of Rorae repeats it over and over again. Mark the per
fection of Christ's sacrifice — "This raan having raade one offering for
sin for ever sat down on the right hand of God ;" and yet the Church
of Rorae says, he is offered in 20,000 different places at the sarae time.
If the consecrated wafer were crumbled into dust, every panic) g
contains the body, blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus Chvfst,
The Lord's body is one human body, and therefore could not b^e ina
thousand places together. The absurdity of this doctrine is, so very
plain that I cannot but wonder how rational beings belie'Je it. The
9th and lOth chapters of Hebrews completely settles tjae* question.
Christ was never to be offered but once. And afttr h'j o^ve himself
for our sins he for ever sat down in glory. Is it tipt evident then that
the Mass Sacrifice is quite ppppsed to the Holy Scrip'tares?
The Lord's comraand to the Aposties was, « Go, preach the Gospel
to every creature," but he did not say to them, gp and offer the Sacri
fice of the Mass for the sins of the Uving and the'dead.
Not a syllable of authority has the Pope, the Priests, or the Church
of Rome to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass. Not one word in the New
Testament do we find of the Ministers' of Christ's religion being sacri
ficing priests. Eph. iv. II. 'Upsvs (hiereus) is the Greek word for
a sacrificing priest. This word is iiever applied to the Minister ofthe
Gospel, therefore the conclusion j(i inevitable that there is no sacri
ficing priest, and consequently, vio sacrifice. How could there be ah
offering without an offerer. '
Again, in the Acts of the Aposties we have frequent mention pf the
worship pf the primitive Christians. How was this conducted ? what
was their raode of worship ? vve have not one word saying that they
offered the sacrifice of tbe mass.
St. Paul's Epistles to Timothy and Titus, give minute directions fOr
the public wership pf Christians; and yet he does not make the

12Q THIRD DAY'S DISCUSSION.
sUghtest allusion to this sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead.
1 defy any one to show rae, frora the practice or preaching of the
Apostles, a single authority for this novel doctrine.
" Do this in remembrance of rae," is the coraraand of Christ; not
do this as a sacrifice. Yet we are cursed by the Council of Trent unless
we believe their doctrine of the raass. Then I am cursed, and all
Protestants are cursed, by the Council ; but we need not fear her
curses when we are supported by the words of Christ.
1 will now read a passage from tbe Council of Trent : " Si quis
dixerit, imposturam esse, raissas celebrare in honorem Sanctorum, et
pro illorum intercessione apud Deum obtinenda, sic ecclesia intendit :
anathema sit." — " If any one shall say, that it is an imposture to cele
brate masses in honour of the saints, and to obtain their intercession
wilh God, as the Church intends : let him be accursed." Sess. 22.
chap. 9. can. 5. Oh what a doctrine is this I The Lord Jesus Christ
is to be brought down from the realms of glory — his body, blood, soul
and Divinity, are to come down to the altar of a Roman Catholic cha
pel to be offered up, in order to what? in order to propitiate a saint in
heaven to pray to himself — the very Being who is offered up. Was
ever the like of this ! I say it is an imposture to offer the Sacrifice of
the Ma.ss in honour of saints — to offer up the Lord Jesus Christ in or-
\ der to persuade one of his saints to pray to himself!
\ Mr. Hughes. — That is not my doctrine.
\Mr. Stoney  It is the doctrine of the Council of Trent. Perhaps
you c^o not beUeve that council.
This' sacrifice is offered up in honour of dead men, of many of
whora Wc" cannot tell whether ihey were saints ornot! Was ever
such a mot.'strous doctrine? Is it agreeable to Scripture? There is
not a word .'n the Bible to support it. Was ev^r such an absurdity
attempted to bV palmed upon enliyhtfned beings I I hold in my hand
a pnmphlet written by tbe Rev. Mr. Nolan, " the poor, pitiful apostate,"
(as Mr. Hughes cnlled him.)
He thus writesy "The fiist forra of words to which I beg your
attention, is the coj^^fi'ssic'n of sins made by the priest in his vstments,
previous to his ascendins the altar. The w rds of this confession are
as follow : ' I confess tJ Almighty God, to blessed Mary, ever virgin,
to blessed Michael, the archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the
holy Appstles, Peter and Paul, and to all the saints,' &c. &c. This
form of prayer concludes bv .saying, ' I therefore, beseech thee blessed
Mary ever virgin, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, to pray to God
for me.' The next prayer msdo use of by the priest, is one which
he repeats .secretly to iiim'^elf, when he ascends aud hows down before
the altar ; he says, ' We entreat of yon, O Lord, by the merits of your
saints, whose relics are here, that you would vouchsafe to pardon our
sins.' "
Mr. Loftus. — I call you to order. Confine yourself tothe question.
Mr. Stoney. — I am reading part of t^s sacrifice of the mass.
[Shouts and yells.]
Mr. Stoney. — The last prayer said by the priest after he consumes

MR. STONEY'S FIRST SPEECH. 121
the bread, contains these words, " May your body, Lord, which I have
here taken, and your blopd which I have drunk, adhere to my
bowels .'"
Here we have the authprity pf a Roman Catholic priest, that it is
the doctrine of his church, that the body of Christ adheres to the
bowels of the officiating priest ! I say that the sacrifice of the raass is
a dishonour to Christ, as well as a denial of the perfection of his
atonement. Its repetition stamps imperfection on the sacrifice of the
mass, as it did upon the Jewish sacrifices.
If guilt were reraoved by the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross where
is the use of repeating it 20,000 liraes ?
Thearaount of £600 was left by one man to the Rev. John Roache,
for saying masses for his soul.
Mr. Loftus. — I call you to order. Ypu are to irapugn the doctrines
and nothing else.
Another Priest. — It is an unworthy imputation.
Mr. Nangle. — If Mr. Stoney can attack the doctrine through the
mediura of a fact, he has a right to bring it forward.
Mr. Loftus. — He raust confine hiraself to the doctrine of the sacri
fice of the raass, and not allude to the act of an individual.
Mr. Nangle, — This is probably a delicate subject to talk upon.
Mr. Hughes. — It is not. It is ray doctrine,
Mr. Nangle. — I do say and insist upon it, that if the doctrine can
be attacked through the raedium of a fact, he is authprized tp bring it
fprward. Mr. Hughes. — Let hira go on,
Mr. Stoney. — This gentleman, Mr. Bryan Bolger, left the Rev.
John Roache £600 in cash, the remainder of his bequest cannot be
worth less than another £100, which raakes £700, to pay for having
masses said to bring his soul out of purgatory. Well, two shillings and
sixpence being the price of each raass 
Mr. Hughes. — I sometimes got a pound for a raass.
Mr. Loftus. — You are to speak of the doctrine.
Mr. Hughes. — You get tithes, and that is the doctrine of Simon
Magus. [Great shouts, groans, and yells.]
Mr. Stoney. — That is fine argument for Mr. Hughes, boys !
He calls me Simon Magus. \Vho was this Simon Magus,' and what
did he do? He was a raan who wanted to sell the gilt of God for,
money. The Church of Rome following his .steps, sells salvation,
the gift of God, for half-a-crown — the price of a mass !
A Priest  Show your authority that half-a-crown is the price of
a mass. It is a lie !
Mr, Hughes. — It is a deliberate lie I I will not speak a word till
you prove it.
Mr. Stoney — The Church of Rome sells masses for half-a-
crown 
Mr. Hughes. — We do not sell masses. We call for prppfs»
Other Priests. — Prove it, prove it.
Mr. Stoney. — Mr. Hughes has just now said that he got a pound
fpr a mass.

122 THIRD DAY'S DISCUSSION.
Mr. Hughes  It is a palpable lie ! We do npt seU masses. We
say mass and we get money — but we don't sell masses.
Mr. Stoney.— Here is a man, Mr. Bryan Bolger, who left
£700 to get masses said for his soul. Now I ask, how many masses
were necessary to save the soul of this Mr. Bryan Bolger. [Cries of
oh ! oh !]
I do not wonder that you should cry oh I oh ! It is a monstrous
absurdity — it is the doctrine of Simon Magus to say that salvation,
the gift of God, could be purchased for money.
Mr. Hughes. — This is lie the first !
Mr. Nangle. — I call you to order, Mr. Hughes.
Mr. Stoney. — (Taking up a pen and paper and calculating.) —
There are 5,600 half-crowns in £700. Mr. Bryan Bolger was there
fore, entitled to 5,600 descents of the Lord Jesus Christ frora heaven
to save his soul ! After the Apostle having declared by inspiration
in the 9th and 10th of Hebrews, that the Lord Jesus Christ having
made one offering for sin, for ever sat down at the right hand of
God ; who will say that doctrine is not a monstrous falsehood ?
We may now lay Bryan Bolger and his jaunting-car aside.
The next point I have to examine is the doctrine of intention.
This doctrine of the Church of Rome tells us that intention is neces
sary to the completion of the sacrifice. The poor worshipper is
unhappily dependent on the officiating priest. He is never sure
whether there is a sacrifice ; because, where the priest does not intend
to sacrifice he does not do it. In what a sea of uncertainty is the
whole subject involved !
The Rev. Messrs Nolan and Burke — " the poor, pitiful, dirt]/ apos
tates" doubted whether they could offer the sacrifice of the mass.
There was then no sacrifice in Westport when Mr. Burke officiated,
because intention was necessary. The poor people were led astray,
because they could not tell whether the sacrifice was offered or not.
Mr. Nolan says in his pamphlet, that masses are offered in the
Church of Rome for barren woraen.
A Priest. — You are a liar.
' Mr. Stoney. — I can prove on the oath of a credible witness, that
masses have been offered for sick cattle. The Church of Rome
teaches us, that they may not only be offered for barren women and
cattle but /or any other necessity.
The Council of Trent pronounces rae accursed, because I do not
adrait that the Lord appointed sacrificing priests in his church. I ara
willing to bear the curse of the Church of Rome. I defy any one to
prove that there is a sacrificing, priesthood in the Christian dispensa
tion ; or any repetition of or acfdition to the owe great sacrifice spoken
of in the 9th and 10th of Hebrews.
Suppose a dying friend left his pictdre, and said, look at this in re
membrance of me— — —
Mr. Loftus — Your tirae is out.
(Here Mr. Stoney's tirae expired.)
Mr. HUGHES— I make a fair proppsitipn to Mr. Stoney, which

MR. HUGHES' SECOND SPEECH. 123
every gentieman present will acknowledge to be fair. He made thir
ty-one objections in his last speech. It is easy to make objections,
but it is not so easy to splve them. Any fppl can raake objections—
I do not allude to Mr. Stoney — any one raay create a difficulty, which
a clever raan might not be able to explain. My proposition is this :
ifhe will give me half an hour, I will give him the same. If not, my
not answering hiiu will not be attributed to inability, but to want of
tirae. If he will refuse, it is because he is convinced I ara able to
answer him, and therefore he will not allow rae what I ask. The
meeting will know the reason.
Mr. Stoney — I will make no alteration in the regulations.
Mr. Nangle — If you have any other answers to bring to Mr.
Stoney, the press is open and you can easily avail yourself of it. Mr.
Stoney will have the same difficulty to encounter (shortness of time)
in answering you.
Mr. Hughes. — Gentlemen, in my opening speech of forty rai
nutes, I proved that sacrifices were pffered up under the eld law ; and
that an offering and incense from the rising of the sun to the setting
of it, were to be substituted in the place and room of all the Jewish
sacrifices. I do not say that it was to be offered every night. When it is 12
o'clock in the day here, it is midnight at the antipodes ; for, according
to the principles pf astronomy, only half the globe can be enlightened
at one time. There is day at all times in some part of the world.
Malachi said, " frora the rising even to the going down of the sun ray
name is great among the gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice,
and there is offered tp ray name a clean pblatipn." Mr. Stoney has
not met that.
I then came to the Gospel and proved that Christ was offered up.
Here again lam labouring under a disadvantage. All my proofs
were gone through when many of you were not present. If you
were present, it would not be necessary to repeat what I have said
before. In Matt. xxvi. 28, Christ says, « This is my blood of the New Tes
tament, which is shed for many for the reraission of sins." It was
shed although it was at the time running in his veins. He gave it at
that time to his apostles to drink. You will say that is impossible.
Are )-ou able to limit the .power of the omnipotent God and to say he
cannot do so ? In another place, Mark xiv. 24, he says again, " This
is my blood of the New "Testament which is shed for raany." In
1 Cor. xi. 24,* St. Paul says, "This is my body which is broken for
you." By the sarae power by which he created the world out of
nothing, he changed the substance of the bread and wine intp his
body and blood. A far less difficult thing than making the world.
He changed water intd wine, Moses' rod into a serpent, the waters pf
the Nile into blood. If all this was easy to him, he could find no
difficulty in changing bread and wine into his body and blopd.
" In these passages Mr. Hughes quoted from the Protestant version, which
there differs from the Boman Catholic.

124 THIRD DAY'S DISCUSSION.
We have his own words. " Unless ye eat my flesh and drink my
blood ye have no Ufe in you." He said this a year before he died.
The night before his crucifixion he took bread and said, "thisis my
body." Was that a time to deceive mankind, without correcting their
error ? If he spoke figvratively, he had no opportunity of correcting
their error.
Mr. Stoney did not say a single word in reply to these difficulties.
St. Paul and Christ say, "this is my bedy." Mr. Stpney says it is
not. Christ says, " this is my blood." Mr. Stoney says it is nnt.
Which are we to believe ? Mr. Stoney or our Divine Redeeraer ?
He does not comprehend it and therefore he rejects it ; on the same
ground he should reject the Trinity.
I will give you the words of a learned Protestant divine upon the
Eucharist. He shows that we are not to bring this question to the
testimony of our senses, if we can prove that it is the decided, re-
¦vealed, positive will of God — that it should be treated in the same
way as the Trinity. These are the words of Faber, when arguing on
this subject. " The doctrine of transubstantiation, like the doctrine of
the Trinity is a question notof abstract reasoning but of pure evidence.
We believe the revelation of God to be essential and unerring truth.
Our business, therefore, most plainly is, not to discuss the abstract
absurdity and the imagined contradictions of transubstantiation, but to
inquire, according to the best means which we possess, whether it be
indeed a doctrine of Holy Scripture."*
Now what he there says of the Trinity also applies to the sacrifice
of the mass. The real presence is not a doctrine that you are to dis
cuss by reason, because if you apply reason to the Trinity you must
reject it.
Mr. Stoney could not prove the Trinity, and then called on me to
prove it. I say, if you take absolute reason for your guide to prove
mysteries you must fail. They must be tried by pure revelation,- and
if this be for them, you are bound to believe them though above rea
son, if the revelation be clear. You raust subrait to the will of God
and say, incomprehensible are his judgments and unsearchable are his
ways. Mr. Stomy talks of Mr. Nolan. He need not appeal to the divinity
of Larry Nolan, who for his unlimited ignorance was rejected by Mr.
Stoney's own bishop ; who, after having exarained him, said, the man
knows nothing; go off Sir.
This is the authority he brings against the doctrines of the CathoUc
Church. It shows how badly off Mr. Stoney was for arguments, when
he labours lo obtain ihe assistance of sweet Larry JVb/an— that repudi
ated, rejected, scouted popish priest. But ray time is limited. Mr.
Stoney's first objection is, that it is absurd to say that Christ was twice
offered — once on Thursday, and again on Friday. It is not for us to
judge whether it is absurd or not ; but did Christ say it ? and if he did,
we ought not to say he did not do it. That is the way to argue ; he
said it, and 1 believe him. There is no proof, Mr. Stpney says, that
• Faber's Difficulties of Eonianism. B. 1, chap. 4, p. 55.

MR. STONEY'S SECOND SPEECH. 125
Christ commanded his apostles lo offer up the sacrifice of the mass.
He said, " do this in coramemoration of rae." Do the very thing that
I do. Malachi foretold that a pure sacrifice was lo be offered up with
incense. Is there any other sacrifice offered up with incense
but the mass sacrifice ? Not one. In another pl.ice it is said,
present yourselves a living sacrifice. There is no resemblance, Mr.
Stoney says ; it is figurative. The scriplure says, we are all gods.
Are we all gods ? No ; but we are like God ; God is a pure spirit, and
we possess like him the three great faculties of memory, understanding,
and will. The sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving and of a pure
heart were always oft'ered. Christ said, this is my blood shed for the
reraission of sins ; but he did not say, offer up a pure sacrifice of
prayer, and sins will be forgiven. Mr. Sioney had not the merit of
meeting Gen. xiv. which tells us of Melchisedek offering bread and
wine. And why ? Because he was priest of the Most High God.
He could not have brought it out for the refreshraent of Abrahara's
army, because they were laden with substance, and did not want food.
Then why did he bring it out? Because he was a priest. And
Christ was to be made a priest after the order of Melchisedek. 1 call
upon Mr. Stoney to show me where Melchisedek offered a sacrifice
but in this instance. He must have offered some description of sacri
fice, and he cannot show me that he offered any other. Christ is a
priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek ; for David says, " Thou
art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek. St. Paul also says,
that he was a priest after the order of Melchisedek. It is also said,
that there is no resemblance between bread and wine, and the flesh
and blood of Christ. I know there is not. But does it therefore
follow, that Christ could not change bread and wine into his body and
blood. He has declared " This is my body." Therefore it was not
bread, though it bore the appearance of bread. It is usual in Scrip
ture, to call a thing by the name which it had before it was changed ;
as in the caseof Aaron's rod, which was changed into a serpent, and the
waters of Egypt into blood ; in the sarae raanner the bread is called
bread after consecration.
(Here Mr. Hughes' time expired.)
Mr. STONEY— Mr. Hughes has found fault with the Rev. Mr. Nolan,
but ke can say nothing against the Rev. Mr. Burke.
Mr. Hughes — Par nobUe fratrum !
Mr. Stoney — Mr. Hughes' letter is on record, eulogizing the Rev.
Mr. Burke, and declaring that the imputations raised against him were
false. Mr. Hughes— It is a palpahle falsehood.
Mr. Stoney — Dean Burke, of Westport, also wrote in testimony of
the high character and Christian conduct of Mr. Burke. Before he left
the Church of Rome, he doubted whether there was any sacrifice in
the raass. Now as intention was necessary, there was no transubstan
tiation ; consequently nP sacrifice. Therefpre the wafer was an idol.

126 THIRD DAY'S DISCUSSION.
and the worshippers were cpramitting idplatry. Mr. Hughes talks pf
Aarpn's rod ; but as that subject was settied on Saturday, we may
leave it with Bryan Belger and his jaunting car.
I ask this question. What becomes of the sacrifice after it is offered
up? I have an authority that Mr. Hughes will respect. It is not that
of "an apostate" Roman Catholic Priest, but the authority ofthe
Roman Missal, which states what becomes of this glorious sacrifice
for the sins of the living and the dead, andotker necessities. If a man
goes to a Roraan Catholic priest, to Mr. Hughes suppose, and gives him
a pound, or a certain sum of money 
Mr. Hughes. — Order. Mr. Loftus, 1 insist on prder.
Mr. Loftus. — That has no connection with the question, which is,
the truth of the sacrifice of the mass.
Mr. Nangle. — I did not interrupt Mr. Hughes when he was out of
order. Mr.Stoney is not at all out of order. One of the most powerful
arguments connected with the sacrifice ofthe raass is that relative to
the money that is received for it.
(Shouts and cries of drag hira out of that.)
Ara I to understand that Mr. Stoney is not tp be allpwed tP gp
on. Mr. Loftus. — He is tp confine hiraself tP the sacrifice pf the
raass. Mr. Nangle. — If any subject cpnnected with the sacrifice pf the
raass is intreduced, it is quite legitimate tp use it.
Mr. Lpftus. — If the subject is connected with it I agree with you.
Mr. Hughes. — There is Colonel Fitzgerald there. You may call
on hira to decide the question.
Mr. Nangle. — I will chopse the persen I please tp be my umpire.
Ypu can chcose Colonel Fitzgerald if you wish. I have already chosen
a gentleman. Mr. Hughes. — ^Well I call on lira as ray umpire.
Colonel Fitzgerald — 1 ara here merely as an auditpr, and I
beg leave to decUne interfering on either side. I thank, ypu Mr.
Hughes, fer your good opinion.
(After some further conference Mr. Stoney was allowed to prpceed.)
Mr. Stoney.— I wiU now tell you what becomes of this sacrifice
after it is offered. Mr. Nolan informs us these words are said by the
priest : "May thy body adhere to my bowels .'" The glorious dignity
and majesty of godhead taken into the stomach of a filthy creature
who prays that it may adhere to his bowels ! Absurd consequence !
Therefore it is not a Scripture doctrine. We are tpld in the Missal
that after the sacrifice of the mass is completed, and the Lord Jesus
Christ taken into the storaach of a priest, he may again be thrown off
his stomach, and is to be eaten again unless top nausepus ! Will any
man beUeve a dpctrine so contrary to the dignity and gbry of the Lord
Jesus Christ.
These are the wprds : « Si sacerdps evpmat eucharistiam : si species
integrae appareant, reverenter sumantur, nisi nausea fiat tunc enim
species conseciatse caute separentur et in aliquo loco sacro reponantur.

MR. STONEY'S SECOND SPEECH. 127
Quod si species non appareant, cumburatut vomitus et cineres in
sacrarium projiciantur.'' " If the priest vomits the eucharist : if the
species appear whole let them be eaten reverently, unless it turns his
stomach : in that case let the consecrated species be cautiously separa
ted and put up in some sacred place. But if the species do not appear,
let the vomit be burned, and the ashes thrown into a sacred place."
We are told also that if the wafer were broken into a thousand pieces,
each particle would contain the whole body, blood, soul, and divinity
of Christ.
In another place the Missal admits, that a mouse can nibble and e^t
the body of Christ. If this be true according to the doctrine of the
Council of Trent, at every nibble the mouse separates a whole body of
Christ ! Was ever such a raonstrous absurdity 1 !
Oh, says Mr. Hughes, it is a raatter of pure revelation, and we must
helieve it ! It is above our senses, and contrary to reason like the Trin
ity ; as he endeavours to prove by placing three books on the table
and asking how they could be said- to be one. That is a poor weak ar
gument of Mr. Hughes. Let him send them to the bookbinder and he
wUl make one of three, and then what becomes of his beautiful illus
tration ? I believe the Trinity because it is revealed. If this doctrine
were revealed I would believe it, but it is not revealed.
I have shpwn that the sacrifice spoken of by Malachi, is one of
praise and thanksgiving — of continual prayer — of alms and good
works : this is a sacrifice which all true believers offer. But I have
proved that there is no sacrificing priest in the Christian dispensation.
The Rev. Mr. Burke's character is I believe not impugned 
Mr. Hughes. — He is a raost infamous ruffian.
Mr. Stoney. — ^The Church of Rome says there is no sacrifice where
intention is wanting. There was no sacrifice in Westport while he
was officiating. This shows what a sea of uncertainty the people are
in. They do not know whether they are worshipping an idol or not.
Mr. Hughes speaks of Aaron's rod being called a rod after it was
changed into a serpent. That is true, but there could be no mistake,
as the senses inform them that it was a serpent.
There would be sorae speciousness in this arguraent, if Moses said
do not believe your senses : though it appears a serpent, it is a rod
still. Mr. Hughes speaks of Archbishop Wake and Bishop Bull. I beg to
leave thera with the Rev. J. Roache and Bryan Bolger's £600. I
would not beUeve Wake and BuU, if their sentiments were not accord
ant to the oracles of God. I beUeve the Athanasian creed, not because
of its antiquity, or the authority of its author, but because it agrees
with the word of God. I am not bound to believe every thing that a
bishop says, though 1 ara bound to obey him in all lawful things. The
holy Bible, not bishops and councils is my standard ; and that is hetter
than all the liturgies Mr. Hughes has enumerated.
We are told that Abrahara gave Melchisedek spoils of the kings, and
therefore he did not require bread and wine. Where is the prppf that
Abraham pr Melchisedek pffered a sacrifice of bread and winetp Gpd ?
It is indeed said that he brought forth bread and wine, Oh, says Mr.

