The authentic report of the discussion : which took place at the lecture-room of the Dublin Institution between the Rev. Thomas Maguire and the Rev. Richard T. P. Pope

Front matter

Paik, 1 Ee at whe biel

RE ee

Be et ee

I

Arrangement agreed upon for the proposed discussion between the Rev. Mr. Pope and the Rev. Mr. Maguire, April 12, 1827.

I. The "Discussion to commence on Thursday, the 19th instant, and continue from day to day until closed.

II. The Meetings to be presided over by two Chairmen, one Protestant and one Roman Catholic.

III. The business to commence each day at eleven o’clock, and to close at three, with the exception of the first day, which will close at four o’clock.

-IV. The Discussion to be limited to three points by each party, viz: | , MR. POPE.

Ist, Infallibility ; 2d, Purgatory; 3d, Transubstantiation. . MR. MAGUIRE.

(st, The divine right of private judgment to pronounce upon the authenticity, integrity, and canomcity, of Scripture, and _ to determine its meaning in articles of faith. _ 2d, The justification of the Reformation. 3d, The Protestant Churches do not possess that unity which forms the distinctive mark of the true Church of Christ. Y.. The points to be discussed in the following order : ist day, - - - Mr. Pope, Ist point. 2d do. - - - Mr. Maguire, do. 3d do. =- - - Mr. Pope, 2d point.

4th do. - - - Mr. Maguire, do.

Sthdo. - = - Mr. Pope, 3d poiat. 6thdo. - - - Mr. Maguire, do..

VI. Not more than one point to be spoken to ata time.

VII. No new point to be spoken to by either party, until the

point under consideration is fully and finally closed.

VIII. The speeches and replies to be limited to half an hour,

and each point to occupy but one day at the utmost.

N.. B. The number of minutes which may be lost before the beginning of each day’s discussion, to be added to the period of closing the business of the day.

1X. Admission to be by tickets only, for which shall be charged

the sum of , the surplus of money so collected, after defraying all the expenses attending the Discussion, to be handed over to the Mendicity. ; | ;

X. The Meeting to be open to the Press, but a special

Reporter for each party to he employed, who shall he responsible

S

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT. ; 5 for the accuracy of the reports that shall be made of the speeches, and entire business of the discussion.* , XI. Two door-keepers to be provided, one Roman Catholic and one Protestant. "

XII. No indication to be admitted of approbation or disapprobation. & XIII. The authorised copy of the speeches to be authenticated by the signatures of the Rev. Mr. Pope, and Rev. Mr. Maguire. T. Macurre, ?P. A. Sincer, Ricuarp: T.. P. Porsg, JouHn. LAWLESS.

Il.

Further Preliminary Regulations for the Proceedings of the Meeting _ of the Rev. Mr. Pope, and Rev. Mr. Maguire, agreed to by the undersigned, on the part of the above Gentlemen respectively.

I. No person whatever to be permitted to address the meeting but the Rev. Mr. Pope, and Rev. Mr. Maguire.

II. No part of the auditory to interfere in any way whatever with the Rey. Gentlemen above named, or with the subject matter of the discussion.

Ill. The undersigned to be at liberty to explain any part of. the preliminary arrangements, if called upon to do so from the Chair. .

IV. The Chairmen are requested to prevent any manifestation of approbation or disapprobation, and to enforce perfect silence in the meeting. Ty ate P. A. SINGER,

Dublin, 18th April, 1827. Joun LAWLEss.

TIT. | Further Articles of Agreement entered into by the undersigned, on the part of Messrs. Pope and Maguire.

I. The parties not to exceed four speeches each during any one day. Merely calling on the opposite party for proofs not to be considered as a speech.

II. Declining to speak in turn by either party, when it is his rotation, or speaking short. of the limited, period of half an hour, to-be considered: as. one of the four speeches of the day.

Ill. The business of each day to elose after each party has spoken, or had the opportunity of speaking four times, although it should not have reached the hour of three o’clock ; it being hereby again declared that agreeably to the regulations of the 12th instant, should the discussion reach three o’clock, the - nmmber of minutes which may have elapsed after eleven o’clock, (the hour fixed for commencing the discussion on each day)

* The Special Reporters appointed on this occasion were Mr. P. D. Harpy. and Mr, J. SHERIDAN.,

C INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT:

shall be added to the time allotted to the last speaker, on eacli day, so as to complete his half hour, should he desire to continue for that time, although such addition shall exceed three o’clock by so many minutes. P. AX. SINGER, © 20th April, 1827. ee. Joun Law ess.