128 THIRD DAY'S DISCUSSION.
Hughes, he raust have pffered them tP Gpd ! Where is the proof pf
this ?
St. Paul says npt one word of this ; though he tells us Melchisedek
was a priest, yet he says not one word of a sacrifice of bread and wine,
throughout the 7th chapter of Hebrews. It is perfectiy clear that if St.
Paul taught such a doctrine, he would have introduced it there.
Mr. Hughes has referred to Heb. xiii. 10 : "We have an altar
whereof they have no right to eat, which serve in the tabernacle." This,
says he, must be the Roman altar. What an extraordinary argument I
Because St. Paul says these words, we raust believe that the sacrifice of
the raass is to be offered. In speaking of the altar whereof the Jewish
priests had no right to eat, St. Paul was showing the distinction between
the dispensation of Christ and the Jewish sacrifices : but this has no
thing to say to the sacrifice of the ma--s, because the apostle had, a liule
before, declared, that the sacrifice oi Christ was to be but once offered;
and 1 have shown that the mass is contrary to innumerable passages of
holy writ.
Again he refers us to Rev. v. 6, 10 : " And I beheld, and, lo, in the
midji of the throne and the four bLasts, and in the midst of the elders,
stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes,
which are the seven spirits of God sent forth into all the earth  And
hasl made us unto our God kings and priests ; and we shall reign on
the earth." Did he constitute yoii as kings ? Are you to reign over
us? If you take the passage literally in one place, why not in the
other? Are you kings, O ye priests? Are you to lord it over God's
heritage ? This surely has nothing to do with the sacrifice of the~mass.
These two passages are satisfactorily answered ; and I have now an
swered every argument brought forward.
I will not answer his imaginary Uturgies. Whether they are genuine
or not I do not know. Some of them are spurious. I have no author
ity but the Bible, which is above all creedi', councils, and popes. If
these liturgies are true, the Bible is not. But they are no more to be
relied on than the writings of Archbishop Wake, bishop Bull, or any
other human authority. The greatest part of Mr. Hughes' arguments
are taken from human authority — mine are from the Scriptures.
I have proved that there is a great indignity offered to Christ by the
pretended sacrifice of the mass. I have proved that some Roman Ca
tholic priests did not believe that doctrine. (Shouts and groans.) Yes,
more than Mr. Nolan and Mr. Burke, have dropped from the church of
Rome, and why ? — Because ihey did not believe that the sacrifice of
the mass is sanctioned by the 9th and ] 0th of Hebrews. They did
not see any authority in the Scriptures, to induce tbem to believe that
they could call down God out of his glorious kingdom to be offered up
again as a sacrifice, by one of his creatures.
f A laugh from the priests.]
Yes, Gentlemen, it may be a subject of merriment to you ; but
throughput eternity it will be a subject of rejoicing tp thera that they
have becorae worshippers of Christ instead of a wafer. He is the rock.
(Here Mr, Stpney 's tirae expired.)

MR. HUGHES' THIRD SPEECH. 129
Mr. HUGHES — Gentlemen, Mr. Stoney and I have met here, not for
the purpose of abusing one another ; but for the purpose of putting
our arguments in defence of our religious tenets, into the scale of
Fublic judgment. I have adhered to this. Ihave not digressed : for
have not called reverend Gentlemen a parcel of hypocrites. What
strength or force is there in that ? I have not caUed the Protestant
clergymen lying hypocrites. I ask you, Mr. Stoney, what are my
clergymen doing to you ? They are here to-day and have not inter
rupted you, nor been called to order as you have. I will not say what
spirit you are in when you were not ashamed to designate priests of
the church of Rome as lying hypocrites, doing what their consciences
told thera is not true. I did not come here to abuse you and your
brother clergymen. It is not my practice.
I gave twelve liturgies, and offered thirty-six more. What are they ?
They are the forms of prayer used more than 1800 years ago. I
proved that they were written by the twelve apostles of the Lord Jesus
Christ. These liturgies are not like the words of any clergyman. The
Protestant minister may preach what he likes, but he cannot alter the ,
Ulurgy. Lex orandi, lex credendi — ^the law of prayer is the law of belief.
These liturgies prove the real presence, transubstantiation, and the
sacrifice ofthe mass. They say, "come down, heavenly Father, and
change this bread aud wine into thy body and blood." Because they
bring such a flash of rational conviction on the mind, Mr. Sioney says,
he would not believe them. He is afraid of the truth. Qui male agit
odit lucem.
We are kings and priests. Oh, yes : Christ was a king, a prophet,
and a priest, according to the ordfr of Melchisedek. Mr. Stpney says,
St. Paul said nothing of the bread and wine. The priesthood exercised
by Christ is established to the end of the world. How long? For a
day ? No : nor fbr a thousand years.
These are the words of St. Paul, regarding the eucharist, 1 Cor.xi.
23 — 27 : "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered
unto you. That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed
took bread: and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and. said.
Take, eat ; this is my body, which is broken for ypu ; this do in re
membrance of me. After the same manner also, he took the cup when
he had supped, saying. This cup is the new testament in my blood ;
this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remerabrance of me. For as often
as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death
tiU he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat ibis bread, and drink
this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood
of the Lord." How could he be guilty of the body and blood of the
Lord, if Ihey were not in it. If it was "a pure wafer how could they be
guUty of the Jews' crime ? He says further, " Let a man examine
himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. For
he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation
to himself, not discerning tbe Lord's body."
Hpw cpuld he incur such a frightful condemnation, if there was
pothing ip it but bread and wine. If that were the case, we wpuld
I

m THIRD DAY'S DISCUSSION.
incur damiiation at the eating pf our meals. Why would he be damned
fdr not discerning the Lprd's bpdy, if the Lprd's bpdy were npt in it?
Mr. Stpney says, St. Paul did net say a word of the sacrifice of the
ihass, he did not, when he was speaking of Melchisedek tp the He
brews, but he says in the 5th chapter and 7th verse, " Theu art a
priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek.''
St. Paul at this time was talking to the Hebrews, and he did not Uke
to tell them what he teld the Cerinthians, about the body and blood of
Christ The Hebrews were not yet edified nor enlightened enough in
the principles of the Christian religion, and he would not speak to them
as he did to the Corinthians. They were not prepared for that. He
told thera they had need of milk and not of strong meat. Milk raeans
the siraple rudiraents of the Christian religion, and strong raeat its
sublirae mysteries, such as the mysteries of the eucharist, and baptism.,
How water can wash out the spots and stains of original sin. Strong
meat was Suited to those who were duly instructed, and educated, and
could know the difference between the Christian dispensation, and the
practices of the Jews. But he tells them to the Corinthians in strong
terms. Mr. Stpney says, he wpuld not believe Archbishop Wake, and bishop
Bull. Yet they were divines of his own church. They say that these
liturgies were formed by St. Mark, St. John, and St. James, and that
where all agree together they show what the doctrine of that tirae was.
He speaks ef three books being bound into one book ; but this is
not the case with the Trinity. If three books were bound into one
they would be no Ipnger three but one. But in the Trinity we have
one God, in three persons. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This an
nihilates his argument.
Well : he also says that a mouse raay carry away t? e Saviour of the
¦wprld — that he raay be vpraited frpra the stpraach of a pr! 3st. Gopd
Gpd. Christ did rapre than that fpr Us. He was dragged, spit upon,
^nd scoffed at. The Jews threw the filthy phlegm of Iheir filthy sto-
jnachs upon his divine face. They struck hira with the palms of their
hands, and then said, who beat you? They abused hira and nailed
him to a cross until he expired there.
'When he said, " ego sura," his Jewish enemies iramediately fell on
their backs, and could not get up until he allpwed them. Then he
avewed his omnipotence. They spit upon him — they put an old purple
garment round him— they lacerated his head with thorns. He suffered
all this because of his love tp that man there. Is that your gratitude ?
(Shputs and groans.) Is that the way you repay him ? You follow
the Jews, who said to him. Ha, ha, come down from the cross, and we
¦twill beheve thee to be the Son of God. But he suffered more igno
miny. Thoiigh the Sen of God, yet in his humiUation, for his love^o
Us, be becarae the picture pf wretchedness, and misery, crying out
" was ever'grief like untp ray grief?" (Great shouting.) Mr. Stoney
says it is cpntrary tp reason, and I wiU not believe it. This is the im
pious argument ofthe blasphemous Socinian and Deist.
He speaks of Mr. Burke, and says, he was not suspended. He was
suspended by Dr, Burke, Bishop of Elphin, twenty times, and morei

MR. STONEY'S THIRD SPEECH 131
He is a most infamous character. It is a pcpr thing to attempt to prove
citty thing by a man who was suspended so many times. 'ef^
He says, a mouse can run away with the body of Christ. Christ's
body was sown a natural, and was raised a spiritual body. Do yo'tii
knpw the properties of a spiritual body ? — No : ypu do not. He says,
Christ sitteth at the right hand of God, never to depart from thence,
till the last day ; yet, Christ appeared to St. Paul, when going down
tp Daraascus, and said, " Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou rae ?" St.
Paul tumbled from his horse, and said, Who art thou Lord ? When
Christ was talking with him, he was at the right hand. Christ com
pared himself to a lily, a rose, &c. These comparisons involve myste
ries which are beyond the human inteUect.
[Here Mr. Hughes' tirae expired.]
I was prepared to meet aU his objections ; I offerfed to give him
twenty rainutes, if he would give rae the same.
Mr. STONEY.— With respect to the liturgies which Mr. Hughes
has offered to send to me, I beg to state, that I do riot want thera, as I
have the Holy Scriptures. If he cannot prove his dograa of the sa
crifice of the raass, frpm the word of God, he cannot prove it from the
liturgies. With respect tp the raouse, it is no slander of mine. We have not
invented this and the other absurdities, which I have brought forward.
They are part and parcel of the Roraan Missal.
Mr. Hughes has spoken of the glory of Christ.. Now I beg to ask,
when did his hurailiation end ? It raust be adraitted on all hands that
his humiliation and sufferings ended, when he arose frora the dead.
But the priests of the church pf Rome, if the raass sacrifice be true,
put him tP more humiliation and suffering than ever the Jews did ;
and this not once or twice, but every day in the year.
Mr. Hughes says, Mr. Burke was suspended twenty times. If so,
why did he receive the approving letter of the Very Rev. Dean Burke,
and of the Rev. Mr. Hughes.
Mr. Hughes. — I did not. I deny it. It is a Ue !
Mr. Stone^^. — Mr. Hughes says, Christ is seated at the right hand
of God. This is true, and therefore he is not in the mass. I wiU
recapitulate ray proofs, that the sacrifice of the mass is opposed to
Scripture. Christ comraanded his apostles to preach the gospel, but
not to say mass. Had he done so, ministers of the gospel would have
been called 'lepeis, that is, sacrificing priests ; but there is no siich
thing. And as there is no sacrificing priest, there is no sacrifice.
The Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles, mention no
such thing as a mass sacrifice. They refer to the one pffering of Christ,
as the only sacrifice fOr sin. Of this St. Paul ^ays, Heb. ix. 24 — 28,
"For Christ is npt entered intp the holy places made with hands, which
ate the figures of the true ; but intp heaven itself, now to appear in the
Sresence of Gpd for us : nor yet that he should offer himself often, as
le high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of
others : for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of
i2

132 THIRD DAY'S DISCUSSION.
the world ; but now once in the end of the worid bath he appeared to
put away sin by the sacrifice pf himself. And as it is apppinted unto
men once to die, but after this the judgment ; so Christ was once
offered to bear the sins of many ; and unto them that look for him shaU
he appear the second lime without sin unto salvation." The Holy
Spirit declares, that by this one sacrifice the believer is for ever per
fected ; that every priest standeth daily ministering, and offering often
times the sarae sacrifices, which can never lake away sins : but this
man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on
the right hand of God." — Heb. x. 11,12. There he remains, and will
remain, untU he comes again at the last day.
Again in the I4th verse, "By one offering he hath perfected forever
them that are sanctified." Mark how the Spirit of God repeats ihis
testimony to the oneness of Christ's sacrifice ; and adds, that of this " the
Holy Ghost also is a witness to us : for after that he had said before,
This is the covenant that I will make with thera after those days, saith
the Lord, I will put ray laws into their hearts, and in their minds will
I write them ; and their sins and their iniquities will I remeraber no
more. Now where remission of these is, there is no raore offering for
sin." No more offering for sin! Therefore there is no raass offering. If
the mass be true, this is false. If this be true, the mass is false. ,,,,
I have thus defended my statements by the Bible. Mr. Hughes
attempts to support his by Uturgies and Protestant authorities.
Mr. Hughes. — He beUes us. He is telling lies ! 1 do, and by tbe
Bible loo.
Mr. Stoney. — If the Epistle to the Hebrews be true, there is no
mass sacrifice ; if it be not true, there is. Its testimony is directjthat
there is no more offering for sin. What raore is needed ? The atoue-
raent is finished — the satisfaction is done — blessed be God.
I have proved that the raass is dishonouring to the sacrifice and
priesthood of Christ. It denies the perfection of his sacrifice. As
the Mosaic sacrifices were shown lo be imperfect by their repetition,
so the repetition ofthe m;tss sacrifice casts a shade of imperfection on
the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, and throws a doubt on its suffi
ciency. If no guilt remains there is no more need of a sin offering.
I have proved that into the Holy of Holies tbe High Priest alone
entered, prefiguring the atonement raade by Christ, with which no
creature was associated. But the priests of Rorae associate others with
him in the sacrifice ofthe mass, and thus dishonour him.
I have proved that the sacrifice of the mass is destructive to the soul's
of men, by making the intention of the priest necessary to the validity
of (he offering. Every Roman Catholic is in a sea of uncertainty. He
has no assurance whether the change is really effected or not. " If,"
says the Roman Missal, " there be 1 1 hosts, and that the priest intends
to consecrate only 10, not determining which 10 he intended, there is
no consecration, because intention is necessary." I ask then how
can a Roman CathoUc know whether a consecration takes place or not ?
All is dependant on the priest's intention ! and I have proved on the
testimony of men who would be beUeved in a cpurt pf justice, hpwe-
ver they ma^ be abused here, that when actually priests of tbe Church

MR. STONEY'S THIRD SPEECH. 133
of Rome, they officiated without intending to consecrate, and therefore
every Roman Catholic present was guilty of idolatry in worshipping as
God a wretched piece of flpur and water ! The mass sacrifice deprives
the sinner pf all communion with God : because the intention of the
priest being necessary, it involves all in uncertainty. The people can
never know whether they have been partakers of the benefits of the
mass to a sufficient amount lo bring them to heaven. This made Bryan
Bolger leave so large a sum of money, because he was uncertain how
many masses would do his business. The doctrine of the Church of
Rome is, therefore, contrary to the word of God, as it deprives the
sinner of the comfort of assurance. Oh how different is the state of
his soul who depends on the one great Sacrifice for sins revealed in the
Bible. He is sure his sins are pardoned, because that blessed book
tells hira, " their sins and iniquities wiU I remember no more." His
hopes are founded upon an imraoveable rock — " the Lord is his rock
and his fortress" — his soul is meet for heaven because "the blood of
Christ has cleansed hira frora all sin." He is depending on an atone
ment which needs no repetition — a satisfaction which is finished. Happy
man ! He is certain that his prayers are heard, because " he has an
advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." On the other
hand, hpw unhappy is the condition of the man who depends upon the
priest's raass. He must ever be immersed in a sea of uncertainty, bein"
unable to tell whether there has been a consecration, or whether he
has had a sufficient number of masses.
There was a gentleman travelling lately pn the cpntinent. Inthe course
of his travels he went to the city of Rome. He was an American cler
gyman, and had the curiosity to go into a Roraan Catholic chapel, on
a festival of some saint — a period when, as a special favour to the people,
hosts, consecrated by the Pope, were given Uberally and abundantly
to thera. When the vessel, containing these hosts, came to him, the
Rev. gentleman was not satisfied with taking one ; he took six, and
here is one of thera, (lifting the host over his head).
Mr. Hughes. — It was only blessed bread. Ah ! you blasphempus
animal — ypu !
Mr. Stoney. — (Cpntinuing tp hpld it up). Look at it; and see if
it is not a wafer.
(Shputs, yells, and great disorder.)
^r. Hughes. — Beys, will ypu let rae speak.
(Continued shouting.)
Mr. Stoney — As you are npt satisfied with a hpst from Rpme,
here is ore consecrated by Mr. Hughes himself. (Holding up another.)
Mr. Hughes  Who stole it out of my ciborium f
A Voice.— ^The blasphemous heretic.
{Great shouting. Criesof drag hira down, &c. &c.)
¦; 'Mr. Hughes. — What Protestant went to my chapel and stole it ?
Mr. Stoney. — Prove it to be God and I will worship it.
[Great clamour. Shouts of turn him out of that. During which
Mr. Stoney held up the Bible in one hand, and the hosts in the other ;
and asked which would they have : saying, "there is the word ofthe
living God, and there is ihe idol dagon.'' During a considerable

134 THIRD DAY'S DISCUSSION.
time the Bible and the hosts were held up amid shouts, groans, and
imprecatiens frora the priests and their supporters.]
Mr. Loftus  Mr. Hughes calls for a proof of the genuineness of
that fiost.
Mr. Hughes. — Shew rae the raan that stole it.
Mr. Nangle.— If you do not be subject to the chair I wiU leave
Jthis. You have no right to interrupt Mr. Stoney. [At this stage of
jhe proceedings Mr. Hughes was standing on the table on vvhich he
had leaped when the host was produced. All order was forgotten, and
the priests and people were crowded about the bench and table. Mr.
Stoney occupying a conspicuous station in the gallery where the jury
box is placed, having the coraraand of the entire court house.]
Mr. Stoney. — I ask can this be turned intp God. Put your hand
forth and make a God of it, and 1 will fall down and worship it.
Mr. Hughes. — Here is Mr. Stoney's challenge in which he said he
would prove the host to be consecrated by the Pope.
Mr. Stoney. — The Rev. Mr. Hall is the clergyman's name who took
the host from among those handed round in the Roman Catholic cha
pel in Rome. He got it as a consecrated host. It has just the form
of consecrated hosts ; having the figure of Christ stamped op it, and
the letters I. H. S. with the other usual emblems. Mr. Hall sent it to
me and here it is. Prove it now to be God ! (Hqlding it up,)
Mr. Hughes. — ^You have given no prppf that jt has been cense-
crated. Mr. Stoney. — I gpt it through Dr. Macadam, of Dublip.
A Voice. — He got it from the devU.
Mr. Stoney. — He did not, nor from the Pope either; he got it from
Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hughes. — You are treating the Protestants of Newport very
badly. You ought to tell me what Protestant stole it out of my cibo
rium, or I will say it is one of your stories. God help the flock that
are trusting to you.
Mr. Stoney. — God help the flock that are depending on a wafer.
It is not God. It is made with hands.
Mr. Hughes — We do not worship a wafer. We beUeve that Christ
is in it. Tell rae the raan's narae that stole it.
(Great shouting.)
Mr. Nangle.— Who would protect the life of that man.
Mr. Hughes. —That blasphemy is not fit to be exhibited.
Mr. Stoney. — What blasphemy ?
Mr. Hughes.— What we believe to be the Lord Jesus Christ.
Mr. Stoney. — Christ is not in this.
Mr. Hughes.— If St. Paul brought Dorcas to life, he did not do it
by his own power, but by Christ's. The priest does not do it hy his
own power ehher. He is foUowing the commands of Christ, y/lpq said,
" Dp this in coramemoration of me." We do what he did ; and only
foUow his example. 'That power and benedictipn by which we conse
crate the host is derived from him, who is incapable of being deceived
himself or deceiving others.
Mr. Stoney.—" They be no gpds that are made vtrith hands."

MR. STONEY'S THIRD SPEECH. 135
Mr; Hughes. — TeU rae that man's name who stole it.
Mr. Nangle- — I do protest against the question being answered,
for the life of the raan would not be safe.
Mr. Stoney. — I will give his narae if assured of protection.
Mr. Loftus. — I protest against Mr. Stoney's producing that boat
unless he gives proof, of where he got it. If he refuses, we will leave
the public to judge of the matter.
Mr. Nangle. — As Mr. Stoney's chairman, I say that he was only
pledgedi'.to show that the wafer came frora Rome. He has given the
name of the person who got it there, and having done so he has ful
filled his pledge. He has done so to the satisfaction pf every reaspn-
able man.
Mr. Loftus.— -On Mr, Hughes' part we protest against the injustice
of withholding the authority for the genuineness of the wafer alleged
tP have been blessed by Mr. Hughes.
Mr. Stoney — That would be dangerpus tp the raan's life.
A Voice. — So it ought.
Mr. Loftus. — ^That is an imputation on you all, and I will not allow
it to be thrown on you, without entering my protest and the protest of
every man here against it.
Mr. Hughes. — Let me suppose that that host is a bona fide pne.
What follows ? Does it follow that if it was consecrated by rn? that
Christ is not in -it ? No : for when Christ was pn the crpss did he
show his div'nity ?
Mr. Nangle. — ^You are out of order, Mr. Hughes.
Mr. Hughes.— The day will come when he will inflict judgment on
you as he did on the Jews.
Mr. Stoney. — I am not afraid of a piece of paste.
Mr. Hughes. — He told infamous lies of the Council pf Trent. He
told four lies on the last day ; and you need net be surprised at his
blaspheray in producing the wafer.
Mr. Loftus.— Mr. Hughes cpntinues to call for proof.
Mr. Nangle. — Let it go to the public as it is.
Mr. Loftus. — We will not allow Mr. Stoney to go on until he pro
duces the proof.
Mr. Stoney. — ShaU I go on. (Shouts and interruption.)
Mr. Hughes. — I will settle it now. He was called on for proof
and could not give it. I will not let him out of ray clutches.
Mr. Stoney. — I have shown that it is not to be worshipped — ^that
it is not God, and cannot be offered for the sins of the living and the
dead. The 9th and 10th of Hebrews has settied the question. That
proof has not been atterapted to be replied to. (Great shouting.)
You would like tostop ray raouth, but you cannpt stopthe wPrd of God,
which teaches us that there is no truth in the mass sacrifice — ^that it is the
invention of men. " The workman made it, therefore it is not God." It
subjects Christ to the most atrocious and abominable indignities. After
his ascension into glory, it drags hira down again, to enter the filthy
storaach of one of his creatures to be again ejected in helpless irapotence,
subjecting, before all the worid to the most abominable poUutions and
indignities, the glorious person of the Lord and Saviour Jegus Christ.

136 THIRD DAY'S DISCUSSION;
I have stated, on the authority of Roman Catholic priests that there
are masses for barren women.
Mr. Hughes.— I adrait it. If a woman had no children, there
might be a mass offered up for her : but that is not a barren mass.
Mr-. Stoney  The Lord Jesus Christ to be brought down from the
realms of glory, to be offered by a priest, in order that a woman may
have children !
I have the evidence of an eye-witness, who saw half-a-crown paid
to a priest, to offer up the body, blood, soul, and divinity of the Lord
Jesus Christ to cure a sick cow ! What a monstrous indignity !
I have established the truth of the all-sufficiency of the one sacrifice
of Christ ; and I hope the grace and mercy of God will enable you lo
trust in that one sacrifice, and abandon the false and idolatrous vtrorship
of a wafer.
Let us come, then, to Christ, for the pardon of our sins. Let us be
lieve on him for justification.
(Cries of oh ! oh ! from the priests.)
You do not like that doctrine, gentlemen, and you cry oh I oh ! be
cause it would interfere with your gains. Like a gentleman of old, who
made silver shrines for Diana ; and when Paul went amongst them
preaching the true God, he and his fellow-craftsmen cried out that
their goddess was in danger.
A Priest. — Like the gentieman who made silver cradles for Johanna
Southcote. Mr. Stoney. — I have endeavoured, according to the ener^ which
God has given me, to set the truth before you. I have no wish to
offend, but I feel it necessary, absolutely necessary, to call on you,
gentiemen, as Elijah did upnn the priests of Baal, to prove your wafer
to be God, and I will worship it.
(Here the discussion ofthis question closed.)

SECOND QUESTION.
THE NUMBER OF SACRAMENTS.
Mr. LoFTUs — Mr. Stoney, at the period ofthe Protestant Reforma
tion the doctrine of the seven Sacraments was held by the Catholic
Church all over the world. Of these, five have been rejected by the
Protestant church : I call upon you to justify that rejection.
Mr. STONEY.— I beg to apologize to this meeting for not speaking,
for some little lime, loud enough to be heard by all present. I shall
however, endeavour to make my voice as audible as possible.
On the first;day of our meeting we had an infidel brought forward
in conjunction with tbe Church of Rome to oppose the Protestant reli-

MR. STONEY'S FIRST SPEECH. 137
gion. They came hand in hand tpgether. On the second day (he
Presbyterian and the Baptist were sent against rae. I acknowledge the
Presbyterian and the Baptist to be ray dear brethren in Christ. Having
answered all their objectipns, I sent them back tothe source which had
needed their assistance in endeavouring tp overturn the Protestant
Church. I commence my observations this day, by saying, as before, that the
objections raade against rae are frivolous. The Sacraments of Baptism
and the Lord's Supper are not in themselves frivolous ; they are highly
important : but as brought forward on this occasion, they are frivolous-
frivolous in comparison with the errors which I have charged upon the
Church of Rome — errors which, if proved, must be acknowledged to be
destructive to the souls and bodies of raen. These charges have been met
by no irapulation of false doctrine of any kind upon my church. How
have the seven deadly errors with which I have charged the Church of
Rome been met ? By calling upon rae to prove things which my op
ponent, with one or two trifling exceptions, believes as well as I do.
Am I not light, therefore, in saying, that a glorious triuraph lo the
Protestant cause has been acceded by my opponent ? All his ingenu
ity aided by the ingenuity of the college of St. Jarlath's (in Tuam)
could bring no proof of error against us. It has not even been im
puted to us.
The proposition put forward by my opponent for our discussion this
day, slates that at the commencement of the Protestant Reformation,
seven sacraments were held by the CathoUc Church all over the worid.
I deny that proposition. I am prepared to prove that tbe doctrine of
the seven sacraments was not held by the Catholic Church, al! over
the world, before the Reformation. It was indeed held by the Church
of Rome — by her Popes and priests ; but it was not held by the Catholic
Church of Christ over the world.
I will read for you the creed of an ancient Christian churcb, long
before the Reformation. I will produce Roman Catholic authorities for
the genuineness of that creed. It is the creed of the ancient Walden-
sian Church, bearing the dale of the 12th century. In the thirteenth
article of this creed of part of the Catholic Church, I find the following*
stateraent, " we achru^ledge no sacraments as of Divine institution,
but two, baptism and the Lord's supper" — therefore, seven sacraments
were not held by the whple Church at the time of the Reformation.
Mr. Hughes will tell me these Waldenses were " poor, pitiful, dirty
apostates," like Mr. Nolan and Mr. Burke ! I will give you the testi
mony of Reinerius, an inquisitor, who was ordered by the bloody
inquisition to root out these Waldenses wilh fire and sword. " Among
all these sects," says Reinerius, " which still are or have been, there is
not any raore pernicious lo the church than the Leonists (Waldenses),
and this for three reasons : — First, because it is older ; for some say
that it has existed frora the time of Sylvester — ot/iers from the time of
the Apostles: Second, Because it is raore general ; for there is sca^rce
any country wherein this sect is not. Third, Because when all other
sects beget horror in the hearers by the outrageousness of their blas
phemies against God, this ofthe Leonists hath a great show of piety.

I3p THIRD DAY—SECOND POINT FOR DISCUSSION.
because they live justiy before raen, and believe all things rightly con
cerning God, and all the articles which are contained in the creed,
only they blaspheme the Church of Rome and the clergy, whom the
raultitude of the laity is easy lo believe. Reiner, Contra Haeret, cap.
iv. p. '54. Here is the testimony of Reinerius, an inquisitor, and an
enemy, who wrote long before the Protestant Reformation. These
Christians say, " we acknowledge no sacrament as of Divine institution,
Jbut baptisra and the Lord's supper." This I think settles that part
of the question. The facts are undeniable, the testimony is conclusive,
my proof is frora the lips of an opponent, that all Christian churches
,3id not hold the doctrine of the seven sacraments.
, , I admit that the Romish Church held thera. I deny that the Catholic
phurch did. I might conclude with these proofs, but I wUl go on.
These two sacraments we admit, because they are distinguished in
the Christian dispensation as instituted by Christ. They possess the
grand requisites of a sacrament ; they are outward and visible signs
of an inward and spiritual grace. 'We admit the sacrament of the
Lord's supper, as a figure and type of the body which was broken,
and the blood which was shed for us ; and baptism with water as a
figure of the inward washing or regeneration of the Spirit of Christ
in his people. We recognize these two as sacraments, but we deny
the other five. We acknowledge matrimony and holy orders, to be
institutions of God. We acknowledge confirmation as a godly disi
cipline but we reject altogether the Romish sacraments, as they are
called, of extreme unction and penance.
I must again refer to the Council of Trent with respect to the sacra
ments. " If any one shall say that the sacraments of the new law
were not all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord ; or are raore or less
than seven, namely. Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance,
Extreme Unction, Orders, and Matrimony; or that sprae ef these
seven are not truly and properly sacraments ; let him be accursed."
lam accursed by the Council of Trent; but if I have the blessing of
God, I fear not her curse. I deny that these are seven sacraments, apd
I submit to the curse of man, trusting to the blessing of God.
, I .will first discuss the sacraments, as they are styled by ray oppo
nent, of extreme unction and penance, which ¦we throv? overboard
altogether. I refer you lo the only passage brought forward in sup
port of this doctrine — James v. 14, 15: "Is any sick among yop?
let hira call for the elders of the church ; and let them pray over him,
anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord : and the prayer of
faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise hira up ; a'nd if he
have committed sins, they shall be forgiven hira." I will now read
Mar!^ vi. 13. " ^^^d they cast put many devils and anointed with oil
many that were sick and healed them." Both these passagesshow lyhat
was the practice of the aposties, they anointed with oil those who were
sick and healed them. Jaraes said, if any pne is sick let him call the
elders (jrpeapvTepoi) not an individual, but the elders and let them
pray over him, anointing hira with oil in the name of the I-ord., 'VYe
find, that the effect of their prayer of faith was, that the Lprd raised
him up. In the 9th chapter pf Jc^hn and the 6th verse, we have a

MR. STONEY'S FIRST SPEECH. 189
prppf, that it was custpmary tp raake use of an outward sign in order
to effect a miraculous cure : " When he had thus speken, he spat on
the ground, and raade clay pf the spittie, and he anointed the eyes of
the bUnd raan with the clay, and said unto him, go, wash in ih^
pool of Siloam, (which is, by interpretation. Sent.) He went his way
therefore, and washed, and came seeing."
I deny that there is any authority for extreme unction, as practiced.
in the Church of Rome. She does not make use pf it until a man is
abput to die, and has no hope of recovery. The anointing spoken of
by St. James, was used for the rairaculous cure of the body. As mi
racles have ceased in the church, the sign is no longer necessary.
There is no possibiUiy of following the practice pow, as we have no
means of accomplishing the cure.
Was Bryan Bolger anointed or not? If he received remission of
sins by it, where was the need of his leaving £700 fpr the repose pf
his soul ?
I now corae to penance, and wUl first explain what the real mean
ing of penance, or, more properly speaking, repentance is. Repent
ance raeans a change of mind. Every schoolboy, even in Roman
Catholic schools, knows that in the GreekTestament, the original word
is fie-raroia, that is, change of mind. It is translated in the Rheraish
Testament and Douay Bible, Do penance, fpr tlie purpose of at
tempting to impose upon man the false dpctrine, that man can make
satisfaction for his own sins. In many places the word is translated
by thera, " do penance," and in others arigh);, tlju^ showing that our
opponents contradict themselves. In Mark i. 15, the Rheraish Tesla^
ment has it, "Repent and believe the Gospel" — and again in Acts v.
31, " Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be prince and
Saviour to give repentanee to Israel and remission of sins.''
It is therefore evident, that il yiras only to bolster up a false jdoctf ine
that the word was translated, " do penance," which corrupts the text.
but their ingenuity was disappointed by translating the yord in sorae
places right, and in sorae wrong. The word (leTavota, as I have said,
means a change of mind, and not the infliction of penal sufferings
uppn the body to make atoneraentfor sin to God.
Every where in Scripture the word is translated repentance, except
where the Church of Rorae corrupted the te?;t to serve her own views.
I ?hall have an ppportunity of recurring to this on my second lime of
addressing you. I now prpceed to the other points. I deny, reject
and renounce these as no sacraments. They are not of Divine insti
tution, and are therefore antiscriptural and uiichristian.
The next fanciful sacrament of the Church of Rpme is, the sacra
ment pfconfirniati'on. 1 admit it, however, to be a godly discipline in
the christian church, apd I heartily approve of jt as such, byt not as a
sacrament, because it wants the essential requisi,tes pf a sacrament. It
has no outward and visible sign, as in Baptisra and the Lord's supper.
It is a godly discipline, and is practised as such in the EstabUshed
Churrh. In Heb. yi. 1, 2 ; we find that the primitive church prac
tised the godly discipline of laying on qf hand^* " Therefore leaving
the principles pf the dpctrine pf Chri'St, let us gp on unto perfection ;

140 THIRD DAY— SECOND POINT FOR DISCUSSION.
not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of
failh towards God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on
of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment."
I admit the rite as such. 1 think the church that practises it, does not
practice any thing in opposition to the word of God. I think it a
beautiful rite, a happy ceremony for admitting a person baptized in
infancy, lo full privileges of the Christian church. I have proVed on
the last day, that when a person becomes of sufficient age, he should
come forward and openly acknowledge and profess his adherence to the
Lord Jesus Christ. There are other passages in the Acts of the Apos
tles, which prove the propriety of the practice of laying on of hands.
But what I have produced is sufficient to warrant us in observing it as
a godly discipline, but not as a sacrament.
Matrimony is my next point. I believe that marriage was instituted
by God in paradise, in the tirae of man's innocency ; and Christ sanc
tified it by his first miracle at Cana of Galilee.
In the 1 9th chapter of Malt, and 5th verse, our Lord impressed bis
divine sanction on the institution of matrimony. " And said, for this
cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife :
and they twain shall be one flesh?" 1 expect sorae proof frora the
opposite side on this subject, and therefore will not now delay, but
content myself with saying, I believe it to be no sacrament. We have
a proof, according to the confession of their own Reinerius, that there
were many spread throughout the world, who adraitted marriage as a
divine institution but not as a sacrament, because it has no outward
sign of an inward and spiritual grace. These "poor, pitiful, dirty
apostates," lived so long ago as the 12th century.
The decree of the Council of Trent says, " if any one shall say that
the sacraments which the church observes are not true, he is accursed.'*
To this I say, it is much hetter to have the curse of the bishop of Rome,
and the Council of Trent, than the curse of God. If the doctrine of
intention be true, and that marriage is a sacrament ; no Roraan Catho
lic can be sure whether he has been raarried or not ; he cannot tell
whether the priest intended to complete the sacrament !
My next point is Ordination. I believe this to be of divine institu
tion ; but what outward sign, and what matter, like those in Baptism
and the Lord's Supper, is there to constitute it a sacrament ? The
Church of Rome may invent some outward sign, but it is not to be
found in the Scripture, In Titus i. 5, and 2 Tim. ii. 2, we have the
authority for ordination, but no hint of any outward sign, or matter,
constituting it a sacrament.
No Roman Catholic can tell whether the individual exercising the
functions of a Roman Catholic priest, is one, because indention was
necessary in the bishop who ordained him; and even though the latter
had intended to do so, yet he might not have had the power, as his own
prdination might have been invalid through a defect in intention. We
might pursue the same line upwards. ' Was there ever such an un
fathomable ocean of uncertainty ? I will now leave these subjects for
another twenty minutes, when I shall have an oppprtunily pf bringin"
Dpminus Dens put pf bis den.

MR. HUGHES FIRST SPEECH. I4l
I shall merely observe, that the Church of Rorae admits the validity
of Protestant baptism.
I admit the validity of baptism, but I deny its absolute necessity.
The thief was not baptized, and yet lie went to heaven ; for Christ said
to him "to-day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Therefore the
Church of Rome is in error. I have now briefly gone through the
seven points in the proposition of my opponent. I have satisfactorily
proved that there are only two, that can be really and properly called
sacraments. I have shown that it is not true — that the whole Catholic
Church at the tirae of the Reformation, held the doctrine of seven sa
craments ; and those who did not believe it were pious and holy men.
Mr. Hughes, indeed, may call them "poor, pitiful, dirty apostates;"
although they were scattered through every part of the Christian
churcb, and existed from the time of the aposties. Like Mr. Nolan,
and Mr. Burke, they held the doctrine of grace, and salvation by Christ,
but they denied that there were any sacraments but two.
(Here Mr. Stoney's tirae expired.)
Mr. HUGHES. — Gentlemen, I request your patient hearing. I have
requested the sarae for Mr. Steney, and if you have not attended to that
request, il is not my fault.
I am after calling upon Mr. Stpney to justify by his rule of faith,
that act of the Protestant reformation —thai act of the Church of Eng
land — of that church vvhich has been established by Act of Parliament,
which has for its head a king or a queen, or an infant of five years, or
five days old, rejecting five of the seven sacraments, which 1 say were
held in every part of tlie Christian world, at the time of the reformation.
These sacraments were celebrated in America at that time, being
propagated by missionaries from Spain. If we go to Africa we will
find the same thing observed by churches in communion with the See
of Rome. This doctrine was admitted throughout Asia, and Europe.
I WlU refer to one of the horaiUes of Mr. Stoney's Church ; stating,
that for 800 years before the Reformation the whole world was over
spread wilh popery, and buried in darkness, idolatry, and superstition.
Here you have the established tact, that over the whole world, east,
west, north, south, the doctrines of popery prevailed.
I will now give you a proof that the seven sacraments, now held by
the Catholic, were also held by the Greek church. Attend. The Greek
church has the sarae mass as we have; and Ihey agree with us in all
things except one or two. Their clergymen marry ; but this is not a
matter of faitfi, but of discipline. They disown the supremacy of the
Pope; though this difference was attempted to be reconciled at the
Council of Constance, where they agreed lo adrait his supremacy, and
lo give up marriage, but the projected union was abandoned, owing to
some persons not wishing to give up the pleasures of the married state.
The Greek church has held seven sacraments for 1400 years. Arius
lived in the year 325 ; at that time the Council of Nice was held, to
condemn the Arian heresy, and to maintain the divinity of Christ: a
division arose between the Latin and the Greek churches ; many of -the
latter being Arians, St. Augustine says that about that time totus mun^

14^ THIRD DAY--SECOND POINT FOR DISCUSSION.
dus getnuit sub Arianismo (the whole world grpjirted under Arianism).
The Cpuncil of Nice was presided over by the Pppe of Rpme, in the
person of the Bishop -pf Cprdpva.
Diffidence, distrust, and jealnusy prevailed between the Latins arid
Greeks in cpnsequenfce pf the nuraber pf Arian bishpps amongst the
latter. Inthis condition they were jestlpusly watching over one an
other, so that neither of them could have invented any of the seven sa
craments without the other denouncing the innovation. There does not
appear anything ofthe kind, but there was the most perfect unanimity
upon the doctrine ofthe seven sacraments for 1400 years. Mr. Storiey
talks ofthe doctrine of intention. I tell you that no sacrament cap
be valid without intention. There could be no ifiass, unless the priest
Intended to celebrate it; and it is the same in the administration of
any Sacrament. What authority is there for this ? The best. It was
settled at the Council of Lateran.
I now go to an authority to which Mr. Stoney can make no objection
— a very distinguished prelate ofthe Protestiint Chiirch,Dr. EIrirlgton.
Well,, what does he say with regard to intention ? These are his words
iri reply to Dr. Gondolphin.
[Here Mr. Hughes gave a quotation from Elrington on prdination,
which we are unable to giye, as he has declined supplying our reported
vi'ith his quotations, though an exchange of quotations was offered.]
But now Mr. Stoney throws these authorities overboard ! What
matter are they ! Though they were held 1,500 years before the Refor-
ri^ation ; he says they are frivolous, because he cannot meet them by ar
gument or logic, and they do not suit his wandering extravagant fan
tasies, Why does he not grapple with the subject iri the same manner
as I do, by giving convincing arid consecutive arguraent, and sound
reasoning ? Not by talking of the Bible, and saying, this text proves
this, and that text proves that ; — he might just as weU say that Croagh
Patrick is a sixpenny leaf, the hill pf Hpwth a jpint of beef, or Lough
Neagh a bottle of wine ! There is as much connection in his arguments
as in Hi diddle, diddle.
The cat and the fiddle.
The cow jumped over the moon,
and that setties that.
Mr, Stoney adopts for himself a line of argument .which puts you in
mind ofthe 5th proposition ofthe 1st book of Euclid, which is called
the bridge of asses — a bridge Mr. Stoney never could pass : he has not
yet got over the bridge of asses. (Laughter and shouts.)
Ifhe brought a good argument to grapple with, I would feel delight
ed, but not a single arguraent have I heard frora his Ups. Upon ray
honour I would feel delighted to raeet an ingenious and candid reasoner.
Well, Dr. Elrington admits that he had no ordination, but what he got
from us. (Mr. H. a^ain quoted Dr. Elrington.) Dr. Elrington admits that
matter, forra, and intention, are necessary to a sacrament. Poor silly,
illiterate Dr. Elrington I He said it because he was ignorantj of course !
Mr. Stoney exceeds him in leaming and theology as much as the sun
exceeds a star. Though Dr. Elrington said it, we must reject Protests
ant authority, and helieve Mr. Stoney.

MR. HUGHES' FIRST SPEECH. 14S
1 have proved that these sacraments existed fer 1,500 years. I Will
now go to the Scriptures, and then to the hply Fathers.
I will prpve extreme unctien tp be a sacrament, accerding tp the
definitipn pf a sacrament in the book of common prayer. In the cate
chism it asks, " What meanest thou by the word sacrament ?" " I mean
an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual graCe given untp
tig, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the
sarae, and a pledge tP assure us thereof." A sacrament, then, is an
outward sign of a grace got in and through* it. I vvill prove the grace
frora Scripture. Jaraes v. 14, 15. "Is any raan sick among you, let
him bring in the priests of the church, and let thera pray over him,
anointing hira with oil, in the narae of the Lord : and the prayer of
faith shall save the sick man, and the Lprd shall raise hira up : and if
he be in sins they shall be forgiven him.'' Here we find a certain ex
temal sign — pil, to be put on the sick raan, pn the authority of the
revealed word of God. The grace is effected through the external visi
ble sign, not by the oil itself, but by its application as ordered by the
apostle, and therefore by Christ, because Christ said to thera, Gp, teach
all natipns, whatsoever I have comraanded you.
There arise two consequences from the administration of this sacra
ment of extreme unction : — 1. The raising up of the sick man. 2.
"The forgiveness of sins. How could his sins be forgiven except by the
grace of God ? What is the medium through which his sins are for
given? It is the holy oil in extreme unction. So far for Scripture
authprity. I npw gp tp the Holy Fathers, of whom I could quote six
on this dpctrine, but I will content myself by giving you three. St.
Chiysostom, repeating the words of St. James, says, if any man he
sick let him be anointed with oil, and if he is in sin he will be forgiven,
St. Augustine says, the sick man shall receive the blood of Christ. If
he has recourse tP (Christian ministers he will have restoration to
health and his sins will be forgiven. This saint speaks just after the
manner of the Appstles. St.-Cyril, of Alexandria, also says, if a raan
be sick let hira be anointed with oil, and if in sin, his sins will be
forgiven. I have before given ypu the doctrine of the Greek Church
which is the sarae with that of the Latin ; and I have now proved frora
Scriptures and the Holy Fathers that this was the doctrine of the Ca
tholic Church for 1,500 years before the reformation. Mr. Stoney
has not given one fact or argument of any force against this position,
and I maintain that the Protestant reformers acted wrong in rejecting
the doctrine of the Seven Sacraments.
Mr. Stoney states that I have npt charged his church vvith errors. It
is a cprapound pf errors. I have here a list of 60 heresies and con
tradictory errors, all the fruits ofthe first error, the rejection of autho
rity. Here they are — (Here Mr. Hughes read a Ust of names already
given in the first day's discussion, and ended with saying, there was
also Jphanoa Sputhcote who imagined she was bearing Christ in her
wolnb, and not forgetting the Darbyites in Westport.) I ask you, Mr.
Stoney, did these err ? If they could be right holding opposite errors,
^hibh are the fruits of the rejection of authority ? Oh ! it is I that could
prove errors upon your church ! Your church has rejected Purgatory,

144 THIRD DAY— SECOND POINT FOR DISCUSSION.
and the authority of the Roman Pontiff, and substituted for him, the
immaculate Queen EUzabeth.
The next Sacrament you rejected is Penance. I am surprise^ how
you rejected Penance. It is one of the Seven Sacraments. First,-it
is an external rite; secondly, it confers grace ; thirdly, it was insti
tuted by Christ. In Mat. xvi. 17, we have the words of Christ to St.
Peter. I beg your attention. Mat. xvi. 16, 19, ".Simon Peter an
swered, and said : Thou art Christ the Son of the living God. And
Jesus answering, said te hira : Blessed art thou, Simon Bar Jona ; be
cause flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who
is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter : and upon
this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not pre
vail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound
also in heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, il shsdl
be loosed also in heaven." The keys ofthe kingdom of heaven were
given by Christ to St. Peter. What is the meaning of that ? What is
the purpose of a key ? To open a door — the doors of heaven. How
were they closed ? By sin. He got the keys to throw them open.
This, therefore, implies that Christ gave him power to remove what
shut the doors of heaven. Whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall
be bound in heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall
be loosed in heaven." What did Christ corae to bind and loose ? The
bondage of sin. What would this proraise avail if the Apostie cpuld
not loose from the pains of sin.
I go now to John xx. 21, 22, or thereabouts, "asmy Father sent me
so I send you.'' Had Christ the power to forgive sins ? He had. For
he said to the paralytic man, Thy sins are forgiven thee. The same
power which he poK.sessed he gave them. " Having said this, he
breathed on them and said, receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins you
shall forgive, ihty are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain ihey
are retained."
Now if St. Peter raised Dorcas, it was because Christ gave him the
power ; and if he had the power of performing a miracle, he must
also have had the power of forgiving sin. Here we have clear proof^
without any distortion, that St. Peter had the power of loosing and
binding the sins of men. That power he delegated to his successors-!
We are not to suppose that a priest, in the tribunal of confession^
forgives sins if they are not repented of. God will never save a map
without the co-operation of a contrition of heart, and the devotion of
the remainder of his life lo him. These dispositions are necessary to
the forgiveness of sins. Our enemies have palmed a wholesale for
giveness uppn us. But this is an atrocious misstatement of the power
of the church in forgiving sins.
Penance is twofold. It is raore than a change of heart. The virtue
of penance will continue to the end of the world. David did penance.
His heart was changed, but in addition he mortified his flesh by sack-
Cloth and ashes. His penance was not confined to a change of heart.
The Ninevites did penance for 40 days. Because they did penance id)

MR. STONEY'S SECOND SPEECH. 145
sackcloth and ashes the sentence put on record in heaven against them
was reversed by the fprce pf penance.
Mr. Stcney's Bpok of Comrapn Prayer centains spmething pn this
subject to which I beg your particular attention. In the visitation of
the sick, the sick raan is "moved to raake a special confession of his
sins if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty raatter." Then
the minister is directed to say to him, " Our Lord Jesus Christ, who
hath left power to his church to absolve all sinners who truly repent
and believe in him, of bis great mercy, forgive thee thine offences:
and by his authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins.
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
Fellow ine that, Mr. Stoney, if you can.
Now wilh respect lo ordination, I will call your attention to the form
of ordination in Mr. Stoney's Book of Common Prayer, " Receive the
Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God,
now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands. Whose sins
thou dost forgive, they are forgiven : and whose sins thou dost retain
they are retained." The grace is given, the power is imparted, but you
have no ordination, as 1 will show before this discussion is over.
You will be crippled, Mr. Stoney, before it is over.
Mr. Stoney. — I crippled the wafer.
(Here Mr. Hughes' time expired.)
Mr. STONEY. — I will not be compelled to say much in reply to Mr,
Hughes's last speech, but I will endeavour to foUpw him. The first
objection brought by Mr, Hughes, is the homily that speaks of the
whole world being imraersed in popery for raany years before the Refor
mation, Tbe horaily does state that the world vvas drowned in idolatry,
and if it does, it states no raore than the truth — and no raore thaathe
prophet Elijah did upon a similar occasion, Rom. xi. 2, 5 : "God
hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what
the scripture saith of Elias ? how he maketh intercession to God against
Israel, saying. Lord they have killed thy prophets, and digged down
thine altars ; and I ara left alone, and tiiey seek ray life. And what
saith the answer of God unto him ? I have reserved to myself seven
thousand men, who have not bowed the knee lo the image of Baal.
Even so then at this present lime also there is a remnant according to
the election of grace." The prophet of God thought he was left alone
and that there were no godly in the land. But what said the answer
of God to him. There was a remnant of 7,000 at that time. If the
homily is wrong Elijah was wrong. The examples are similar. Thus,
generally speaking, it is true that Christendom was drowned in idola-
try-^in Romish idolatry, worshipping a wafer. But when popery was
in its zenith, God reserved to himself the Albigenses, the Waldenses,
and other faithful servants who did not bpw the knee lo the prevailing
idolatry. There are only one or two points of difference between the Greeks
and Latins, says Mr. Hughes. I wonder how the Church of Rome can
boast as she does of her Catholicity, when such an immense body as
the Greek Chureh embracing, in Russia alone, 50 millions of people
K

146 THIRD DAY— SECOND POINT FOR DISCUSSION.
all denying the supremacy of the Pope. If this is unity, where is it ?
From the comraencement, the Greek and Eastern churches ppposed the
assumptions and idplatry ofthe Papal Bishops of Rome.
It seems there was an attempt made to bring the Greek church and
the Roman to an agreement. They never did, and they never will
effect it. There was a hitch in the way, we are told. Matrimony was
a cause of difference. It seems the Greeks did not like to give up their
wives, or, perhaps, it might, with greater truth, be said, they did not
Uke to submit to the encroaching, domineering spirit of the Pope's
party. It is probable, too, they had these texts of Scripture in their
eye on the subject of "giving up their wives."
" A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife ;" and
" "The Spirit speaketh expressly, that, in the latter times, some shall
depart frora the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines
of devils ; speaking Ues in hypocrisy ; having their conscience seared
with a hot iron ; forbidding to marry, and commanding.to abstain from
raeats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of
them which beUeve and know the truth." — 1 Tim. iv. 1 — 3.
Mr. Loftus. — I call you to order, Mr. Stoney. You are going out
of the question.
Mr. Stoney  I think I have settled that !
(Great shouting.)
Now, with respect to intention, Mr. Hughes acknowledged that if he
does not intend to baptize or marry, the ceremony is unavailing. He
refers you for proof to the Council of Lateran, which introduced the
doctrine of intention 400 or .OOO years ago. There is antiquity for
you ! — a doctrine of the Church of Rome which is only 400 years old !
Mr. Hughes refers lo Dr. Elrington — a very respectable authority,
but not divine, and therefore useless to our present purpose.
He next gave a pretty little rhyme about a ccw jumping over the
moon. A wonderful jump indeed!
I can tell him it would be easier for a cow to jump over the moon,
than for hira to turn a wafer into God.
He then went to Extreme Unction, and quoted the Book of Coraraon
Prayer, about outward and visible signs. This definition holds good
where there is a real sacraraent, but will not support a spurious one.
He gave no attention to answer the comparison between the passages
I quoted frora James and Mark ; nor from the practice of, our Lord in
anointing wilh oil and eraploying clay for the working of rairaculous
cures. Let Mr. Hughes show rae his performance of a miraculous cure
upon a sick person. If he raise him up I will have no objection to
anointing, but not till then.
He produced, or appeared to produce, six Fathers in support of ex
treme unction. Let him bring me one verse ofthe Bible, (and I will
not ask the six Fathers,) showing that extreme unction was ever prac
tised, as it is now, by the Church of Rome ; but he never can. There
is no identity between what was then practised and the extreme unc
tion of the Church of Rome. It is her own invention. I knew a
priest who said that extreme unction was a good raUch cow for the
Church of Rome, it made so much money for her.