The chairs having been taken, on the morning of the 19th of April by Apmirat Otiver, as the Protestant, and Danrer O’ConNELL, Esa, as. the Roman Catholic Chairman, the latter briefly observed, “‘ That he considered it necessary to state, that the Gentlemen who had been appointed to make the preliminary arrangements: would read the particular rules by which the meeting was to be governed; and as he felt assured that the mere reading of the rules would be quite sufficient to induce every gentleman to comply with them, he would not make any further observations.” :

The friend appointed by Mr. Pope having been then called upon, the document No. 2, was read, as containing the rules immediately relating to the meeting.

The undersigned, in making the foregoing statement, have discharged a duty which they felt to be incumbent upon them ; and they have to express their gratification, that so important a discussion, and one so likely to excite the mind beyond the exact limits of discretion, was conducted with becoming zeal, but at the same time with good feeling, and a conduct. suited to the momentous business in hand. ‘They are also equally gratified, that the arrangements which they entered into, were such as to give satisfaction to the auditory, and ensure that regularity and silence which became the solemnity of the occasion.

P. H. SINGER,

JOHN LAWLESS.

I certify that the Report of the recent Discussion between Mr. Pope and myself, as published by Messrs. Coyne, Tims, & Curry, is alone authentic, cach proof sheet having received my signature.

June 14, 1827. . THOMAS MAGUIRE.

Puitre Dixon Harpy, JAMES SHERIDAN.

I certify that the Report of the recent Discussion between Mr. Maguire and myself, as published by Messrs. Coyne, Tims, & Curry, is alone authentic, each proof sheet having received my signature.

June 14, 1827. RICHARD T. P.. POPE..

James SHERIDAN, Pure Dixon Harpy,.

CONTROVERSIAL DISCUSSION.

First Day.—April 19; 1827.

SUBJECT.—The Infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church.

Tue Chair having been taken by Admiral Oliver and Mr. O’Connell, and the particular rules, by which the discussion was to be governed, read by Mr. Singer.

The Rey. Mr. Pope rose, and said—Gentlemen, I need scarcely remark, that we are assembled here this day, for the discussion of the most important subjects which can possibly engage the human mind. Weare not assembled to debate a question relative to the politics of this passing seene—we have not come here for the purpose of discussing matters which concern us merely as the inhabitants of this lower world ; but to debate topics of the most vital consequence to us as immortal and accountable beings. Let us then, in entering on this momentous discussion, divest ourselves of every party feeling, and come to the consideration of the subject before us with minds unbiassed and unprejudiced. And here it may not be uninteresting to this meeting to be put in possession of the circumstances which led to the present discussion. While in Longford, in November last, I received a letter from an individual, (whom I afterwards discovered to be a Roman Catholic ofno inconsiderable information) in which it was stated, that I was challenged by a Roman Catholic Clergyman to meet him in public, for the purpose of discussing the points of difference between the Protestant and the Roman Catholic churches ; and that I had then a fair opportunity of defending the principles which I maintained, and of exposing in the face of the world, the errors of the church of Rome, if any such errors existed. I considered it judicious to wait, until the challenge should reach me in an authentic form. In a day or two afterwards, I saw in the Weekly Register, of the 23d November, an account of an Aggregate Meeting at Carrick-on-Shannon, and which contained a speech made by the Rey. Mr.. Maguire, in which.was the following passage :—.

“ Let the advocates of such a system, the Wolffes and the Popes of the day, bring the matter to an issue, and I challenge Wolffe or Pope to meet me and answer the question of the Socinian, and prove from the principles of private judgment that he is wrong; or if they be able to answer the question in any way but that m which the Catholic church answers it, I will myself become a Biblical, and go through the country on the same mission as they are on—but they will not, they cannot.”

Ata meeting of the Hibernian Society, which took place on the following Tuesday, I commented on the Socinian question, expressed my willingness to meet Mr. Maguire, and requested that, if there were any Roman Catholics at the meeting, they would convey my answer to Mr. Maguire. Fearing, however, that my observations might escape his notice, and being anxious that he should not be ignorant of my readiness to meet him, I addressed a letter to the Editor of the Roscommon and Leitrim Gazette, which, after treating on the subject of the Socinian controversy, concludes thus :—‘+ And now, Sir, in conclusion, I beg leave to state, that Iam ready to-discuss the subject of this letter, or the Roman Catholic controversy generally, with Mr. Maguire, or any other gentleman, believing that “magna est veritas et preevalebit.”’