MR. STONEY'S SECOND SPEECH. 147
Mr. Hughes. — Name hira ; name hira.
(Shouts, yeUs, and great interruption.)
Mr. Stoney. — Shouting is an argument that will do well for a mob
that do not know what they are doing ; but it will not lead away the
intelligent public.
Mr. Nangle  You are out of order, Mr. Hughes.
Mr. Hughes. — Ara I, indeed ! Then PII continue so.
Mr. Loftus — It is not fair to throw imputations on a body of men
without naming the individuals.
Mr. Stoney. — It was a priest who left that churcb.
Mr. Hughes. — Very fair. I give you credit fpr that. That is can
did. I Uke candour.
Mr. Stoney. — Mr. Hughes has charged on us one principal error
as the cause ofaU our errors — abandoning the papal church. ' I will
give you a passage frpm one of Mr. Hughes' own historians, as a jus
tification for our abandoning the papal church. His name is Baronius.
He gives enough ofthe conduct ofthe Church of Rome to form a com
plete justification for leaving her. This is what he says —
[Mr. Stpney had no sooner commenced reading the quotation from
Baronius, than his voice was drowned with shouts, groans, and inter
ruptions.] Mr. Nangle. — You heard Mr. Hughes with the greatest atten
tion. But when any thing is said by Mr. Stoney that you consider too
hard against you, you either interrupt him by noise, or call him fo
order. Mr. Hughes read a list of heretics, and surely Mr. Stpney has
a right to show a reason for leaving the Church of Rome.
Mr. Stoney. — What had Johanna Southcote to do with doctrines.
Mr; Loftus. — You are reading what does not refer to the subject.
Mr. Nangle. — Mr. Stoney has a right to justify his conduct.
Mr. Loftus. — As Mr. Hughes has talked of errprs, we will allow
him to go on.
Mr. Stoney. — The following is the declaration of Baronius in his
annals : — " What was then," writes this warm advocate of Popery,
" the aspect of the Holy Rpman Church. How very foul under the
tyranny of unchaste women — as powerful as they were depraved ; when
at their wills, sees were changed ; and what is of unutterable horror,
their paramours intruded into the chair of Peter — Pseudo-pontiffs
— who should be named in the catalogue of popes, only fbr the causes
of chronology ; fpr who would say that men of such character, illegally
intruded by harlots, were lawful Roman Pontiffs. No where is there
Tnention made of the clergy electing, or afterwards consenting. The
canons were all buried in silence — the decrees of popes (or bishops)
were stifled— old traditions were proscribed, and the ancient customs
in electing popes, as well as the sacred rites and, primitive practice
were all extinguished. Then surely Christ slept a deep sleep in the
barque ; and what was most lo be lamented, there were no disciples to
awake him.'' — Baron. Annal. 99-3.
Was not that a sufficient justification for leaving a church guilty of
the things there enumerated. Was it not cause enough for every one
who loved the Wprd of God to abandon her. They were perfectly
K 2

148 THIRD DAY— SECOND POINT FOR DISCUSSION.
ri;ht. Their own historian accuses them of an infinite number of
errors, crimes, and ungodliness. Mr. Hughes has spoken of a large
number of heretical sects. I will reply to this from Roman Catholic
authprities. " pppe Stephen VI. abrogated the decrees, and nullified the acts of
Formosus L Pope Romanus I. treated Stephen in the same manner.
Pope John X. reprobated the nets of Stephen, and restored those of
Formosus. Pope Sergius HI. so greatiy abhorred Formosus and his
acts, that he compelled those priests who had received orders from him
to be ordained again. Nor would he suffer his dead body lo rest ; but
commanding it lo be taken up, set it in the pope's seat, adorned with
priestly robes, and passed sentence upon bim, as if he had been alive ;
and then, pulling off the sacred vestments, and, cutting off the three
fingers with which he was wont to give his blessing, commanded it to
be thrown into the Tiber, as unworthy of Christian burial. Pope Ni
cholas I. decreed that it was not fit for clergymen lo bear arras. Pope
Urban II. exhorted the Bishops to fight against the Turks. Pope Urban
vm. decreed the assertion of the earth's rotary motion to be heresy,
and imprisoned the celebrated astronomer, Galileo, in the Inquisition,
for asserting it." — Morery's Grand Dictionaire.
Here we have the three fingers of one pope cut off by another, and
his body thrown into the Tiber !
Mr. Hughes speaks of Queen Elizabeth. I have shown the conduct
of these Popes in opposition.
He says the keys of theltingdom of heaven were given to Peter?
1 deny ihey were given to him alone. All the Apostles preached to
Jews and Gentiles ; — but, I ask, where is the authority for any supre
macy to Peter. Paul withstood him to the face at Antioch, because
he was to be blamed. On another occasion, also, he declared that he
was not a whit behind tiie very chiefest Apostles.
Mr. Hughes spoke "of David's penance. David did not do penance
for the forgiveness of his sins, fie wept and grieved, if peradventure
God would spare his child, which God did not do. We have no proof
that David did penance.
I admit that God lays upon us fatherly afflictions and chastisements,
as he did on David, but thisis not penance.
The Ninevites, he says, did penance and made satisfaction for sins.
The Church of Rome has corrupted the text, and translated it pe
nance instead of repentance. There was indeed an ancient custom of
mourning in sackcloth and ashes, but tiiis is not penance.
Time compels me to reserve my answer to Mr. Hughes' observations
on the Prayer book, lo my next speech, when I will satisfactorily clear
up his pbjectipns.
(Here Mr. Stoney's time expired.)
Mr. HUGHES.— Gentlemen, you heard Mr. Stoney address ypu for
twenty minutes. I watched over his observations attentively and assid
uously, and yet, I protest, I ara at a loss to find any thing to grapple
\vith in a speech so devoid of matter. It has been altogether a digres
sion frpm the subject, and his next speech wiU be the same.

MR. HUGHES' SECOND SPEECH. 149
He needed a bottle of soda water, for he was exhausted, and ran into
rant and cant. I have proved that extreme unction was a sacrament
and considered as such, 1500 years before the reformation. He brought
forward no argument to justify the rejection of that sAcrament. I read
extracts from the book Of Comraon Prayer, and I can tell Mr. Stoney
that bis ordination is no ordination ; and I vvill prove it, with every
respect to his brethren who deserve no offence from me. I entertain a
great regard for many of them, but when the truth is lo be told, I am
compelled to say they have no more ordination than any of the crowd
in this court.
There is no power in their orders. The powers pf the Christian
priesthppd are twofold. To offer a sacrifice and to forgive sins. So
far they have no power and are not Christ's priests. Mr. Stoney can
you consecrate the host, can you forgive sins ? Therefore your ordina
tion is not valid. What can he do? He can read the Bible. Sure
any peasent can do it. But he can do no more. He can give the com
munion. He can give bread and wine. Sure every man can do the
same, and with the sarae effect. Is there any alteration , in the ele
ments after he gives the benediction? Not a halfpenny-worth. It is
but bread and wine sliU, not differing frpm any other. What are his
duties ? Nothing. He gets £350 a year, and this for nothing. He is
bare of power, virtue, or authority. He has no sacerdotal function or
authority. His existence is the result of a British Act of Parliament,
passed by Queen Elizabeth, and also an act passed to remove doubts
in the first act. If ordination was perfect in their church what neces
sity was there lo prop it up with an Act of Parliament. I, says the
Queen, will supply you wilh tithes and titles, and you will acknowledge
my supremacy.
Protestant Clergyraen, I do not raean to offend you. I speak wilh
great respect. Truths are no grounds for pffenpe; These are not my
fancies, they are based on acts of parliaraent.
After penance comes confirmation. I will prove it to be a sacrament
under the new law. It has all the requishes. It has a visible sign and
confers grace, and was instiuted by Christ. It is therefore a sacrament.
If so the parliamentary Church of England shpuld nut reject what
Christ established.
My first prppf will be frpm Scripture. Acts viii. 14 — 17.) "When
the appstles that were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had
received the word of God : they sent to thera Peter and John. Who,
when they were corae, prayed for thera, that they raight receive the
holy Ghost.. For he was not as yet corae upon any of them ; but they
were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they
laid their hands upon them, and they received the holy Ghost." St. Peter
and Si. John were sent to Samaria. Why did they go there ? They
had been baptized but the Holy Ghost did not yet descend upon thera:
John and Peter laid their hands on them, and the consequence was, the
Holy Ghost descended on them. Twelve gifts and seven benedictions
descend by imppsitipn of hands in confirraation. This laying on of
hands could not be for holy orders, for all in Samaria received it. It

150 THIRD DAY— SECOND POINT FOR DISCUSSION.
was therefore confirraation. Therefore is not that a sacraraent ; based
upon the word of God. It has all the attributes and essential qualities
of one, and when received, the Holy Ghost descends in the plentitude
of all the graces Almighty God could pour down on a Christian soul.
I will now give you the authority of Holy Fathers of the early ages
of Christianity. 1 will give you the words of St.Cyprian in the 3d cen
tury : "All that believed in Samaria received the Holy Ghost after the
imposition of hands. The same is done by us, in order that those be
longing to the Church of Christ may receive his seal, of which this
sacrament is the mark." The person that is confirmed in the Cathp
lic Church receives a blessing, which cannct be reiterated, because it
confers character.
My next authority is St. Jerome, in the 4th century. These are
his words —
[Here Mr. Hughes made a short quotation from Jerome.]
Some of you Protestants are, perhaps, not aware ofthis, that though
there were twelve Aposties, only five wrote — Matthew, John, James,
Peter, and Paul. There were seven who did not write a word of
Scripture, because Christ did not tell them to do so. So that the doc
trines of the church were not all handed down in Scripture, but some
of thera by tradition. You will be told that this is a phantasy, and to
be compared to the traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees. These are
the traditions of the other Aposties, who did not write, but preached.
St. Matthew did not write his Gospel till 8 years after our Lord's ascen
sion, St. Mark 11, St. Luke 26, and St. John 63.
Within 25 or 30 years after the ascension, the gospel was preached
frora east to west. Was it by the New Testament ? No ; wherever
they went they took no Scriptures with them. St. Thomas went to
India, St. John to Asia Minor, and had no Scripfures with thera. They
did refer sometimes to the old law. So do I myself, and to some pur
pose too. But this I say, Christ did not command thera to write the
Scriptures. St. Andrew preached to the Syrians, St. Bartholoraew to
the Armenians, St. Matthew to Mesopotamia, and all these propagated
their dpctrine, not by the Bible, but by verbal instruction. Let no one
infer frora this that I am opposed lo the Bible. If you were here the
first day, you would hear how I upheld it.
Now, Sir, these preached the Word of God and the doctrine of
Christ, and they did it without the Scriptures. They taught and pro
pagated their religion verbally ; and they had the authority of Christ
for doing sp.
I have shown that the Sacrament of Confirmation confers grace and
was established by Christ and his Apostles, and was used for 1,500
years. Now, let Mr. Stoney show that it is not a sacraraent if he can, er
fail as he did in all the ethers.
(Here Mr. Hughes's time expired.)
Mr. STONEY.— I hepe I will get a fair hearing. 1 5vill first allude
lo absolution and penance. I am charged with having in my prayer-
bock errpnepus dpctrine, I beseech ypu, listen to the i'pl lowing

MR, STONEY'S THIRD SPEECH, 151
observations: — I do hold that the ministers of Christ's religion have a
certain power of forgiving sins; but I deny that they have any power
of forgiving sins against God. Let me read from the first prayer in our
raorning service — " He hath given ppwer and commandment to his
ministers to declare and pronounce lo his people, being penitent, the
absolution and remission of their sins." This is what I hold, that the
ministers of Christ have the power of declaring, that all who are peni
tent have the forgiveness of their sins. Further, it exhorts us to call
upon God for repentance and his Holy Spirit, showing that it is from
God alone such forgiveness can conic.
Again — I hold, that if the sick person repent, the minister has the
power to declare to him the forgiveness of his sins. Here is the prayer
following the absolution : — " O raost merciful God, who, according to
the multitude of thy mercies dost so put away the sins of those who
truly repent, that thou remeraberest them no more ; open thine eye of
mercy upon this thy servant, who most earnestly desireth pardon and
forgiveness," &c.
Mr. Hughes. — Give us the absolution.
(Great disorder.)
Mr. Stoney. — Never fear. I will give you every word of it.
Here the minister prays that the Lord would open his eye of mercy
and give the sick man pardon, which proves that we believe that par
don is from God — altogether frora God, and not frora man. I shall
now read the absolution. " Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left
power to his Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe
in hira of his great mercy, forgive thine offences ; and by his authority
committed to me, I absolve thee frora all thy sins, in the name of the
Father and ofthe Son and of the Holy Ghost.'' I do believe that we
have a right to absolve from sin ; but in what manner I have shown by
the absolution prayer in the commencement of our service ; in proof
of which I refer you to Jeremiah i. 9, 10. " Then the Lord put forth
his hand and touched my mouth. And theLerd said untp me, Behold,
I have put my wprds in thy mouth. See, I have this day set thee
over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down,
and to destroy, and lo throw down, to build, and to plant.'' Here is a
command given to Jeremiah to do ihsse things : but I ask you was he to
do these things? No : but he was to pronounce them done. He was to
declare the purpose of God " lo root up and to destroy" impenitent sinners.
He had a declaratory power and no other, and so have we. 1 admit also an
authority to forgive the sins committed against the body with which weare
joined. Of this we have an example in the 5th of 1 Cor. and 4th verse,
" In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together,
and ray spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such
an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be
saved in the day of the Lord Jesus ;" compared with 2 Cor. ii. 5—10 ;
" But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me but in part ; that
I may not overcharge you all. Sufficient to such a man is this punish
ment which was inflicted of many. So that, contrariwise, ye ought
rather to forgive him and comfprt him ; lest, perhaps, such a pne should

152 THIRD DAY— SECOND POINT FOR DISCUSSION.
be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you
that ye would confirm your love toward him. For to this end, also did
I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in
all things. To whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also ; for if I fi)r-
gave anything, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the
person of Christ." In the first of these passages the Apostle confers
on the Church authority to deUver a raember to Satan, for temporal
chastisement, that he may be saved in the day of ihe Lord. In the
other he declares, that the church has authority and power to forgive
sins comraitted against the body — to put the gross sinner out from the
communion of the church, and to restore him again lo it, when peni
tent. We deny then, ihat ministers of Christ have any further power
of remitting sins against God, than by declaring that the sins of those
who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ are pardoned ; but we assert that
they have the power pf recpnciling the penitent sinner te the church,
and re-adraitling him to Christian fellowship.
[At this period, there was a great deal of tumult and excitement in
the Court-house, and Mr. Stoney, addressing Mr. Hughes, said, I re
quest you to advise these people to go home in peace and quietness,
this evening. You gave them that advice on Saturday, and I am sure
you will do so to-day. Mr. Hughes accprdingly addressed them to
that effect.]
In the Rpmish dpctrine of Penance there is cpntritipn, cpnfessipn,
and satisfaction. I have proved that their doctrine of penance is wrong.
The word is corrupted. It is fieravota, which means repentance, not
penance. Tp contrition is added attrition. The definition of attrition
is this, it is an imperfect contrition arising only frora the fear of pun
ishment. It could not save a person ; but if he had a confessor, he
would be saved by this imperfect contrition, called attrhion, though
destitute of true contrition.
Now, I say, that unless the sinner be truly contrite he cannot be
saved, and that that doctrine instils into the people the licentious idea
that they can obtain salvation tiiough they die in sin. In the 32d
Psalm we read "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose
sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputclh not
iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile." There is true repent
ance. Let us now read verse 5, " I acknowledge my sin unto thee
and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said I will confess my transgres
sions unto the Lord and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin,"
Is it to a fellow- mortal he confessed ? No : but lo God.
True contrition is not doing penance. It is not making satisfaction ;
for that has been already made by the atonement of Christ. It is not
imperfect contrition arising from a fear of the punishraent of hell-fire,
but a deep feeling of guilt and raisery bringing the humble applicant
to Almighty God through Christ.
Part of the Romish doctrine of penance is satisfaction for sin — to
whora ? That is the question. Is it to God ? I deny that one text can
be found in the whole Bible teaching that satisfactipn can be made by
the creature. He must Ippk for free grace and pardon splely thrpugh

MR. HUGHES' THIRD SPEECH. 153
Ihe atoning merits and precious blppd ofthe Lord Jesus Christ. We
may make satisfaction to our neighbours, but not to God.
Blessed be God there is a better manner of making satisfactinn— the
atPnement and all perfect righlepusness pf the Lord Jesus Christ, and
not the raiserable raake-shifts of human penance and man's sufferings.
Confession should not be poured into the ears of a fellow creature,
who needs pardon for himself, but into the ear of God. The blood of
the Lord Jesus Christ is the only raeans by which the sinner can be
cleansed. (Groans and shouting.)
When this world will be destroyed, and every living being shall
stand in the presence of God there will be shouts of sorrow, fear,
terror and disraay, from those who trust in penances and priestly
ftwgiveness which they will then find valueless.
(Hisses, groans, and great disorder.)
1 have shewn that the objections made against me this day were
frivolous and captious, I have thrown to the winds the two pretended
sacraments of penance and extreme unction, 1 have shown that the
latter was intended for the miraculous cure of the patient's body on
earth. Though the priests of Rome who claim the power of forgiv
ing sins, may uphold them, they cannot prove that there is any autho
rity for them in the Scriptures, (Shouts and groans.)
I have shown that the Church of Rome has no unity with the Apos
tolic church. The word of God is the proof of it, and not councils.
I have endeavoured, this day, to defend my church, and to point out
the errors of the Church of Rome, and because I have done so am I
become your enemy ? Because I have endeavoured to show you the
truth from this revealed word of God — (Holding up the Bible.)
(Great shouts and confusion. Cries of down whh the Bible — dpwn
wilh it.)
Mr. Stoney cpncluded by repeating these lines :
Precious Bible — book divine.
Holy volume, thou art mine,
(Tremcndpus shputing and uproar.)
.[Here Mr. Stoney's time expired.]
Mr. HUGHES.— -I have proved, I hope, to the satisfaction of every
one present that ihe sacraments of penance, extreme unction, and con-
firmatipn, were held in the Cathplic church 1,500 years befpre the
Pretestant Reforraation. I have proved this, 1st. from Scripture; 2nd,
on the authority of the Holy Fathers ; 3rdly, on the arguraent of pre
scription, according to the doctrine of Vincentius — " Quod ubique,
quod semper, quod ab omnibus crediium est" — what is believed ih all
places, at, all times, and by every one.
I come to the sacrament of matrimony. It is a visible rite instituted
by Christ to confer grace. If I prove that it has the three requisites of
a sacrament you will allow that the Protestant parliaraent — ^the Protes
tant religion established by act of parliament, had no right to abolish
it. This Mr. Stoney will nPt deny.

154 THIRD DAY— SECOND POINT FOR DISCUSSION.
First, it is an external rite. Second, it was instituted by Christ, in
the old law and also in the new. " What God hath joined together
let not man put asunder." Third, it confers grace. This I prove by
Eph. V. 25, 32, " Husbands love your wives, as Christ alsp loved the
church, and delivered himself up for it ; that he raight sanctify it,
cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life ; that he might
present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle,
nor any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish.
So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that
loveth his wife loveth hiraself. For no man ever haled his own
flesh : but nourishelh and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church.
For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For
this cause shall a man leave his father and mother : and shall cleave
to his wije, and they shall he two in one flesh. This is a great sa
crament ; but I speak in Christ and in the church."
Here a man is commanded to love his wife as Christ loved his
church. He that gave the command will also give the means to enable
a man lo fulfil it. It is not otherwise than by extraordinary grace that
a man could love his wife as Christ loved the church. 1 know there is
an excess in that, for no man could love his wife as Christ loved the
church. In the mean time it is a great command, and one which he
would not be able to fulfil without grace. I find in the holy Scriptures
that the word sacrament is not applied to any thing but matrimony. It
is a mystical representation of the union of Christ and his church ;
therefore it is a holy thing.
Christ caUs it a sacrament, because no man could love his wife
except through the grace of God.
The name of sacrament would not be given to it, except it were
accompanied by the necessary graces. It has the three requisites of a
sacrament. 1. It is an external rite. 2. It confers grace. 3. It was in-
sthuted by Christ. Quod erat demonstrandum.
I next come 16 the authority of the holy Fathers. St. Ambrose, in
the 4th century, calls it a heavenly sacrament. St. Augustine says.
The great good of matrimony consists in propagating children for
heaven. Now Sir, I find the authority of the Scriptures, the authority of the
Fathers, and finally the authority of prescription, all concur in saying,
that raalriraony is a sacrament.
The Roman Church was' contending with the Greek Church. This
cpntentipn wpuld cause thera to watch one another with a jealous eye,
so that if one attempted to introduce it as a sacrament, the other would
exclaim against the innovation. Therefore 1100 years before the pro
testant reforraation it was acknowledged to be a sacrament, and so was
instituted by Christ and his apostles.
Having now proved conclusively that the Church of England estab
lished by act pf parliament, had np right to aboUsh or expunge it, I
come to holy orders.
I proved from Scripture that it is a sacraraent. 1 Tim. iv. 14 ;
*' Neglect net the grace that is in thee which was given thee by prophe
cy, with hnppsition of the hands of the priesthppd."

MR. HUGHES' THIRD SPEECH. 155
I also proved ordination to be a sacrament, by the imposition of
hands in the Protestant Church. And I proved, by the beok of Comraon
Prayer ; that the Protestant clergy claira the power of forgiving sins.
Mr. Stoney says they have the power of declaring sins tp be forgiven.
When he came to the absplutipn service he halted. It stuck in his
threat. It is my conviction and it must be the conviction of every one
here, that you Mr. Sioney, did not prpve one point I put to you.
I brought forth a host of evidence from Scripture, to prpve the sacri
fice pf the mass. I met ypu on your own points, and you supported
them by a few mutilated texts and fanciful proofs. This shows how
defective, how shallow the principles of his theology are. I proved
five points against you to day. 1 did the same the last day. You were
unable to maintain your own points or to disprove mine. I call upon
you, Protestants, to reflect and to examine well your clergyman, who
has not been able to answer one of the questions 1 put to hira.
I knew this before I started thera ; but wait until four days more and
you will see how I will have him confounded. It is not Mr. Stoney
that fails. He has had my objectipns these eleven days, and he had
his brother clergyraen with him, day and night, examining my points,
bringing together their combined knowledge, analyzing, and searching
for arguments, and yet he was unable to answer one word. There is a
rumour already abroad, that they were unable to defend their church.
Every Protestant says so. It is not Mr. Stoney that failed, but his rule
of faith. My Protestant friends reflect and consider weU whether you
have a satisfactory ground of faith. How can that be the true faith
which has endless divisions. There is no salvation except by the one
true faith. There is one God in heaven who is immutable ; and one
Sun in the creation.
Mr. Nangle. — Mr. Hughes that is not the subject.
Mr. Hughes. — There is one Church, one faitii.
Mr. Nangle. — Mr. Hughes I caU you to order. (Great shouting.)
I conclude by giving thanks to you all for your attention. Go home
quietiy and peaceably. (The days discussion ended here.)

FOURTH DAY'S DISCUSSION.

QUESTION.
COMMUNION IN ONE KIND.

TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1837.
Mr. Nangle. — Mr. Hughes, you are called upon to justify the
Church pf Rome in withholding the cup from the laity.
Mr. HUGHES. — (Having crossed hiraself.) Gentiemen, 1 am called
upen this day tp justify the Cathplic Church fpr giving cpramunion in
one kind, and withholding the cup frora the laity. My adversary says
frora the laity ; but strange lo tell it is not from the laity alone it is
withheld, but from the priests, from the bishops, from all the cardinals,
and even from his holiness, the pope himself, at the hour of death.
So then my friends, this is rather a strange accusation brought against
us, and nothing but the most consumraate ignorance could suggest such
an -objection lo ray opponent.
Do you imagine that I, as a priest, or that a bishop of my church —
Can you imagine that his holiness the pope, at that awful moraent, when
about to appear in the presence of our last Judge, and lo receive that
sentence which will decide our doom for ever, would forego the cup,
were we to sustain any loss or injury by it ?
That argument is in itself, without any other, sufficient to bring con
viction to the raind and heart of every Christian, that we are justified
in having communion in one kind. I will now give you the doctrine
of the Catholic Church on the subject, in a very short proposition. It
is this : in the sacrament the body of Christ is not separated from his
blood, nor his blood from his body, nor is either separated from his
soul and divinity. Whole and living Christ is contained under «ach
species, so that either is a whole sacrament.

MR. HUGHES' FIRST SPEECH. 157
When you Catholics go to the communion, if you receive the sacra
ment from the chalice, you receive the body, blppd, spul, and divinity
of Christ. You do the sarae if you receive it frora the host. If you re
ceive one, you receive the whole. You could not do more, if you receive
both. This is the doctrine ofthe Calholic Church ; now for the proof.
My first argument is of itself sufficient, but I will now prove it by
olher arguments. I will give plenty of arguments. I prove it by this
syllogism :
That doctrine is of divine institution which was established by
Christ himseU.
Communion in one kind was established by Christ himself;
Theiefore Communion in one kind is of divine institution ; and
consequently justifiable.
I will now prove the minor : communion in one kind was estab
lished by Christ himself.
My friends, I endeavoured from the commraenceraent of this contro
versy to meet ihe whole subject fairly and openly ; not by equivoca
tion, which would only injure ray cause : you would say I argued badly,
by sophistry and equivocation. But this is not my way. God knows
I meet every argument honestly and sincerely, with nothing but an
honest mind and pure conscience.
I will now show from the words of Christ, communion in one kind,
and you must be surprised and astonished that such an objection was
proposed. I refer you tothe 6ih chapter of Jphn, and the llth of
1 Corinthians, and will prove this from the words of Christ in six texts,
and of St. Paul in one text ; and afterwards the doctrine ofthe Catho
lic Church ever since proving communion in one kind. In the 6lh
chapterof John verse 48, 50, Christ talks of communion in one kind. In
both he speaks of communion in one kind, and says, "I am the
bread of life.'' " This is the bread which cometh dovi^n from heaven,
that if any raan eat ofit he may not die." He there says that eternal
¦ life is obtained by communion in one kind. In verse 5 1 and 52, he
says, "lam the living bread which came down from heaven. If any
man eat of this bread he shall live for ever ; and the bread that I wiU
give is my flesh, for the life ofthe world." Mind, he says the bread
which I will give is my flesh. He described tiie bread which he was
to give in ihe 52d verse, which he had raentioned in the 48lh 50th and
51st. " The Jews therefore strove among themselves saying, how can
Ihis man give us his flesh to eat." Oh then he goes on to say not only
my flesh, but both flesh and blood. For be says, " except you eat
the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood you shall not have
life in you." This conversation first taught this truth which he then
developed. Can any man suppiose that the flesh and blood are-not united,
which are now living in heaven ? can any raan's fancy go to the ex
tent of imagining that his flesh can be in one place and his blood in
another ? So with his soul and divinity where part is, the whole is ;
and they cannot be separated.
In the 58th verse he says, " As the living Father hath sent me, and
Hive by the Father, so he that eateth me, the sarae shall live by
me." There is no question of drinking. He first talked of eating

158 FOURTH DAY'S DISCUSSION.
and then of drinking. The plain inference is, that if we eat the body
we drink the blood also^ and if we drink the blood we have the body.
In ver. 59, he says — " This is the bread that carae down from heaven ;
not as your fathers did eat raanna and are dead, for he that eateth this
bread shall live fpr ever." Mind this.
I will be tpld that he said, ye must drink ray bipod also. I know
that he does recommend his blood ; but if he did that, mind that he
says we have eternal Ufe by eating his fiesh. He alsp says — " I ara the
living bread which carae down frora heaven." If he says in three
places we must partake of bpth, he says in six places that eating his
bpdy alone is sufficient.
I now go to St. Paul. He says, " Wherefore, whosoever shall eat
this bread or drink the chaUce ofthe Lord unworthily, shall be guilty
of the body and of the blood of the Lord.'' Mind now, what is the
meaning of or, if he was speaking of taking both ? Now, a person
taking the body would not be guilty of the blood except both were to
gether ; but here St. Paul says, that either eating or drinking raakes us
guilty of both. I will confine rayself for the present to that portion
of Scripture.
The doctrine of Communion in one kind was always believed in the
Calholic Church. The Greek and Latin Churches divided so early as
the fourth century ; there was an effort raade to effect a reconciliation,
and divines, representing both churches, appeared at the Council of Flo
rence in the 14lh century.
Coramunion in one kind was then the doctrine of the church, as a
matter of discipline : raind, I say of discipUne. Because the Catholic
Church granted comraunion in both kinds ; and at present, in the
Catholic church, some persons always receive it ; therefore, it is a mat
ter of pure discipline, which may be altered and varied as appears ex
pedient to the head of our religion.
At that Council, in the 14th century, tbe Greeks and Latins agreed
from thenceforth to receive communion in one kind, for the purpose of
establishing uniformity of discipline, on this point, through tha Chris
tian world.
I now call your attention to the foUovring facts : In the early ages
of Christianity we find that infants received the sacrament : and how ?
By giving thera one drop out of the chalice, because they could not
receive it under the appearance of bread, as il is easier to swallow wine
than bread. Therefore communion in one kind was then in the
church. This you have frora Cyprian " de Lapsis."
The Manicheans were heretics of the fifth century — they would not
receive the wine, because they believed that it was produced by the
devil. How were they met by Pope Leo ? In order to raeet the Ma-
nichees, he passed a decree and order in the Church, that is, in the
diocese of Rome, but not over the world ; he decreed, that to meet the
Manichees they would have the communion in both kinds. Pope
Gelasius confirmed this decree.
In the 12th century it appears that Priests only received the wine.
Priests only can offer a sacrifice ; when Christ instituted this sacrifice,
he appointed bread and wine, because he was a Priest after the order

MR. HUGHES' FIRST SPEECH. 159
of Melchizedek ; so Priests are beund to receive it in the sarae man
ner, but no one else. In the 12th century no one but infants orpriests
received the wine. This doctrine was confirmed by the Council of
Conslance, held in the 14th century, which prohibited any from par
taking of the cup but the priesthood.
In the 14th century a body of Christians adopted distinct notions
on the Eucharist, and were anxious to have communion in both kinds.
The Council of Basil, to which an appeal was made on their behalf
permitted these persons to have it in both kinds. In Germany Pope
Pius the 4th, at the request of the Emperor Ferdinand, authorised the
Bishops to grant to the laity who required it, comraunion in both
kinds. The King of France has the privilege always at his coronation of
receiving the communion in both kinds. At present the deacon and
sub-deacon of St. Denys, and the monks of the order of Cluni, enjoy
the same privilege. I have now proved frora Scripture and also from
the discipline ofthe CathoUc church, from the age ofthe Apostles up
to the present time, that communion may be received in one, or both
kinds, if deemed expedient.
When then I am told that the laity are deprived of the cup, I say
they have no loss, because he that receives one, receives both ; and he
that receives both, does not receive more than he that receives one.
This is clear from the words of Scripture and from several facts from
the days of the Apostles up to the fifth century. If the Church of
Rome had introduced a novelty the Greek Church would have charged
innovation upon them. And it would be the same if the Greek Church
had attempted it. But no such accusation has been made. Therefore
it is conclusive that the Caatholic Church from_ the days of the Apostles
received in one or both kinds as deemed expedient.
Now, my friends, I sum up my argument by quoting on that doc
trine the words of the Council of Trent, " At all times this faith has
remained in the church of God, that, immediately after the consecra
tion, the true body of our Lord and his true blood, together with his
soul and divinity, do exist under the species of the bread and wine ;
his body under the species of bread, and his blood under the species
of wine, by virtue ofthe words (of consecration); his body also under
the species of wine, and his blood under the species of bread, and his
soul under each species, through the natural connection and continu
ance by which all the parts of Christ our Lord, who has risen from the
dead, no raore to die, are closely connected together; and his divinity,
through the wonderful and hypostatical union thereof with his body
and soul. Wherefore it is raost certain that all is contained under
either species and under both; for Christ, whole and entire, exists un
der the species of bread, and in every particle thereof, and under the
species of wine, and in all its parts.'' Sess. 13, chap. 3.
My friends, I call your attention to this argument : When the words
of consecration are pronounced over the bread, the body of Christ is
contained under the species of bread, for Christ said, this is ray body
which is brokep for you — which is delivered for you. Christ said simi
lar words over the chalice. Christ declared this is my blopd ; what

160 FOURTH DAY'S DISCUSSION.
blood? my blood which is shed for you. For what purpose ? for the
remission of sins. Therefore, by virtue of the words of consecration,
the body of Christ is contained under the appearance of bread, and the
blood of Christ, under the appearance of wine. But by virtue of con
comitance, the body cannot be separated from the blood : where one
is, Ihe Lord is also ; because we beUeve that in the sarae raanner
as the body and blood of Christ are united in heaven, so they are
subslantially in the sacrament. There is in this a mystery which
man cannot comprehend. Why then do we believe it ? because uner
ring truth has told it to us, and has repeated it ; for we have the testi
mony ofthe four evangelists and St. Paul, for the truth of the doctrine.
Then, as the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ are never sepa
rated in heaven, so in each species are contained his body, blppd, soul,
and divinity.
It may be said, how can we believe the body of Christ is there, when
we do not see it ? How can we believe the blood of Christ lo be in
the wine, when we see nothing but wine ? This is an impious objec
tion, because we are not to judge from the senses, but to judge by the
hearing of faith.
Let me suppose this: When our Divine Redeemer was baptized in
Jordan by John, the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the shape of
a dove and saidj This is my beloved Son in whom I ara well pleased.
If they looked, what would they see there ? would they believe that it
was the Holy Ghost ? If they did believe it, they would deny the evi
dence of sight, which would tell thera that it was not the Holy Ghost,
but a dove ; if ihey depended upon their senses, they would be led
into error.
Also on the day of pentecosl, when the Holy Gh'ost descended under
the appearance of tongues of fire, which every raan saw : Were they
really tongues of fire ? No : but the Holy Ghost who assumed that
form and shape. If you concluded that these were tongues of fire and
not the Holy Ghost, you would be in error. So it is in the Sacraraent—
the senses say we see nothing but bread and wine * but this conclusion
is false and erroneous, as in the case of the dove and the tongues of fire.
Now, to show how fallacious the senses are with regard to such
things, 1 refer you lo Gen. xxxii. 24 — " Jacob remained alone, and
behold a man wrestled wiih him till morning ;" one of his joints was
dislocated. Now he fancied that he was wrestiing with a man — that
he took hold of a man's bone and flesh ; an angel is a spirit, and has
neither flesh nor bones. If Jacob believed his senses be was in error,
[At this period there was indescribable confusion and interruption,
caused by Mr. Hughes' objections to a young gentleman speaking to the
chairman, Mr. Nangle.]
I was saying that the senses should be no difficulty against coramu
nion under one kind. The senses are no proper judges where matters
exist in a supernatural manner ; if they were in a natural stale the
senses would be judges.
God is here present substantially, but though he is between our hands
and before our face we cannot see him. So in baptisra, grace is im
parted, but it is an invisible grace, and therefore we cannot see it ; yet

MR. STONEY'S FIRST SPEECH. 161
we are bound to believe it, because Christ said, except ye be born of
water and ofthe spirit ye cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven ; so
then, when a man is born of water, he is made a candidate and heir
of the kingdom of heaven.
'We cannot see the hypostatical union between the soul and the body ;
the senses are not even capable of judging properly of material things,
much less of immaterial — some medicines are bitter to the taste, and on
that account might be thought bad, but such is not the case : others are
sweet to the taste, yet they are poisonous. So you see the taste does
npt tell you the natural qualities of matter; the sight only tells external
appearances. The Eucharist is,but breadand wine, in appearance —
the sense forms a correct judgment of the external appearance of it ;
but who can tell us the internal substance? Christ, by these words,
" This is my body broken for you,'' " Thisis my blood shed for you."
Matthew, Mark, and Luke say " is shed," Paul says " is broken'' —
mind now, how are we to judge ? Is it by the senses ? no, but by the
hraring of faith : " faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word
pf God." Who tells you those things ? Is it the Church ? No. Is it
Mr. Hughes ? No. Is it the Pope ? No : but Jesus Christ. Therefore,
if faith comes by hearing, and if we hear Christ say so, are we tb take
the senses against the positive declaration of Christ ? If Christ hns
declared it, we should believe it, because faiUi comes by hearing. These
are the words of St. Paul, in Rom. x. 17. What do you hear, says
Mr. Stoney, when you drop the wafer on the ground ? we are not to
judge by the hearing, but by faith. If you put a straight slick info
water, it will appear crooked; your eyes will deceive you, and lead you
into error: why so ? because the matter is put into a substance not fit
lo exercise our judgment upon it. So with the body and blood of Christ :
they are truly and substantially contained under the appearance of
bread and wine, because Christ said it. Who will dare to put up his
faUible senses as a judge of the internal substance of things. How
will we foolishly presume to setup the fallible senses againstthe uner
ring authority of Jesus Christ. I will have other argumehis upon this
by and bye. In order to form a proper judgriient on these things, we
must begin to learn them as we learn astronomy. When I went to
school first, if a man were totell nie I would be able to leU tbe number
of miles the sun and moon were frora the earth, I would not believe
him. Mr. Hughes' time expired, and he said, he hoped the people
would hear Mr. Stoney quietly.
Mr. STONEY.— I shall commence this day by reading, the
passages in the New Testament, wherein the cup is commanded to
be given by Christ, and taken as well as the bread. Matt. xxvi. 27 :
"And he took the cup , and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, >
Drink ye aU of it." Here there is an impressiveness attached to the
command lo drink, which is not attached lo the 'command to eat : for
he says, « drink ye all of this ;'' foreseeing the error which was to
arise, our Lord thus provided against, it.' Mark xivi 22, 23 : " And as
they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to
tbem, and said. Take, eat, this is my body. And he took the cup, and
Xj

162 FOURTH DAY'S DISCUSSION.
when he had given thanks, he gave jfto them: and they aU drank of
it." Here again we are informed that they all drank of it ; the
Scriptures thus carefully anticipating the error makes provision against
it : the Spirit of God dictated this to the writers, to prevent the error,
and if introduced, lo rebut it.
The 6th of John, on which Mr. Hughes lays great stress, clearly
setties tbe raatter. The Rev. Gentieman on another day contended
very strenuously for the literal signification of the 6th of John, for the
purpose of proving thatthe eating and drinking of the flesh and blood
of our Lord, there spoken of, was to be taken in a literal sense. I have
already shown that all these passages are figurative and spiritual : if,
however, we admit the Uteral signification in one place, why -not in this
respect ? " Jesus said, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and
drink his blood ye have no life in you.'' Now 1 want to know if the
first part of the verse is to be taken Uterally, what reason can be as
signed why the latter part of it should not also be so taken. Our Lord
equally impresses the necessity of drinking with that of eating : no
thing can be clearer or more manifest than this. Again, 1 Cor. xi. 25,
&c. St. Paul says, " After the same manner also he took the cup when
he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood ; this
do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as
ye eat this bread, and drink ihiscup, ye do show the Lord's death till
he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and dnnk this cup
of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the
Lord. But let a man examine hiraself, and so let hira eat of that
bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unwor
thily, eateth and drinketh daranation to himself, not discerning the
Lord's body." What does he say ? This cup is the new testament :
was it the new testament ? did he speak literally there ? On the prin
ciples of the Church of Rome, to carry the interpretation equally
thrpugh, you must say that the cup was transubstantiated into a New
Tes'ament !
I know it is said that there were none present at the tirae that Christ
instituted the Lord's Supper but the apostles, and consequently the
Church of Rome says we have no authority for asserting ttet the laity
have a right lo the cup. This epistle was written, not to the clergy, but
to the laily.
All the aposties ate the bread and drank the wine ; but, according to
the "doctrine, or discipline, or system'' of the Church ofRorae. none
have a right lo partake of the cup but the officiating priest. What a
wide difference is here between the doctrine taught by our Lprd, and
that practised by the Church of Rorae.
Again, h is said " as often as ye drink this cup." How could they
drink the cup ? Was that what was meant ? No : but they were to
drink the cpntents pf the cup ; and this is figurative language, and sp
completely overturns the doctrine pf transubsiautiafion.
Again, " as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye show
the Lord's death till he come," In remembra'nce of his blessed work
upon the cross, they show, as in a figure, the death pf the Lord : also,
*' whoso eateth and drinketh unworthily shall be guilty pf the bedy and

ME. STONEY'S FIRST SPEECH. 168
blood of the Lord. This is translated in the Rhemish testament " or
drinketh ;" it is immaterial to my argument which way it is tianslaled.
The apostle had been speaking in this chapter of a great evil in the
Corinthian Church, asserting that some persons attending at the Lord's
Supper eat and drank to excess, and desired them to correct it. His
wprds are, " When ye come together therefore into one place, this
is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before
o<Aerhisown supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken."
Here I ground an infallible argument against transubstantiation : Could
blood make a man drunk ? you will answer, no ; therefore, how
was it, if the wine was transubstantiated into blood, that those who
took too much of it were made drunk ? This completely overturns the
error of transubstantiation.
If you eat to gluttony, or drink to intoxication, says the Apostle, you
are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. He also says, " he
thateateih and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation (or
condemnatipn, pr judgment,) to himself, not discerning the Lord's
bpdy." Now you have here, from all these passages of Scripture, undeniable
proof that we were commanded by our Lord to take the one as well as
the other, and ihat such was the practice in the Apostolic Church of
Corinth. The Apostle reiterates ihe comraand five or six times to im
press it upon them ; the Scriplure, therefore, is perfectiy plain upon
the su ject.
It would appear, by Mr. Hughes' argument, that it was always held
in the Calholic Chureh that communion in one kind may be practised,
if it pleased the Church to niake it a matter of discipline. He also
tells us therp were great disputes upon the subject : this overturns the
unity of the Ronirin Catholic church. He says to the piople here,
you may receive it in buih kinds if you wish : I hope you will put
bim lo the proof, and say to him, like the Calixtines, Christ cumnianded
the cup to be given as well as the bread ; ihe ;ipostles gave it to the
pi-pple ; give us therefore whatChrist com'iianded — what the Apostles
gave — and what the primitive church r-ceived.
It is a m-itter of disciuliup, snys Mr. Hughes, and may be alle'ed.
I hope il may, and be made agreeable to the command of Christ and
the ApoMles' paciice.
I will now read an authority that will be acknowledged as infallible
by ihe other side. The following is the decree of the Council of Con
slance, held in the year 1414 : — " Licet Christus post ceenam instiiu-
erit et suis discipulis administravil, et subutraque specie pviriis et vini
hoc venerabile siicranientum  et in primitiva e;clesia hujus-
niodo tiacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub utraque specie;
tamen haec consuei lido ad evitandum aliqua pericula et ecandula est
rationabiliter introducla.' — Concil. Cons Sess. 13- " Although
Christ instituted and administered to his disciples this venerable sacra
ment, under both specie.sof bread and wine .... ; and although in
the primitive churcb the sacrament was received in the same manner
by the faithful, in botlT kinds ; yet, notwithstanding for the avoiding of
some dangers and scandals, ihis custom (of receiving by the lay people
in bread only) is introduced."

164 FOURTH DAY'S DISCUSSION.
Mark that: the Council acknowledges that in the primitive times
the people received the comraunion in both kinds ; and that in the
year 1414 coramunion in one kind was for Ihefirsttirae made alaw in
the infallible canons of a Romish Council. Here is antiquity for you !
Was ever the like of this attempted before ? Here comes a Church
acknowledging that the primitive Christians received in both kinds, and
that it was the custom in primitive times to give the cup lo the people,
yet in the year 1414 the Council of Constance puts out her infallible
decree to reverse the practice of Christ and his appstles ! Mark now
the language of the Council of Trent, which Mr. Hughes says is his
religion : " Wherefore, though frora the beginning of the Christian
religion, the use of both kinds was not infrequent, yet when in process
pf tirae that practice was for weighty and just causes changed, holy
mother church, recognising her acknowledged authority in the adrai-
nistration of the sacraments, approved the custom of comraunion in
one kind, and commanded it to be observed as law." Sess. 21, chap.
3. Here is the admission, that from the beginning of the Christian reli
gion it had been customary to comraunicate in both kinds ; yet, in
process of time, the custom having been changed, the Roman Catholic
church adopts the practice of communicating in one kind only, and
curses those who oppose her doctrine. Here is proof from the defend
ant's own witnesses, than which there can be nothing stronger. In
the Barrister's court now sitting, in the other court of this house, if
the plaintiff proved his case by the defendant's own witness, it would be
conclusive, and he should immediately grant a decree.
The Council of Trent settles the question, even if Scripture were
doubtful upon it. Now comes the thunder of the church : " Whoever
shall affirm that all and every one of Christ's faithful are bound by
Divine command to receive the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist
in both kinds as necessary to salvation, let him be accursed."
" Whosoever shall affirm that the Holy Catholic Church had not
just grounds and reasons for restricting the laity and non-officiating
clergy to communion in the species of bread only, or that she hath
erred therein, let him be accursed." Sess. 21, chap. 4, can. 1,2.
I say that Christians ought to receive in both kinds, according lo the
practice of the apostles and the primitive church, and the reiterated
command of Christ. I am willing to undergo the curse of the Council
of Trent, for obeying the command of my Lord and Saviour !
The Council not only excludes the laity, but also every one but the
officiating priest, though all the aposties received the cup as well as the
bread. These are the infallible canons of the Councils pf Trent and Cpn-
stance. I think I have settled the raatter on the testimpny pf ray op
ponents. 1 will now tell you a circurastance which occurred about 100 years
before the Reformation ; I derive ray authority frora a liltie book
which will not be denied, here, at least : it is signed by the Rev. J.
Keayeny, P. P. of Achill, but there is an extraordinary coincidence,^
and indeed an identity, between it and the words which you have
heard from Mr. Hughes ; pne wpuld supppse, when he was speaking.

MR. STONEY'S FIRST SPEECH. 165
he was reading his observations out of this book. The very words
written by Father John Keaveny are those spoken by Mr. Hughes, and
the circumstance shows that there must have been at least a wonderful
similarity of mind between the Rev. Gentlemen ; however widely
separated, the words are identical. This little book states that about
1 00 years before the Reformation, a schoolmaster residing in Bohemia —
a country schoolmaster, I suppose, like one of our National ones, with
a littie smattering of learning— happened to get a Bible into his hands,
and on reading the 6th of John, was not a little pnzzled : he read the
passages which Mr. Hughes has already read here, and they terrified hira
nearly out of his wits ; he found that they told him to drink the blood
as well as to eat the flesh of Christ— he went lo his bishop to have his
doubts resolved, but the bishop was equally astonished and equally in
doubt as lo the raatter. The bishop consulted his brethren, equally
unsuccessfully ; the thing went about and gained notoriety — it becarae
known throughout Bohemia, and caused a wide and universal determi
nation to have the cup as well as the bread. A bloody war followed ;
the Bohemians asserted their right, as I hope the Irish will do before
long, and wrested the cup frora those who withheld from thera what
Christ comraanded to be given.
Such is the history of the Calixtines. Here is the passage I alluded
to in the pamphlet, said to be written by the Rev. John Keaveny, R.C.C.
pf Achill :—
" The Council of Bazil ordered the chalice to be given to the CaUx-
tines, who professed their obedience to the church. Pope Pius the
4th permitted the Bishops of Germany lo give the chalice to the Laity,
such as wished it, — the Kings of France at their coronation and death
receive the chaUce, — the deacons and sub-deacons of St. Denis, and
the monks of the order of Cluni, receive the chalice. This objection
comes badly from either Nangle or Stoney,'' &c. &c. — Answer of John
Keaveny, R.C.C. of Achill, page 12.
Infants used to receive tlie sacrament, Mr. Hughes says, and, that
when the Manichees refused the wine, Pope Leo issued orders to his
diocese to receive in both kinds. I wish all the popes had confined
their orders to their own diocese, for T deny that they have authprity
pver any ether.
I now go tp another undeniable authority, to Pope Gelasius : " We
find, says this pope, that some taking only a portion of the body, ab
stain from the cup of the holy bipod, which persons, (because they
seem to adhere tp I know not what superstition,) let-them either take
the sacraraents entirely, or else be wholly kept from them, because the
division of one and the same mystery cannot be without great sacri
lege.'' . Gratian. Decret. 3 part. dist. 2. There is, papal authority for
you ; let thera either receive the bread and wine altogether, or do with
out it altogether. The pope is not infallible, says Mr. Hughes : well,
is the Council infaUible ? The pope speaking ex-cathedra is infallible,
1 suppose. The reason of withholding the cup is stated by Cardinal
Bellarmine to be lest the blood of Christ should grow
Musty. Is transubstantiation true ? Is it possible that the blood of
Christ cpuld grpw musty ? yet this is the assertien pf Bellarmine ! a
principal pillar ofthe Church pf Rpme,

168 FOURTH DAY'S DISCUSSION.
In the 12th century, Mr. Hughes informs us only infants and priests
received the cups ; 1 hope the time will shortly come when grown-up
infants will assert their right, and receive the cup loo, and be no
longer denied the privilege conferred on all by the Redeemer. Sep the
varying na'ure and character of the councils, decrees, and bulls ofthe
Church of Rome. One says Chri.^tians should receive the cup as well
as the brend : another says they shall not do so any longer: Mr.
HughiS said on one day, " This is my blood which is shed," and on
another, " This is my blood which shall be shedj" — here is Mr.
Hughes against Mr. Hughes ; we have also pope against pope — pope
againsl Christ — and pope against aposties.
Mr. Hiights at one time says " is," and at another "shall be ;" he
alters and changes as suits a cause wnich cannot be maintained but by
such raeans. — (shouts and interruption.)
Do not these very shouts show that it is a bad cause, and can only be
raiintained by such means : if you dtd not feel that 1 was speaking the
truth you would not interrupt in this matter ; but, thank God, notwith
standing Ibis confusion, the impression which 1 have made this day will
go forth.
It is the unquestionable right of the people to receive the cup as well
as ihe bread, and when they arc denied ii ihey are excluded from what
Christ and tiie apostles commanded thera to get, and what the primi
tive church practised. I shall not al present further allude to Mr.
Hughes' contradictions about "it is shed," and " it shall be shed."
The kingof France, we are told, receives the cup — has not the Irish
man as good a right to receive it ? If it is good for the king of France,
when he is about to be crowned, is it not as good for a poor Irishman
without a crown ? Is not his soul equally valuable. None but infants,
it seems, were to get the wine. I call upon Mr. Hughes to point out
one passage in Scriplure, warranting his giving the winelo infants and
denying it to adults. You have seen how Mr. Hughes turned from the
considerdiion of the subject of communion in one kind to transubstan
tiation — a subject on which he knew his arguments were insufficient.
I trust I shall be able to show you how very inadequate a crooked
stick is to prop up the doctrine of transubstantiation. Mr. Hughes
says it appears crooked when put into the water, and that your senses
deceive you ; if ypu draw it out of the' water your senses wiU tell you
that it is not crooked but straight, yet if you do not believe it crooked
still, ypu are cursed by an infallible council. — (shouts and groans.)'
It is no loss, we are told^ to the laity that they do not receive in both
kinds, because when they receive the bread, they receive the body and
blood. Suppose it were so, and that the newly invented doctrine of
conco'mitance were true, which was brought in to prop up the error of
denying the cup lo the laity, what authority have they for departing
from the primitive practice of communion in both kinds ? Perhaps
they will say the wine is too dear, and we cannot afford to give it to so
many — it is costly and expensive. Why did they not keep a little of
the money which remained, after paying for a sufficient nuraber of
masses to save Bryan Bolger's soul, and buy wine with it ?
Mr. Loftus. — I call ybu to order, Sir,
Mr. Stoney. — Did you npt hear Mr. Hughes refer to transubstantiau

MR, HUGHES' SECOND SPEECH. 167
lion ; he does not like ihat I should raake use pf any argument which
bears tco hard upon his system.
I will now sum up ;
Christ comraanded that aU Christians should receive the cpramunion
in both kind.s — the aposties and primitive Christians practised it ; Gela
sius cursed any one who would deny the use of the cup ; and, if you
believed hira, you have a right to go away unless the priest gives ypu
the cup. The Council of Trent declares that it was the custom ofthe
primitive Christians, and the institution of our Loid — the Council of
Conslance acknowledged the same ; therefore, it is spiritual robbery
to deprive the people of what Christ authprized them tp get. It is yoiir
just and inalienable right, and as the Bohemians demanded and obtained
the cup, so every individual who values the command of Christ and
appreciates his duty, will do the same ; and if not, he submits to an
imposture. [Here Mr. Stoney's time expired.]
Mr. HUGHES. — I have sometimes treated in one way, and some
times in another, the arguments of Mr. Stoney ; sometimes I have fol
lowed the analytic method, and sometimes the synthetic ; I wiU now
adopt the latter raethod, and begin where Mr. Stoney ended.
Gentlemen — I have suffered an inconvenience frora the commence
ment of this controversy, by having to prove my points in the morning ;
I gave my arguments to empty walls. When I commenced awhile ago
you were not present; and as you have only heard his objections, you
will leave this place under an unfair impression, and cannot form a
correct judgment, except you hear what is said on both sides. You
heard my adversary's objections, but not my arguments; I will now
give the sum of my arguments frora facts in the Catholic Church to
the present day.
When a priest, a bishop, a pope, or a cardinal is dying, and about to
appear at the tribunal of judgment, which is to determine his fate for
ever, he never receives in more than one kind. This proves that if
coramunion in both kinds were necessary, priests, bishops, cardinals and
popes would not tolerate so frightful a privation, were il any loss in itself.
I have proved by seven scriptures, clear, intelUgible, siraple pas
sages, that Christ ordered coraraunion in one kind; Mr. Stoney only
ajluded to three of these, he blinked and gave a transeat to the rest of
the seven — they were too strong to read, because if he read thera, they
wpuld carry a conviction which he would not like. 1 convicted hira
of suppressing his own absolution : that part stuck in your throat, you
cpuld not get further — every inch of your frarae ^ook and trembled.
,, I proved a discretionary power in the Church to grant coramunion
in one or two kinds — receiving in the one, you have the two ; and if
you receive in both, you have only as much as if you received in one.
I have no tirae to dweU farlhier on these arguments ; if our proceedings
are published, ray arguraents will be found convincing, conclusive, and
satiafoctory to every one who reads them.
The last argument made use of by Mr. Stoney was, that it is a spi
ritual robbery tp keep the cup from the laity ; if it were so, the priests
bishops, cardinals, and pppes would not submit to it. This answers that.

168 FOURTH DAY'S DISCUSSION.
He asks where is concomitances to be found in Scripture— T admit that
the word is not, but the substance, the meaning, is. I ask Mr. Stoney
does he believe the Trinity ? Show rae the word in Scripture ? Oh,
says he, the substance is in it : I ask Mr. Stoney where does he hnd
the word Catholic in Scripture ? it is not there, and yet as often as he
reads the creed he makes use of it. When he reads the Nicene creed
he says, he believes the Son is consubstantial witii the Father, and that
word is not to be found in the Scriptures. Is the procession ofthe
Holy Ghost from the Son mentioned in the Scriptures ? not one word
of it— and yet Mr. Stoney beUeves it : because the word concomitance
is not found in the Scripture he rejects the doctrine.
Mr. Stoney says I spoke of a crooked stick— I did not talk of a
crooked stick, but of a straight one ; was it wilfully and designedly, or
inadverientiy, he said this ? I beUeve it proceeded frora a Utile flustri-
fication of memory. What right, he asks, have infants to the cup ? The
custom of giving the sacrament to infants was, because Christ said,
"Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have
no life in you." Why give them the cup rather than tiie host ? because
infants could not masticate the sacrament, though they could swallow
a drop of the chalice. He speaks of the blood of Christ growing
musty : all the external properties continue, although the substance is
changed into the body and lilood of Jesus Christ.
When the Redeemer came into the worid, if he thought proper, he
could by one act have convinced the worid that he was God. Why did
he not ? because he left man at liberty ; and his salvation depending
on his co-operation and free will. So in the Eucharist,— if it were a
thing not subject to the accidents of other raatter, the bread and wine
might be thrown into the fire and water and not suffer any change ; in
that case the liberty of man would be destroyed.
Mr. Nangle. — That is.«ot the question, Mr. Hughes.
Mr. Hughes. — I will not be interrupted in this maimer — I wiU now
rest as long as I please — (silting down.)
Mr. Nangle. — WeU then, let Mr. Stoney reply.
Mr. Hughes. — Do not stir. Sir, till I please.
[He then resumed.]
I ara at it again. Then, my friends, the doctrine ofthe Calholic
church is, that while the body and blood of Christ are inthe sacrament,
it retains all jlhe external accidents ; otherwise the miracle would de
stroy the liberty of man. It is a principle of Christian philosophy,
that God left man at liberty, which would not be the case if it were
otherwise with the sacraraent.
Gelasius offered under both kinds : I told you that at that time cer
tain persons called Manichees came from Africa to Rome — they were a
sect that believed wine to be the production of the devil, and therefore
would not communicate in both kinds ; to refute them, this pope went
to the opposite extreme, and coramanded all to take comraunion in
both kinds.
He has brought forward a story of a schpol- master in Bohemia,
which had nothing to dowith the arguraent. The Emperor Ferdinand
applied to the Pppe for a grant of the cup tP the laity, and if I gave

MR. STONEY'S SECOND SPEECH. 169
the cup to the pepple I would v'lolate no article of faith — discipline is
pne thing, faith is anpther — if we refuse the cup to the people, they
are at no loss, because, receiving in one kind, they receive both.
Well, because Mr. Keaveny and 1 used the sarae arguments, Mr. Kea
veny is the author of the doctrine. Suppose Mr. Stoney and I were
reading the Bible, and drew the same inference from it, therefore, Mr.
Stoney is the author ofthe Bible. This arguraent is 1000 years older
than either Mr, Keaveny or 1.
He says the Council of Constance passed a decree with regard to the
eucharist — I have it here : it is the 13ih can. pf the 7ih session.
The sacrament was instiltuted by Christ al supper, but it raay also be
received fasting — both kinds were then given ; though done then, it is
not obUgatory now : it was then given at supper — it is not now ; it was
not then necessary to fast, but the Council of Conslance has decreed it
necessary to fast. That is the meaning of the Council of Constance,
upon which Mr. Stoney puts a false construction. I convicted him of
an impious and blasphemous declaration about the Council of Trent —
I handed up the book to the chairman, who read the passage in English
and Latin. Did Mr. Stoney read the true words ? no, he read false
words. I see Protestants here to-day who were not here yesterday ; I
will tell thera of the falsehoods of which I proved Mr. Stoney ip be
guilty. Mr. Nangle. — Are you not now out of order, Mr. Hughes ?
Mr. Hughes. — I ara out of order, when he is hit 1
Mr. Stoney says he hopes the people will take his advice, and follow
the authority of Christ. Follow your advice ! you wrong-headed man !
I am sorry I cannot apply to hira the language which I would to anp
ther clergyman ; but he is not deserving of even the ordinary courtesy
of one gentleman to another.
He says the Corinthians were all drunk at the sacrament : this is a
false quotation. Mind, in the tirae of St. Paul it was the custom of
the people to corae together after taking their supper at horae ; — but
did they get drunk in the church ? That is not the way : they got
drunk at home, and then went there. This is what St. Paul says in
1 Cor. xi. 20 : " When you coine, therefore, together into one place,
it is not now to eat the Lord's Supper : for every one taketh before his
own supper to eat, and one indeed is hungry and another is drunken."
They ate their supper at home, before they came. I am surprised he
is capable of misquoting scripture in that way : what an antagonist I
have lo grapple with ! He does not give me the merit of exercising
ingenuity — his blunders are my best arguments.
[Here Mr. Hughes's tirae expired.]
Mr. STONEY. — Mr. Hughes says I raiscpnstrued a passage pf
scripture — I will new read it for you : " Now in this that I declare
unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but
for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church,
I hear that there be divisions among you ; apd I partly believe it.
For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are ap
proved may be made manifest among you. When ye come tpgether

170 FOURTH DAY'S DISCUSSION.
therefore into pne place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in
eating every one taketh before olher his own supper : and one is hun
gry, and another is drunken. What ? have ye not houses to eat and
drink in ? or despise ye the church of God, and shame thera that have
not ? What shall I say to you ? Shall I praise vou in this ? I praise rjou
not." Let that passage go to the public, and let ihem pass their opi
nion upon it, whether St. Paul is not speaking of the wicked practice
of getting drunk at the Lord's supper, when they carae together.
Mr. Hughes says he would violate no article of faith in giving the
cuptothelaity; lam glad to hear him say so, and I hope the people wiU
go 10 him for it. The Manichean heretics abhorred wine, and Mr.
Hughes says Pope Gelasius went to the opposite extreme— a pope
went lo the opposite extreme ! Here is papal authority against the
Council of Trent, and against Mr. Hughes hiraself.
He endeavoured to excite the passions. of the people against rae,
because I spoke of the blood of Christ becoming musty ; — I deny that
the blood of Christ ould grow musty, but I say that wine could, and
I have proved that there is nothing but wine in the sacrament : the
words were not mine but Cardinal Bellarmine's — here they are :
Mr. Hughes. — I admit them.
Mr. Stoney. — It was not at my words you were offended but at
Cardinal Bellarmine's. He slated that infants in primitive times were
given the cup, because it was said, " except ye eat the flesh of the Son
of raan and drink his blood ye have no life in you." The cause of
giving the cup was an impression that it was necessary to salvation to
receive the wine ; a fear was generally excited, that infants would
perish if tbey did not receive the wine as well as the bread.
Mr. Hughes challenged rae to read seven texts which he quoted —
here they are : — " I am that bread of Ufe  This is the bread which
cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die ....
1 am the living bread which carae down from heaven : if any man eat
of this bread, he shall live for ever : and the bread that 1 wiU give is
ray flesh, which I shall give for the Ufe of the world. . . '. .This is that
bread which came down from heaven : not as your fathers did eat
niapna, and are dead : he that eateth this bread shall live for ever."
Jchn vi. 48, 50, 51,68. Suppose these passages, quoted by Mr. Hughes,
were put in pne column, and in another those where our Loi-d and the
apostle Paul command us to drink the wine, would these parallel co
lumns contradict one another ? Surely not ; they would be found per
fectly harmonious, and prove that Christ was speaking of spiritual
feeding, as he was in another place of spiritual worship.
He asks would popes, cardinals, bishops and priests be satisfied to
die without taking the cup, if they thought it any loss to ihem ? It
little matters what is thought by popes, cardinals, bishops and priests.
The grand question is, what does the word of God say ? and 1 have
proved on the authority of the word of God, and by the acknowledg
ment of councils, that the cup is unjustly wrested from the peoptei
Mr. Hughes alluded to his arguments being addressed to empty walls —
that is not our fault ; he has.iiowever, the advantage of addressing the
meeting at the close of each day, when I have np opportunity of

MR. STONEY'S SECOND SPEECH. 171
TSplying, a liberty which we were obliged to yield, contrary to our judg
ments, because we were afraid our opponents would break up the dis
cussion if they could get any colourable pretext.
My adversary says, the Holy Ghost descending like a dove is an
argument for transubstantiation. He also argued from the fiery tongues.
His argument on that point might have some show'of plausibility, if
the thing that appeared, and that we were lold was like a dpve, was
yet totally different from the appe»raiice of a dove, or was as ditt'erent
from it as the wafer is from a human body. We are not required tp
believe that a dove was a sione, any more than that a piece pf flpur
and water is the glorified body of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I now beg to direct your altentiou to a passage in the wprd of God.
I refer you to 2 Kings xviii. 4, " He removed the high places, and brake
the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen
serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of
Israel did burn incense lo it ; and he called il Nehushtan." The
meaning of the woid Nehushtan is a piece of brass. The brazen
Serpent was presevered from the lime of Moses. It was abused 10 the
purposes of idolatry. The people began to worship it, and so fell
into idolaiory. Hezekiah broke it in pieces ahd called it a piece of
brass. So Mr. Hughes tells us his wafer is the real body and blood of
Christ : but indeed it is Nehushtan — a piece of flour and water, "the
workman made it, therefore it is not God." Again let us refer to
1 Kings xviii. 27 : " And it came to pass at noori, that Elijah mocked
them, and said, cry aloud : for he is a God ; either he is talking, or he
is pursutngi or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeih, and
must be awaked."
Mr. Hughes. — I ara afraid his time is out.
Mr. Stoney. — Well; here we find an answer to what some have
said, that we shpuld not use an argument against transubstantiation
frora absurdity. But I say you ought, and I have the authority and
exaraple of the prophet for saying so. He ridiculed thfe absurdity;
the raonstrous absurdity of the priests' worshipping Baal, and calls
their iraage a false god. We have as much right to call transubstan
tiation an absurdity, a gross absurdity, and as monstrous things follow
frora it as those the prophet has related.
I now go to Isaiah xliv. 9, &c. " They that make a graven image
are all of thera vanity ; and their delectable things shall not profit, and
they are their own witnesses : they see nbt, nor know ; that they may
be asharaed. Who hath formed a god, and molten a graven image
that is profitable for nothing ? Behold, all his fellows shall be ashamed ;
arid the workmen they are of men : let thera all be gathered together,
let them stand up ; ' yet they shall fear, ahd they shall be ashamed
together. The smith with the tongs both tvorketh in the coals, and
iiashiOneth it with hammers, and worketh it ¦v^'iib the strength pf his
arms : yea, he is hungry, and his strength faileth : he drinketh no
water, and is faint. The carpenter slretcheth out his rule ; he markelh
it out wilh a line ; he fiitelh it with pkries, and he markelh it out with
the compass, and maketh it after the figure of a man, according to the
beauty of a man ; that it may remain in the house. He heweth him

172 FOURTH DAY'S DISCUSSION.
down cedars, and taketh the cypress and the pak, which he strengthen
eth for hiraself among the trees of the forest : he planteth an ash, and
the rain doth nourish it. Then shall it be for a man to burn : for he
will take thereof and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh
bread;' yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it: he maketh ita
graven image, and falleth down thereto. He burnelh part thereof in
the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh ; he roasteth roast, and is
satisfied: yea, he warmeth himself, and saith. Aha, I am warm, I
have seen the fire : and the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his
graven image ; he falleth down unto it and worshippeth it, and prayeth
unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god. They have not
known nor understood : for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot
see ; and their hearts that they cannot understand. And none con-
sidereih in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to
say, I have burnt part of it in the fire ; yea, also I have baked bread
upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it ; and shall I
make the residue thereof an abomination ? shall I fall down lo the
stock of a tree?'' Here again is an argument from absurdity. The
prophet shows the absurdity of a person planting a tree, watering it,
and, when it has grown to sufficient dimensions, cutting it down, using
part for fuel, and part for making a god. Equally absurd is the prac
tice of the Roman Catholic Church. They take a bag of flour : part
of it they use as food, and of part they make a god, and fall down and
worship it.- Here is the prophet's description of that folly. Isaiah
xliv. 17: " And the residue thereof he raaketh a god, even his graven
iraage ; he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto
it, and saith, Deliver me ; for thou art ray god." We heard yesterday
frora these gentleraen, that if they were in a dangerous sea, and their
ship were sinking, that they would take the wafer out of their pecket
and say, " Deliver me ; for thou art my god I" Yes: they admitted
it. " They have not known nor understood : for he hath shut their
eyes, that they cannot see ; and their hearts, that they cannot under
stand. And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge
nor understanding to say, I have burnt part ofit in the fire ; yea, also
I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and
eaten it ; and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination ? shall I
fall down to the stock of a tree?" They have not the sense lo say,
This flour was partly made into food by the baker. It grew in the
corn-field; was threshed in the barn; ground in the mill; part ofit
the baker made into bread, which was used for food; and of the rest
we raake an aboraination, and fall down and worship it. Mark what the
word of God says about this, " Shall I fall down to the stock of a tree ?''
They worship an idol of paste, made from flour and water, which cannot
see or hear, or feel, any more than a log of wood, which was
worshipped as an idol in his day. The prophet himself, however,
gives us the true reason of this awful folly, v. 20 : " He ftedeth on
ashes ; a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver
his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand ?" Yes, Gen
tleraen ! a deceived heart has turned you aside, so that you cannot
deliver your souls, nor say • is there not a lie in ray right hand 1' The

MR. HUGHES' THIRD SPEECH. 173
object of your worship is a poor, wretched, miserable, worthless,
wafer. Those idols were made frora a tree ; the clergy of the Church
of Rome take flpur and water, make thera into paste, flatten it be
tween heated irons, and set it up as a God. A deceived heart it is
which leads thera into, the abomination of worshipping the work of
their own hands. " They be no gods," says the Apostle, " which are
made with hands." The wafer is raade with hands. It was sent to
the miller in seed. The baker got a part, the cook got a part.
(A Voice in the Gallery. — The minister got the tenth grain.)
Having made it into an idol they fall down and worship it.
[ Here Mr. Stoney's time expired.]
Mr. HUGHES. — Gentleraen, I have to arraign that man.
Mr. Stoney. — Abuse me now.
Mr. Hughes. — I arraign you before this important and respectable
assembly, of using arguments calculated to lead them into error. You
prove your point, by torturing Scripture. You say that the Eucharist
is bread, that it was sown in the field, reaped, brought to the mill,
ground, and brought to the baker's shop to be baked. But you did
not tell the meeting what I shall tell thera now. Mind now what I
say. You did not tell thera the words of Christ at the last supper —
al that awful moment when all the tragic scene of his bloody sufferings
were pressing heavily pn his sacred heart — it was then that he took
bread, and raising his eyes to heaven, he blessed and broke it — and
by the same power, by which he created the world's out of nothing —
what did he say on that awful occasion ? Taking the bread, he said,
" This is my body," — and taking the cup, he said, " This is my blood."
Why did you not mention that part, Mr. Stoney ? Your arguments
are like a man that says 3 and 5 make 8 ; 17 and 4 are 21. Fellow
me that, he says. Prove that my arguments are not sound. Go down
now and shake hands with the giant's causeway ! His arguments are
sophistical and calculated to leaid astray. They would not bring con
viction to any honest Protestant.
In Mat. xxvi. 28, Christ says, " This is my body which is broken,
and ibis is my blood which is shed for you.'' Mark, he says is broken.
In the Gospel, according to St. Luke, he says the same. Farther, in
1 Cor. xi. 24, " Tnis is my body which is broken for you." What
body ? The very body which is broken on the cross, the very blood
which is now running in ray veins. He says, " Except ye eat the
flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye will not have eternal
life." He passed these : and went to the miller, the baker and shops.
He flew away from the real point. Is that argument ? St. Paul said,
" This is my body which is broken for you, this do in remembrance
of me." Mind friends : what did Christ do ? There were only twelve
present. He said to them, what I do, do you. We do the very thing
that Christ did, because he commanded us lo do it. And because we
obey him, Mr. Stoney says we worship a, poor, wretched, miserable,
worthless, idol, though Christ declared it was his body and blood.
Well, he charged us with idolatry, and quoted passages from the Old
Testament condemning idolatory. Of course idols were made, and

174 FOURTH DAY'S DISCUSSION.
Mr Stoney compares pagan idols wilh the Eucharist, There is no re
semblance between ihem. Did God say that an idpl was the body and
the blood of Christ. But it is not so with us. Where he could found
a comparison is surprising. I am ashamed that he abused your time
by such a pitiful argument.
The brazen serpent. What about it ? We know that the brazen
serpent had some virtue in it lo heal the people as a figure of Christ
upon ihe cross. It was true, as a figure of Christ, but they turned it
into an idol and worshipped it.
We do not worship bread, though it has the external appearance of
it, but the second Person of the blessed Trinity who is really and sub
stantially present in it; because Christ's unerring lips have repeatedly
declared that it is. He then talks of his right lo speak the first speech.
I must answer that, and explain how I am the last speaker. It occurred
from the order of the challenge. I owe him no compliment ; I never
owed him a compliment. He raade me pay hira well. He put my
miserable cow in pound for tithes, where she remaint-d fourteen days.
(Shouts and groans.) 1 would not accept any compliment from hira.
I ara sorry to use this language towards bim, but his conduct does not
deserve the courtesy and politeness I would observe towards any other
clergyman. I will now go lo other arguments. In remerabrance of Christ, Mr.
Stoney says, the sacrament should be taken, and, therefore, Christ is
absent. We are lold in Wisdom or Proverbs, I think, remember thy
Creator. 1 his remembrance does not suppose his absence. And in
the same manner, though Christ is with us, he lold us lo do it in re
membrance of Him Why so? Is it because he is not present ? No:
but because his presence does not strike the senses he commanded us
lo remember him. In the dove ihe Holy Ghost did not strike the
senses, and, therefore, we should exercisethat act of ihemind, remem
brance. So in the tongues of fire. Christ is present; yet we remem
ber, though present, what he did. Remember that I look waler and
washed your feet — remember that I took bread and blessed it — remem
ber thai I lold you lo drink all ofthe cup. All these things we are
told tiy Christ to keep in remembrance. We think an officiating
priest must lake coramunion in both kinds, because Christ who was
a priest after the order of Meli hisedek gave illo his Apostles who were
priests. None but the Apostles were present al the lasl Supper. None
were present but priests, who were obliged to lake it ; and the com
mand to drink is not given to the laity. See how Mr. Sioney shuffles.
He says the 6th of John does not refer to the Eucharist, and yet, when
jl answers his purpcse, he admits Ihat it b-ars on it. He first refers lo
it, and then flies away when he finds it hilling him too hard.
Either thai chapter refers to the Eucharist or il does not. Kit does
we are both right in referring to it. If not, why did you refer to it ?
Part of it says, "eat the flesh and drink the blood." This refers lo
priests, or to both priests and laity. My argument is good in either
way, but you have deserted your argument. You rejected that autho
rity, and then you referred to il to prove communion in both kinds.
1 am more delighted at that than at any thing that has transpired dur-

MR. STONEY'S THIRD SPEECH. 175
ing the discussion. Mr. Stoney alludes to the cup being called the
blood of Christ, in a literal sense. If 1 ask how many glasses did you
take Mr. Stoney ? How many tumblers of punch 1 ¦ I would not mean
the glass but the contents of them. I took raany a tumbler of punch,
and will again. But I, have never swallowed a glass yet, but the con
tents of the glass. He ought to have been ashamed of such a silly ar
gument. A man capable of inventing that could invent anything. I
never saw such a powerful invelntion as Mr. Stoney's, he ought to be
adored for it I
Mr. Stoney observed on Transubstantiation in his last argument. I
will npw quote a word or two from the holy Fathers on that. I could
quote thirty-eight Fathers, and hand over the book to any Protestant
that wishes for it. I will commence with St. Ignatius, who was educa
ted and instructed by St. John. What did he say with regard to tran
substantiation? He lived 1800 years ago. The Gnostics rejected the
eucharist because they did not think it contained the body and blood
of Christ, and for that rejection the saint speaks of them in these words,
(here Mr. Hughes quoted St. Ignatius.) I will give you the words of
three saints more to the same purport. One of ihera says, " I will
give you the heavenly flesh of the Son of God." Who said this ? One
that was a disciple of John the Evangelist, who reclined on the breast
of Christ and heard those words of Christ at the last supper. Is this
authority ? Christ taught John, and John taught Ignatius.
[ Here Mr. Hughes' tirae expired.]
Mr. STONEY. — Mr. Hughes accused rae of going tp the miller and
baker for arguraents against transubstantiation. The prophet Isaiah
went to the forge of the sraith, and the work-shop of the carpenter, for a
sirailar purpose. I have therefore the authority of the word of God for
thus exposing this doctrine. 1 think it ray duty, in all sincerity, being
authorised by the exaraple ofthe prophet, lo show ihe idolatry of wor
shipping a bit of flour and water.
He accused rae of going to the 6th of John. It was he that brought
rae there. I showed frora the 6lh of John, that, admitting for argu
ment's sake, the literal interpretation, though I had proved that il must
be taken spiritually — yet, if literal, no man can be saved unless he
drinks the wine. So much for his seven texts ; tbey go for nothing.
At the time of giving the cup to the Bohemians, who had demanded
it, the church of Rome admitted and endeavoured to enforce the belief
that the 6ih of John was figurative— when it answered her purpose she
explained it figuratively ; but now, when she wants to serve another
purpose, she explains it literally. We are told that Jacob wrestled with
an angel, and yet he is called a man. This argument would be good,
if it were said he wrestled with the appearance of a man, and yet was
required to believe that it was not such. So in the wafer, you are
not lo believe that it is God, or ,any thing, but a wafer.
Thino's supernatural are above the senses. I do admit that there are
sorae things, such as the Trinity, which are above our reason. But 1
deny that we would be called upon to beUeve the miracles recorded in

176 FOURTH DAY'S DISCUSSION.
the word of God if they were not manifest lo the senses, which tran
substantiation is not. "We have a real transubstantiation at the raar
riage of Cana in Galilee.' When the cup of transubstantiated liquid
was presented to the lips of the guests, did it not taste like wine ?
Supposing it tasted like water, and they were told to believe, on peril
of being cursed, that it was wine and net water, wpuld they not have
scouted him and his miracles ?
Mr. Hughes talks of raedicine to cure the sick. Supppse a dpctor
visited a sick raan, taking with him a bottle of liquid, and would say,
here is medicine for you ; it has the appearance of Uquid, but I insist
upon it that it is a solid pill, and not drink. Would he not say, Sir,
my senses tell me that it is liquid and not solid. He would treat such
an attempt to blindfold him, as a gross imposition.
1 recollect hearing of a Protestant man who was married to a Roman
Catholic woman, (and I have the same friendship for an honest Roraan
Catholic that 1 have for an honest Protestant.)
Mr. Hughes. — I suppose that is O'Donnell.
Mr. Stoney. — This Protestant man took sick and his Roraan Ca
lholic partner brought a priest to him, who endeavoured to convince
him that the eucharist was changed into the body and blood of Christ.
He could not succeed in his endeavours. At length the following con
versation occurred. " Oh ! Sir," said the sick man, feigning derange
ment, " look at that beautiful horse on the table near the bed. That is
not ahorse," replied the priest, "do not be deceiving yourself.'' "I say it
is," said the other; "look at its nice mane and tail." "You aredoating,"
answered the priest. " I am not : I insist it is a horse.'' The Roman
Catholic clergyman said, " my friend, you are mistaken ; you raust be
raving. It is the cork which you took out of one of your medicine hot-
ties." " How do you know," asked the sick man. " The evidence of
ray senses," said the priest, " inforras rae that it is nothing but a cork."
" Well, Sir," said the dying Protestant, " do not my senses tell rae
that what you say is the body and blood of Christ is nothing but a
wafer, and why should I believe it to be any thing else." Thus he re
futed the Romish clergyman's idolatry in his last moments.
A Voice. — Because he was foolish. (Great shouting; hisses and
groans.) Mr. Stoney. — The foolishness of God is wiser than men. Fair
play. Irishmen love fair play; and let me experience it at your
hands. Mr. Hughes tells us, that the gloripus Creatpr pf heaven and earth
is in the wafer. I say, that if the priests of the Church of Rorae have
the power to transubstantiate a piece pf flpur and water into the Al
mighty God, they are greater than their Creator, because they make
their Maker!! " ,¦- ¦ *'
This argument tells with power upon a doctrine which has been«
haramered to pieces by the word of God. ,' '
Mr. Hughes quptes hply Fathers. I will new give him a frienidiy
challenge. He says he has 38 holy Fathers to prove transubstgiti^fin.
Let hira produce as many passages frora the Fathers as he can, to

MR. STONEY'S THIRD SPEECH. 177
support any controverted dogma pf his religion, and I will produce as
many frora other Fathers contradicting them.
Mr. Hughes. — I accept that challenge ; come now to it ; (holding
up a volume of quotations from the Fathers.
Mr. Stoney. — I cannot do it at the present moment. (Great
shouting.) I see a few in that part ofthe house who are not shouting, because
conviction is flashing to their hearts.
A Voice. — You are a liar, you  (the rest of the sentence istoo
gross to insert.)
Mr. Stoney. — They are exercising their private judgment upon
the word of God. The truth of God cannot be contradicted. (Shouts.)
Every shout \sfor me.
A Priest.— You are insulting the people.
Mr. Stoney, — 1 speak, not to insult but to convince. The Church
of Rome and the Church of England are now brought to the bar of
private judgment, aided by the instruction of the word of God.
Mr. Hughes refers to transubstantiation. I have already proved that
when our Lord Jesus Christ used those words, he did not intend to
change bread and wine into his body and blood: because he called
Ihem bread and wine after consecration.
I called upon him to prove from Scripture that infants who do not
receive the wine lose their souls. They will not lose their souls from
the want of one or ihe other sacrament. I beUeve the blbod of Christ
avails for children, though they may not have got the advantage — and
I admit it to be an advantage — of being introduced into the visible
fold ofthe Christian Church.
I am sorry I ara forced to allude to what displeases you ; but I must
endeavour, and every honest opponent will give me credit for the
endeavour, to the best of my ability, to defend what I believe and
know from the word of God to be the truth.
The brazen serpent was broken and called Nehushtan, because it
was turned into an idol. Suppose the children of Israel were told that
though it had the appearance of a serpent it was really a bird, would
they have believed it ? No : they would have rejected such teaching
against the evidence of their senses.
I have shown that the Councils of Constance and Trent, 1400 years
after Christ, acknowledged that coramunion in both kinds was common
in primitive times. I have shown you that this right was wrested by
the Bohemians, who found it in the Holy Scriplure. I have shown
you that the Lord anticipated the error of the Chureh of Rome, and
carefully provided for it by saying emphatically, drink Yb all of
this. I now leave the case to the pubUc ; the enlightened of whora wiU,
I doubt not, see who is right and who is wrong. The shouts of the
mob VvUl not intimidate or frighten me, because I believe there is One
greater than they with me. The truth of God will stand when Mr.
Hughes and Mr. Stoney, poor, wretched, fallen creatures, wiU have
passed away.
[Here the discussion of thus questipn clcsed.] ,

17^ FOURTH DAY'S DISCUSSION.
SECOND QUESTION.— FIRST PART.
THE authenticity, &C. OF THE SCRIPTURES.
Mr. Loftus  I call on you, Mr. Stoney, to prove according to
your rule of faith, the integrity, the authenticity, the veracity, and the
canonicity of your Bible.
Mr. STONEY. — I feel happy that T ara this day called upon to prove
the integrity, authenticity, veracity, and canoninity ofthe Bible. I re.
gret that I cannot for a littie time sppak loud enough to be heard by all
present. I shall commence by making the same remark on this objection
as I have already upon preceding days ; though in themselves of value, of
the utmost value, yet in connection with this discussion, and as brought
against me, I must characterize them as frivolous, as I have already
done to the others.
I charged the Church of Rome with teaching awfully false doctrines,
and how ara I met ? In such a raanner as proves the truth of Protes
tant principles — not one false doctrine has been imputed to us — no
error of that description has been charged upon our church ; but a few
captious ques i>/i.s have been put by my opponent, who comes arm in
arm with the Sjciaian as his ally.
This is a mosti^i^ .vitant confession of the value and evidence ofthe
truth of the Protesta.iC religion.
The question before ¦ ,s not frivolous as regards the holy word of
God, but it is so as far as regards the matter before us — as brought for
ward in opposition to the awful crimes of which I have convicted the
Church of Rome.
Who is rriy opponent ? Is it Mr. Hughes ? Is it any of the respect
able Roman Calholic clergymen present? No, it is Mr. Hughes, stand
ing in the shoes of the infidel ; he comes against me wilh the sword
drawn from the scabbard which hangs beside the infidel. He calls
upon me to prove the truth ofthe Scriptures — to prove the truth ofthe
very Bible which he hiraself admits to be true, for his Bible is the
same as rainp, with a few differences in the translation.
1 charged his church with awful errors, involving in thera the guilt
of idolatry — he could bring no error against me.
Mr. Hughes. — That is not the question.
Mr. Stoney.— -I will now give some of the leading reasons why I
believe the Holy Scriptures — 1 will be obliged to go over thera more
rapidly than I would wish, in consequence of my Umited tirae, but I
can again recur to thera in my next twenty minutes.
I say, if God has given a book to guide men to eternal happiness, it
is of importaince that we should know that it is true and not counterfeit.
In this I agree with the infidel who comes forward to oppose me — I
apply not this terra to Mr, Hughes, but lo his question.
I will now show why I believe the Bible to be of Divine inspiration :
IJay the greatest stress on this point, because if proved to be inspired.

MR. STONEY'S FIRST SPEECH. 179
the others will naturally foUow ; I wUl, however, prove them all, for I
have abundance of arguments.
Mr. Hughes. — There are four questions, and if you dp npt defend
each on its own merits, I will call you to prder.
Mr. Stoney. — You wish, I perceive, to break up the raeeting. —
(Shouts and interruption.)
Mr. Nangle  Mr. Hughes, do you not suppose that Mr. Stoney is
entitled to commence by proving the inspiration ofthe Bible.
[At this stage of the proceedings the gallery was on the point of
breaking down, from the dense crowd which occupied it, and their
violent proceedings ; this having been represented to Mr. St. Clair
O'Malley, a magistrate, he ordered the police to clear and lock it up.
As the gallery was filled with the most noisy of Mr. Hughes' par
tisans he was greatly displeased at their being excluded, and in-
¦sisied on his right to the gallery, having gotten the court-house from
the sub-sheriff. Mr. O'Malley however persisted in the performance
of what was indeed an act of humanity. Amongst rtiany other vio
lent expressions of displeasure, a priest cried out — " deprive him of
the Commission of the Peace !"]
Mr. Hughes. — 1 am glad it was a Protestant that did it — it was done
to break up the meeting.
Mr. Nangle. — I promise you that if we are put out ofthis we will
provide another place to carry on the discussion.
[Mr. Stoney, attempting lo go on, was again interrupted ; and a
discussion ensued between ihe chairmen, as to whether his line of
argument was adraissiblf.]
Mr. Stoney. — My first proposition is, that a great numberof pious
men in different parts of the world, and in all ages, agreed in receiving
the Bible as the pure revelation of God. I'heir labours have been
employed in investigating it; ai.d iheir talents in the diligent sturly of
it. All the powers of ihe human mind, the most exalted intelligence,
and the greale-t wisdom of the greatfst men have been engaged upon
the study ol it ; and the result of their diligent scrutiny hcis been, tha,t
the Bible is the veracious word of God.
l\ir. Loftus. — I call you to order. Prove the que^;tions by your
rule of laith.
Mr. Stoney — At the peril of yourtause I call upon you to, allow
me to go on. You, may stop my mouth, but you are at the bar of
public opinion, and your motives will be seen. (Shouts.)
Mr. Nangle. — Tne question is to prove, accmdini; to his rule of
faith, that tiie Scriptures possess such attributes ; if in doing so he calls
in arguments on which cannot be exercised private judgment, 1 admit
that he has not a right to do so : but your present course is like throvy-
ingaman into the water to Iry whether he (ould swim, having first
tied his hands and his feel. If you do not allow Mr. Stoney the full
extent of proof, we will discuss them elsewhere,'both frora the platform
and the press.
Mr. Hughes. — Let hira prove his points from his rule of faith,
which he says is the Bible.
Mr. Loftus.— I will read the challenge on this question. ''I call
M 2

180 FOURTH DAY'S DISCUSSION.
on you to prove hy your rule of faith, the integrity, the authencity,
the veracity, and the canonicity of your Bible.''
Mr. Nangle.— I deny that Mr. Loftus has read the challenge cor
rectly. He read it "hy your rule of faith," instead of "aecordirig, to
your rule of faith." Mr. Stoney is not afraid to undertake to prove
according to his rule of faith, that the Scriptures possess the attributes
contained in the question. If you refuse to hear him, the public will
see the cause why he bas been manacled and his raouth stopped.
Mr. Hughes. — I knew he could npt prove these questions. (Hur
rahs, shouts, &c. &c.)
Mr. Nangle. — You wished to show the necessity of an infalUble
authority in the church. Let Mr. Stoney proceed, and if he atterapt
to bring his arguments from any supposed infallible authority, stop
him. Mr. Stoney.' — I vvill bring forward the Pope as a witness. I will
prove the truth of the Scriptures from the corruptions of popery.
Mr.- Hughes. — I will 'make one remark. 'The Protestant clergy
are a learned, intelligent, and respectable body. Protestants pause and
consider why they are unable to prove their own Scriptures.
Mr. Stoney. — I am here readyjo do it, if I am allowed to proceed.
Mr. Nangle  I deny that we are unable to prove thera. The pub
lic will see and judge for themselves, why you interrupt the proceedings.
Mr. Hughes. — I do not care.
Mr. Stoney. — " They tiiat do evil hate the light ; neither corae to
the light, lest their deeds should be reproved."
Mr. Nangle. — Mr. Steney is not to come manacled to the discus
sion ofthis question.
Mr. Hughes  The fault is not wilh you ; the fault is in your rule
pf faith.
Mr. Nangle. — Ypu see that light has been already shed upen ypur
dark systera ; and you are afraid that we should continue to do so. It
is this that determines you to cut short the discussion. (Great shout
ing and interruption.)
Mr. Hughes. — Let him prove them frora the Scriptures. I will
read the 6th of the 39 articles, which says they contain all things neces
sary to salvation.
"Holy Scriplure containeth all things necessary to salvation ; sp that
whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be
required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the
Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name
of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the
Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in
the Church."
Mr. Nangle — I will not consent that ypu shall put a gag in Mr.
Stpney's mouth, and then say he cannet prove the questions.
Mr. Stoney. — I fully admit the 6th article, but it does not support
your arguraent.
Mr. Hughes — What is his rule of faith ? Is it the'book of Com
mon Prayer ? Give it to me. I will think more of itjhan ever, as it
setties their rule of faith.

MR. STONEY'S FIRST SPEECH. 181
Mr. Stoney. — Here is ray rule of faith — the Bible, wiiich is a bat
tery the Church of Rome cannot withstand. (Shouts.)
Mr. Nangle  It is very easy for you to disprove out religion,
when you stand with a mob at your back, to drown Mr. Stoney's voice.
Mr. Hughes. — The best way will be to adjourn now, and meet at
ten o'clock in the raorning to discuss the question.
Mr. Nangle. — Mr. Stoney stUl claims to bring the full extent pf
his prpof, as he will not be manacled.
Mr. Hughes. — The Bible is Mr. Stoney's only authority. He said
he would not believe Archbishop Wake, or Bishop Bull.
Mr. Stoney. — Is it the bull unigenitus, whose horns tossed poper
lo the winds. I vvUl prove the question by the Pope.
Mr. Hughes. — 1 knew you would be obUged to come back to the
Romans. Welcome back to our own faith.
Mr. Stoney. — I go to the ancient Church of Rome, but not to the
modem idol-atrous Church of Rome ; I will go on now. The first proof
was, that numbers of wise and pious men agree in receiving the Scrip
tures as the word of God.
Mr. Loftus. — I will not allow ypu to proceed in that ceurse.
Mr. Nangle. — Mr. Stoney will prove ihe authenticity ofthe Bible
independent of any supposed infallible authprity in any body of men;
but I will not allpw him to stand up tP prove the questions if Uraited
and raanacled in the way you attempt.
Mr. Stoney. — If you have got a letter frpm Tuam stpp me at once.
Mr. Hughes  I tell you I have not got a letter.
Mr. Nangle. — If we are not allowed to go on here, we will show
tiie authenticity of the Scriptures in Castiebar church, and by proof,
independent of any supposed infalUble authority.
Mr. Stoney, — I have proved that a great number of men received
the Bible as the revealed :will of God, and I will now show the aigree-
raent of the sacred writers among themselves.
Mr. Loftus. — I call you to order, Sir, that is not proof from the Bi
ble. (Cheers, shouts, groans, and great disorder.)
Mr. Stoney. — This" raeeting gives a triumphant shout for Mr.
Hughes, but the public will see the matter in its true light : there has
been too much light shed upon your erroneous system, and you are
afraid to allow rae to go on to expose it more.
Mr. Hughes. — We' will wait for five minutes more, and allow Mr.
Stoney to get all the illumination the Holy Spirit can shed on him ; if
he does not go on then, we will break up until morning.
Mr. Stoney. — I am willing to go on if permitted, but I know you
will not allow rae. The reason is evident.
After sorae conference between the Chairmen, il was agreed to ad-
jpurn tiU the next morning.
During the evening, the sub-sheriff (a Rpman Catholic gentleman,)
informed ihe chairman, Mr. Nangle, that he would no longer give the
use of the court-house.
The next morning the chairmen, the disputants, and their respective
friends, assembled at the doors of the court-house, and after a few
minutes conference, agreed to raeet at Sheridan's room, (an

182 FOURTH DAY'S DISCUSSION.
erection behind his hotel,) and to admit an equal nuraber of Protestants
and Romanists.
It was found, however, that there would not be above^the tenth part
of ihe-nuraber of Protestants, and they requested Mr. Sioney to procure
a more open place of ineeiiiig, as they were apprehensive of the con
sequences of meeting in a room entirely excluded from public obser
vation. The Rev. Messrs. Nan-j|e and Bnylee waited on the Rev.
Messrs. Loftus, Hughes, and some olher Roman Catholic clergymen,
offering the use ofthe Castlebar school-room, which was declined by
Ihem. They then requested that Mr. Loftus wou'd unite with Mr. Nangle
in an applicatinn for police to preserve order. This he peremptorily re
fused. Rather than allow the discussion to bt' broken up, the Protes
tant clergy agreed, at y|l hazards, to meet in Sheridan's room ; and,
accordingly proceeded to hi.*! hotel.
The RomanCatholic clergymen were assembled in the drawing-rnom,
and afier nearly half an hour's consultation, sent down a message lo
the Protestant clergymen, that the room wouid not be given under a
sum of £ 0. This was alto-eiher declined by them upon the ground
that they offreH the school-ioom gratuitously — that Mr. Hughes had
originally undertaken to provide a room — and that the increa-sed ac-
coiiimodHtion offered by Sheridan's room would be of no advantage to
iheni, and, without the police, would only afford an opportuniiy for tur
bulence. The Protestants continued for about an hour seeking admission, and
Mr. Stoney repeatedly declared that he was anxious to continue the
disrussion. At length he and his friends adjourned to the school-room
accompanied by some Roman Catholics.
The priests again retired to Sheridan's drawing-room, and Mr.
Hughes harangued the people frora the windows.

SECOND QUESTION— SECOND PART.
THE INTEGRITY, THE AUTHENTICITY, THE VERACITY, AND
canonicity of THE BIBLE.
The discussion ofthis subject took place in the school-roora, on the
Mall of Castiebar, before a respectable audience. Mr. Hughes was
invited to attend, wilh an equal number of his friends, but refused, and
preferred to occupy himself in haranguing the raob out of one of the
windows of Sheridan's Hotel, amidst the shouts and yells of the mul
titude, who he was but too happy to have reraoved from the contagious
influence of Protestant Truth !
Mr. STONEY comraenced by expressing his regret that he had not
an opportunity of answering the objection of Mr. Hughes, in the pre
sence of the vast multitude it was his privilege to address on the four

MR. STONEY'S FIRST SPEECH. 183
preceding days. The priests were evidently watching fpr an pppprtu-,
niiy to break up the discussien : they felt that top muchi light Ijod
been thrown on the superstitions and idolatry of their system, "fhe
parallel drawn between the block-worship of the heathen and the
wafer-worship of the raass, was too much fbr ihem to bear. The
admissions Mr. Hughes and the rest of the priests had made, as lo the
worship of ihat wretched idol, were of the greatest importance.
I now proceed to answer another of the captious and frivolous ques
tions put to me by my opponent, who I again regret is not present to
hear me, along with the people present yesterday. The integrity, au
thenticity, veracity, and canonicity of the Bible are easily proved. I
was proceeding yesterday to prove this subject in a way which was
strictly in order, when I was interrupted in the most unwarrantable
manner by Mr. Hughes and his chairman, Mr. Loftus, aided by the
shouis and uproar of the mob. Why did they thus hinder me from pro
ceeding ? evidently because they were determined to stop all further
discussion. This made me ask whether the post had arrived vvith a
letter from Tuam, comraanding the termination of the controversy;
You all witnessed the sensitiveness of the priests on this announcement,
and the uproar they raised. I will now show the veracity, &c. &c.
of the Bible — I will call in the Pope of Rome as a witness on the
subject, and I doubt not it was this which confirmed Mr. Hughes in
his determination to break up the discussion.
I made two observations yesterday — the first was, that great num
bers of wise and good men, in different and distant liraes and countries,
all agreed in receiving the Bible as of Divine inspiration; the second
was, that the point was proved by the agreement of the sacred writers
amongst themselves — writers living some in distant times frora others,
without comparing notes together, or any possibility of collusion .
Nothing could be more strictly in order than this line I took to prove
Mr. Hughes's question, " according to my rule of faith the Bible."
But nothing could be satisfactory to those who had pre-deterrained to
terminate a discussion they deeply regretted, and will yet more, they
ever entered on.
I had intended to go on, thirdly, to prove my point frora the won
derful miracles recorded in the sacred writings ; fourthly, from the glo
rious character of God, as revealed in the Bible ; fifthly, frpm the
tendency of the word of God to fill with happiness and peace the
soul of the believer ; sixthly, the witness every true believer had in
himself of its truth, by its abiding effects on his own soul — the earnest
and blessed foretaste it gave him of heaven — the communion with God
it wrought for hira ; all which would enable hira to say, like the man
whose sight was given hira by our Lord, " One thing I know, that
whereas 1 was blind, now I see.''
Having answered the frivolous objections of the infidel respecting
books said to be lost, (for Mr. Hughes, though no infidel hiraself, and
professing to receive the Bible, comes againsl me, linked arm in arm
wilh the infidel,) I should then proceed to call in my two witnesses to
the veracity and authenticity of the Bible. The one witness is the

184 . FOURTH DAY'S DISCUSSION.
Jew— the other the Pope. I will pass over the standing miracle,
witnessing to the truth and inspiration of the Scriptures, in the present
state and existence of the Jewish people, scattered through the world,
yet wonderfully preserved a distinct people, for the divine purposes,
according to a great raany predictions in the sacred volurae.
I will now call in the Pope. Would that I had the opportunity of
exaraining the old gentieman before the crowded Court-house yesterday.
The first question I ask this witness is : — Do the Scriptures foretell
that a certain apostacy or falling away should take place?
Ansiver.— Yes. In the 2 Thes. ii. 1—10, it is predicted. "Now
we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in
mind or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as
frora us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no raan deceive you
by any means ; for that day shall not corae, except there come a falling
away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition ; who
opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is
worshipped ; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing
hiraself that he is God. Remeraber ye not, that, when I was yet with
you, I told you these things ? And now ye know what withholdeih
that he might be revealed in his time. For the raystery of iniquity doth
already work : only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out
of the way. And then shall that wicked be revealed whora the Lord
shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the
brightness of his coming, even him whose coming is after the working
of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all
deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish ; because they
received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved."
Second Question. — Was it foretold that this apostacy was gradually
to creep in with privacy and stealth ?
Answer.- — ^Yes: St. Peter foretells in 2 Pet. ii. 1, "But there were
false prophets also among tiie people, even as there shall be false
teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies,
even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves
swift destruction."
Third Question. — Was this apostacy to lay claim to great anti
quity ?
' Answer. — Yes; it could justiy lay claira lo being very old, even
commencing in the apostle's days. 2 Thes. ii. 7 : " For the raystery
of iniquity doth already work : only he who now letteth will lei, until
he be taken out of the way." Matt. xiii. 24, 25, 26 : " Another
parable put he forth unto them, saying. The kingdom pf heaven is
likened untp a man which sowed good seed in his field; but while men
slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his
way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit,
then appeared the tares also."
Fourth Question — Was there to be one head or leader of this
apostacy, claiming fpr himself extraordinary prerogatives, authority,
and power ?

MR. STONEY'S FIRST SPEECH. 185
Answer. — It was thus predicted. 2 Thes. ii. 3, 4 : " Let no man
deceive you, by any means ; for that day shall not come, except there,
come a falling away first, and that raan of sin be revealed, the son of per
dition ; who opposeth and exalteth hiraself above all that is called God,
or that is worshipped ; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God,
showing himself that he is God.'' Dan. vii. 25, " And he shall speak
great words against ihe Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the
Most High, and think to change times and laws ; and they shall be
given into his hand, until a time and times and the dividing of time.''
The buUs of Popes, and the decrees of Councils declare the sove
reign pontiff lo be " King of kings — raonarch of monarchs, and sole
lord and governor, both in spirituals and temporals." Their acts proved
that they exercised Ihe power claimed. Kings were supposed to be
honoured with peculiar distinction by being permitted to hold the pope's
stirrup, to lead the horse on which he rode, or to hand him his cup
while he feasted.
Henry the Fourth, Emperor of Germany, was obliged to stand for
three days and three nights in the depth of winter at the gate of the
fortress of Canusium, bare-headed, and bare-footed, wilh nothing but
a coarse cloth to cover hira, seeking for absolution from Gregory VH.
and the reversion of a bull which had absolved his subjects from their
oath of allegiance, and raised his wife and children in unnatural rebel
lion against him.
King John of England was obliged to resign his crown to the pope's
legate, and receive it again as a gift frora the see ofRorae, having first
subraitted lo the indignity of having it kicked frpra his head as he
knelt, in token of submission, before the pope's representative.
Henry II. was obliged to submit to be flogged, at the pope's com
mand, by sorae raonks, on the bare shoulders, at the torab of Thpraas
a Becket. Henry VI. was forced tP subrait to have bis crown kicked off his
head by the foot ofthe sovereign pontiff himself.
When Innocent the Tenth was chosen Pope, Cardinal Columna, as
he delivered him St. Peter's keys, told him that the angels in heaven
reverenced him, the gates of hell feared him, and the whole world
adored him !
Bellarmine says, that if the Pope should err, in commanding vices, or
prohibiting virtues, then is the church, obliged to believe that vices are
gopd, and virtues are evil, unless she would sin against her conscience.
— Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. lib. 4.
Fifth Question. — Was this apostacy to be characterised by false mi
racles ?
Answer. — Yes " Even hira whose cpraing is after the working pf
Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders." — 2 Thess. ii. 9.
A great part of tbe Breviary, the bopk pf prayer which the priests
use daily, being obliged lo read a certain portion under pain of raortal
sin, is cpmposed of narrations of these predicted lying wonders and
false miracles.
The Breviary relates the history of saints who sailed on their
cloaks across rivers, carrying several monks with them ! of St. Francis

186 FOURTH DAY'S DISCUSSION.
of Rome, who could stand for a long tirae in a river without being wet!
pf St. John a Deo, and St. Peter Celestine, at whose birth the bells
began td ring of their own accord ! of swarras of bees who built their
honey-combs in the hands of St. Ambrose'; St. Peter Volascus, atid St.
Isidore ! of a baby saint, who had her face changed into a rose, froiri
which her name was given her ! of tbe infant St. Philip Benedile, who,
when only five months old, scolded his mother for not giving alms id
some begging friars !
The hrei'iavy relates the following curious miracle : — " Pope John
being on a journey to Corinth, and in want of a quiet and comforhnble
horse, borrowed one which the lady of a certain nobleman used td
ride. The animal carried the Pope remarkably well ; but when the.
lady attempted to use it again, she was thrown oft" every lime she
ventured on the saddle. The Breviary gives the reason. "The horse
felt indignant at having to carry a woraan, after having the vicar of
Christ upon his back ! !''
Il any of you my friends, should happen to possess a restive horse,
this may assist in leading to the discovery of the cause; perhaps the
animal may have once carried a priest on his back, and the wafer deity
along wilh him, and is indignant at being put to any inferior use.
The jB/ewiary also relates miracles of saints vi'ho could not sink,
though' thrown into the sea — who came unhurt out of cauldrons of
boiling pitch and fat — who lived two or three days with their heads
neariy cut off— -and who walked three miles with their heads, which
were cut off, in their hands ! ! !
It Sitys, that the house in which the Virgin Mary lived, in the land
of Judea, was miraculously carried through the air by angels tothe
coast of Dalraatia, but the angels having somehovv or other made a
mistake as to the site it should occupy, the house took another fumjp to
Loretto, in the Pope's dominions.
We heard yesterday frora Mr. Hughes, of a cow jumping over the
moon ; aud also of a numerous list of jumpers which he says are in
the Protestant Church, but ihey aU, including this, miraculous cow,
may hide their diminished heads before the jump of ihedweUing-house
of our Lady of Loretto.
1 greatly regret the absence of Mr. Hughes, and his chairman, Mr.
Loftus. I would ask thera lo read out, for the edification of the mul
titude of Roman Catholics who were assembled to hear our discussion,
these and some more of the miracles contained in that book, put forth
under infallible authority, and in the devout perusal of which their
clergy occupy so large a portion of their tirae every day.
If these wonders be all true, oh ! how all people ought to admire that
book as they see it under the priest's arm.
But vife have some modern specimens of thelying wonders and false
miracles ofthe apostacy; witness Hohenloe's masses which raade such .
a noise. I have been credibly informed, that a wonder was attempted
at the consecration of a Romish chapel lately, by Doctor M'Hale, in
the county Sligo. During the proceedings a bright halo pf Ught was
suddenly seen tP hover above the head pf the bishpp— a miracle, a

MR. STONEY'S FIRST SPEECH. is:'
miracle, was whispered round ! but those in the secret were aware of
a can of water having been placed so as that the beams of the sun
reflected from its surface played on the wall over the lordly performer
of the ceremonies ; indeed, only for Protestant light shining loo clearly
in this country, we would hear, no doubt, of many like wonders.
My reverend opponent, Mr. Hughes himself, seems to have an itch
ing to dabble in miracles. You all heard with what pomposity he
announced the thunder-miracle on the second day of this discussion;
and what an impression he hoped to make by this circumstance on the
ignorant part of his auditory.
Thus the apostacy has been, according to the prediction, character
ized by false miracles and lying wonders.
Sixth Question. — Was it predicted, that the apestacy was to be
marked by the introduction of worship pf the dead, such as the hea
then worship of Demons, and by forbidding to marry and cemmand-
ing lo abstain from meats?
Answer. — Yes, in 1 Tim. iv. 1, 2, 3, it was thus foretold : "Now the
Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from
the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils:
" Speaking lies in hypocrisy ; having their conscience seared wilh a
hot iron ; forbidding to raarry, and commanding to abstain frora
meals, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of
them which beUeve and know the truth."
Seventh Question. — Were the false teachers of this apostacy to
enrich themselves by the sale of spiritual wares?
Answer.,^ltis soforetold in 2 Peter ii. 3 : " And through covetous
ness shall ifiey with feigned words make merchandise of you." — And
in Revelation xviii. 12, 13: "The raerchandise of gold, and silver,
and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and sillc,
and scariet, and all thynne wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and
all raanner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and
marble, and cinnaraon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense,.
and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep,
and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men." — Horses, and
chariots, (quere jaunting cars) and bodies and Souls of Men —
Bryan Bolger, for example.
Eighth Question. — Was the apostate power to be distinguished for
its cruelty and persecution of the disciples of Jesus?
Answer. — Yes, in Revelation xvii. 5, 6: "And upon her forehead
Was a narne written. Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Har
lots arid abominations of the earth. And I saw the woman drunken
with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of
Jesus : and when I saw her, I wondered with admiration.'' " I beheld,
and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against
thera ; And he shall speak great wprds against the raost High, and
shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and
laws : and they shall be given into his hand until a time and tiraes and
the dividing of tirae.'' " And in her were found the blood of prophets,
and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth."
The third Lateran Council passed the following persecuting decree.

188 FOURTH DAY'S DISCUSSION.
" We decree to subject to anathema the Albigenses,* their defend*
ers and receivers ; and under our curse we forbid any one to receive
ihem into their houses, or on their land, or to presume to cherish them,
or hold any intercourse wilh thera — and let their goods be confiscated ;
and it may be lawful for princes to enslave raen of this sort; and
those who take up arras againsl them, and wage war against them, with
the advice of the bishops or other prelates, we relax from the penance
enjoined them for two years." — Con. Later, iii. A.D. 1179, Can. 27.
Again the fourth Lateran Council decrees,
"And if it shall be necessary, let the secular powers be compelled,
whatever situation they may hold, to give diligence according to their
power, to EXTEBMiNATE all those who are marked out by the church
as heretics, from the lands subject to their jurisdiction ; and ifhe shall
contemptuously refuse to make siiiisfaction within a year, it shall
be signified to the sovereign pontiff, that frora that time he raay pro
nounce his subjects absolved from their allegiance, and raay lay open
his country to be possessed by Catholics, who, exterminating the here
tics, shall possess it without contradiction, and preserve thera in the
purity of the faith."— Con. laier. iv. A.D. 1215, Can. 3.
Though these decrees are more than six hundred years old, their-
persecuiing canons are still in force, and acted on by Doctor M'Hale,
Mr. Hughes, and the other priests ; who anathematise and curse any
who becorae Protestants — " forbid any to receive them into their
houses, or hold any intercourse with them."f and finally command to
EXTERMINATE them — lo kill them wilh pitchforks — throw them
into bog-holes ; and hunt thera with dogs and stones ! !
Llorente, in his History of the Inquisition in Spain and Portugal,
tells us, that in the former of these kingdoms the victims of Papal cru
elty were as follows : —
Condemned and BURNED .. .. 31,912
Burnt in Effigy  17,695
Placed in a state of Penance with rigorous
punishments  291,450

Total 341,057
The Inquisition was established with the sanction of Pope Gregery
IX. by Dominic, a Spanish priest : its object was to discover and punish
those suspected of heresy — that is, differing from the church of Rome.
I will give sorae proofs of the manner in which this apostacy has been,
as it was foretold, drunken with the blood of the saints and wilh the
blood of the martyrs of Jesus.
* The Albigenses and Waldenses, -were ancient Christian churches alluded to
on another day of the discussion — they -were persecuted for their Scriptural
doctrines. t In October, 1833, the,Rev. James Hughes, P.P. of Newport in the County
Mayo, deposed on oath as follows, in a public courthouse before abeiich of magis
trates. " I have another subject to state, conceming an advice I gave to the peo
ple in the chapel the Sunday before the defendant met me ; I did advise them

MR. STONEY'S FIRST SPEECH, 189
" Pope Innocent could no Ipnger brpok the obstinacy of the Albi
genses, forasmuch as they were neither moved by the miracles wrought
by the truth of his doctrine, nor by the sanctity of his life, nor by the
force of his reasoning, and they defended their contumacy with arms.
Wherefore he preclaimed a sacred war against them, and he animated
the crusaders with many rewards, in order that ihey might cany it on
strenuously. Much trouble was expended in taking the camp of Mi
nerva, for there were found therein one hundred and eighty persons,
who preferred being burnt alive to adopting a pious creed" ! — Bzovius
Annal. Eccles. Tom. xiii. p. 156.
"In France the Albigensian war was prosperously carried on, under
the directions of Count Montford ; for whereas, in the preceding vear,
the people of Albi had opened their gates to him, and had suffered no
injury, when they afterwards returned to their impiety they did not
escape with impunity. The authors of the mischief were capitally
punished. Varum itself was taken by storm ; there also the impious
were dehvered to the fire when they persisted in their madness."
" Lavavre being taken, Aymeric, ihe Lord of Montroyal, who held
the camp wilh the garr'ison, was hanged ; eighty others who fell from
the gibbet, were slain by the crusaders, who were impatient of the
delay. By the order of Simon and Innocent, all the heretics,
were burnt !
" In the same year ihe crusaders obtained possesion of another
great city, by the divine aid, situated near Toulouse, called frora the
event, the " Beautiful valley ;" in which, when after the exaraination
of the people, all promised to return to the faith, four hundred and
fifty of them, hardened by the devil, persisted in their obstinacy, of
whom four hundred were burnt, and the rest were hanged. The same
was done in the other towns and casties ; these wretches willingly
exposing themselves to death." — Ib. A.D. 1211.
A great number of other cruelties and persecutions might be ad
duced, showing the exact fulfilraent of the predictions. 1 will only
now mention the massacre of Protestants in our own land, in the year
1641, when upwards of one hundred and fifty thousand Protestants
were cruelly raassacred in Ireland. This look place not quite two
hundred years ago.
I wUl now show frora this bopk, the celebrated Dens' Theology,
the provision made by the apostacy for future persecutions whenever it
gets the power tP practice thera. The expected production of this
that if any person went into their viUages or houses to talk to them about religion,
to put them out with pitckforks, to hunt the dogi after them, and to put them
under water foi so many minutes"! !
On that occasion, the Priest got the defendant, a Protestant, convicted and
bound over for quoting in the presence of his reverence, the Ist Epistle to Timothy
iv. ], 2, 3 : " Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some
shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils :
speaking lies in hypocrisy ; having their conscience seared with a hot iron ;
forbidding to marry, and cominancling to abstain from meats, which God hath
created to be received wilh thanksgiving of them which believe and know the
truth."

190 FOURTH DAY'S DISCUSSION.
bopk, had np dpubt a great influence in deterraining the priests
yesterday tP break up this discussion, if possible. I will now read some
extracts :
Vol. II. p. 114. — " Although heretics (Prptestants) are without the
church, nevertheless they remain, by baptisra, subject to the church,
when she justly seizes thera as deserters from her camp."
Vol. II. p. 289. — " Heretics, schismatics, apostates, and aU similar
persons who have been baptized, are bound by the laws of the church
which concern them, nor are they more released from her laws, than
subjects rebelling against their lawful prince, are released from the
laws of that prince."
" By baptism, heretics are made subject to the church, and they
remain personally subject to the church wherever they are."
'Vol. II. p. 80. — " Are unbeUevers to be compelled to join them
selves to the bosora of the faithful >"
We answer, that unbelievers who have been baptized as heretics and
apostates generally are, and alsp baptized schisraalics, dan be com
pelled by corporal punishments, IP return to the Catholic faith and the
unity of the chnrch.
Vol. 11. p. 88. — "What are the punishments of the crime of
heresy ?
" 1st. Open heresy has the greater excommunication of the sen
tence decreed annexed to it.
" 2d. The second punishment is irregularity.
" 3d. Inability to hold a benefice or public office. Heretics well
known to be such, are infamous for this very cause, and are deprived
of Christian burial. Their temporal goods are for this very cause
corifi.icated." *' Finally, they are also justiy aflflicted with corporal punishments,
as with exile imprisonment, &g. &c."
" Are heretics justiy punished wilh death ?
"Yes ; because forgers of money, and other disturbers of the slate,.
are justiy punished with death ; therefore also heretics, who are forgers
of the faith, and as experience proves, grievously disturb the slate 1 1"
The bull unigenitus, which, according to Dr. Murray the Romish
Archbishop of Dublin, in his sworn testimony, is in force in England
and Ireland, concludes with a command to the " patriarchs, bishops
and other ordinaries, also the inquisitors of heretical pravity. thcl they
should ill eyery way coerce und compel its contradictors, and rebels of
every kind whatsoever, by the forementioned censures, and punish
ments, and other remedirs of law and fact, caUing in, if necessary, the
aid of the secular arm. — Dens, vol viii. p. 218.
Here in this book, published by Romish bishops, as the best and
safest guide for Romish priests in Ireland, it is proved, that the church
of Rome considers all who differ frora her doctrines in any part lo be
heretics ; she claims thera as subjects to her, they having been bap
tized ; she believes it her duty to exterminate the rites of their religion,
and to compel them by corporal punishments to submit to her ; that the
punishments decreed are confiscation of property, exile and death:

MR. STONEY'S FIRST SPEECH. 191
that all heretics are liable to suffer these, frora the very fact of their
being so, without further trial or condemnation I !
Thus, is the eighth question answered — cruelly, persecution and intol
erance, is the mark ofthe apostacy foretold in the Scriptures.
JVinth Question. — Were great numbers to be seduced and led away
• by the apostacy ?
Amwer — Yes ; it is written in 2 Thessalonians ii. 10, 11 ; 2 Peter
ii. 2 ; Revelations xiii. 7,8, and xvii. chap. 12 to 15lh verse: /'And
with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish, because
they received not the love of the truth, that they raight be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they shall
believe a lie." — "And many shall follow their pernicious ways ; by
reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of." — " And it
was given unto him to make war wilh the saints, and to overcome
them : and power was given hira over all kindreds, and tongues, and
nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose
names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the
foundation of the world." — " And the ten horns which thou sawest
are len kings, which have received no kingdom as yet ; but receive
power as kings one hour with the beast. These have but one mind,
and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. These shall
make war whh die Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he
is Lord of lords, and King of kings : and they that are wiih him are
called, and chosen, and faithful. And he saith unto me, The waters
which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples and multitudes,
aud nations, and tongues."
Tenth Question. — Where was the great seat and centre of the apos
tacy to be ?
Answer — The city of Rome ; for thus it is written : " And the
woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the
kings ofthe earth." — Rev. xvii. 18.
Now I conclude by asking one question.
If the above descriptions contained in the Scriptures, were inserted
in " the public hue and cry," who would be taken for the person
described ?
Answer. — The most ignorant constable in Europe would go aud
arrest the Pope!
It is quite needless to pursue the subject farther. The exact fulfil
ment ofthe prophecies, especially of those foretelling the Pope and his
apostacy, isa proof of the veracity and authenticity of the .'Scriptures.
There is a portrait drawn by the pen of inspiration, as accurate in all
its lineaments of the Pope and Popery long before it arose to matu
rity, as if the old gentleman of Rome were himself silting for his
picture. Here is inspiration, veracity — authenticity, and here I close again,
expressing ray regret at the retreat of my opponent, and the absence
pf my Roman Catholic fellow sinners from this day's discussion.
[When the last subject was concluded, the Rev. Mr.Stoney proceed
ed IP the pne prpposed for the Fifth day's discussion : " Prayers in an

192 FIFTH DAY'S DISCUSSION.
unknown tongue." He read the fourteenth chapter of the second
epistle to the Corinthians, commenting on each verse, and showing,
how opposite to the apostolical directions is the practice of the priests
of the Church of Rome, in conducting their public worship in a
tongue not understood by the flock.
Mr. Hughes npt having thought proper lo attend, and reply, though
invited to do so, ihe discussien pf the fifth day here ended.]

SIXTH DAY'S DISCUSSION.

QUESTION.
PURGATORY.

THURSDAY, JANUARY, 12.
In consequence of the refusal of Mr. Hughes to attend the discus
sion on ihe preceding day, though repeatedly invited, the following
placard was posted by daylight in all the streets of the town of
Castlebar, and copies sent to the priests.
SIXTH DAY'S DISCUSSION.
the
FABULOUS PRISON OF PURGATOR"y.
The Rev. Mr. Hughes is invited to raeet the Rev. Mr. Stoney, to hold
a public discussion this day in the School Room on ihe Mall of
CASTLEBAR,
On the above errpr pf the Church of Rome : and also pn Mr. Hughes'
Sixth ppint pf pbjection against Protestantism. Eighty persons to be
present on each side, adraitted by tickets. " Every one that doeth
evU hateth the light, neither cometh lo the light lest his deeds should
be reproved. But he that doeth truth coraeth to the light, that his
deeds may be made manifest that tbey are wrpught in God." —
John iii. 20, 21. January 12, 1837.
The Rev. Mr. Stoney and his friends attended all day at the scheol-
rppm, but Mr. Hughes did not appear. In the evening Mr. Stoney
preached in the Churcb of Castiebar, to a very large congregation, a
great number of Roman Catholics attending, on the doctrine of
Purgatory. On the following evening he again preached on auricular confession,
bringing forward Dens' Theology, and the Maynooth Class Book,
to show the abominable practices of the priests. He also exhibited
the Achill Scapular, sold by the priests to the deluded people, and
worn round their necks as a defence or charm'. It is in contem];datipn
tP publish these discPurses, with copious extracts from Dens'
Theology.
Such was the cpnclusipn pf a Discussipn, the beneficial effects
of which will be long felt throughput the whple cpuntry.

THE ROMISH IDOLS EXHIBITED AT THE CASTLEBAR
DISCUSSION.

A

-ry

-A

'-fUii;

¦<s -I

%- \

y

V

^.,

< ^\f

"^¦¦a^ —

^

No. 1. The Idol made by the Pope to beworshijjped in Rome.!' ''^'-^
No. 2. The Idol made by Mr. Hughes to be worshipped in Newport';
being the Host cut up in pieces. , i '-,,' ,
No. 3. The Scapular Idol made by the Priest in Afcbill,' aiid sold by
him to the ignorant peasants. . . - -

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 04077 2411