Such, then, gentlemen, was my acceptance of whatI conceived tobe a challenge from Mr. Maguire. Some time after, a letter appeared in the Weekly Register, from Mr. Maguire, in which he gives the following report of a part of his speech at Carrick-on-Shannon:—“ I there observed,” he says, “ that in flippancy of tongue, tortuosity of mind, and sophistry of argument, the Bible-men stood unrivalled; but that were I to meet the arch-crusader on the arena of polemical disputation, (and this handsome compliment I intended for you) I would confine him to a few solid, stubborn objections, of which, if he gave a clear logical solution, 1 myself would become a Biblical, and raise my feeble voice in the loud, holy, profitable cry.” Towards the conclusion of this letter, he grounds a proposal upon a concession which £ could never grant, namely, ‘ That the objection of the Socinian remains unanswered and unanswerable, (the principle and practice of private interpretation alone consid= ered).” His proposal was as follows :—‘“ Should you have the manliness to make this necessary admission, which I must insist upon as a sine gua non, I shall afford you ampler canvass, and’a rougher sea, viz: of all the charges which have been, and now can be advanced against the doctrines of the Roman Catholic ehurch, you shall be at liberty to select whatever three you deem most glaring and untenable, whilst I, in my turn, shall bring three prime charges against the doctrines of your church, and, thus we shall be both plaintiff and defendant reciprocally.”” In my next letter to Mr. Maguire, I observed, “ It is apparent from your own report, that you either did not challenge me, or that you have retracted the challenge ; the expression ‘were I to meet the arch-crusader,’ conveying most undoubtedly a very different meaning from that contained in the words, ‘I challenge Wolffe or Pope to meet me,’ ascribed to you in the Register. I here distinctly call upon you either publicly to confess that you did not challenge me, or to meet me for public discussion, ‘Utrum horum mayis accipe.’ I write strongly, but not in the spirit of polemical bravado.” TI shall now read to you the concluding paragraph of Mr. Maguire’s last letter: ‘I do declare, distinctly, that I never did invite you toa viva voce disputation ;— and las distinctly declare, that [mow accept your challenge, and will meet you at the Rotunda, in Dublin.” He says, he never did challenge me—you, gentlemen, will judge, whether I had not reason to consider his speech reported in the Register, as containing a'challenge. I again wrote to Mr. Maguire, and the result of that correspondence has been, that after an amicable arrangement of preliminaries, we are met here this day to discuss the various subjects which have been agreed upon; and I most willingly bear testimony to the good feeling which has been evinced by my reverend opponent and his friend.

Permit me to say, gentlemen, that we should hail the appearance of Mr. Maguire amongst us this day, as exhibiting a noble display of independent feeling and judgment. I say, itisa noble display of independent feeling—it is manly and beld in Mr. Maguire to appear here to advocate his principles ; especially as it is well known that the Roman Catholic Primate of Ireland has publicly expressed his disapprobation of such a proceeding. I say, then, it is manly and bold in him, circumstanced as he is, thus to come forward and claim his privilege, as -an intellectual and rational being, of thinking and acting for himself. The present meeting is certainly one of avery peculiar character, and will doubtless be regarded as a memorable event in the history of this country. We have on the one hand Dr. Curtis, the Titular Primate, expressing his disapprobation of the proceedings ; but, on the other hand, has the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin interfered to prevent Mr. Maguire from attending here this day? or has the Roman Catholic Bishop of Mr. Maguire’s diocess (Kilmore) taken any notice whatever of the extraordinary circumstance of one of the Clergy disobeying the wishes of the Titular Primate? Gentlemen, it appears, that neither the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, nor the Roman Catholic Bishop of Kilmore, has interposed their authority in the business. And I do say, that by their silence on the subject they have given an indirect sanction to the proceeding; for they possess the power of preventing Mr. Maguire from attending, and that power they have not exercised. I believe, I am right, in stating that there are some Roman Catholic Clergymen here this day. hail their presence amongst us with great satisfaction, as, in my mind, by their attendance, they also give their sanction to the proceedings. With respect to the preliminaries, I have one observation to make—it regards myself—it is thought by some, that I possess a talent for declamatory speaking. Supposing this to be the case, I am by the arrangements which have been entered.into, relative to the mode in which the discussion is to be conducted, precluded from availing myself of any advantage which this talent, if I possess it, might give me—as it has been agreed upon that neither my reverend opponent nor myself shall be allowed to address the meeting for longer than half an hour at a time—my soarings must be contracted—my pinions must be fettered down. It is not by flights of fancy or poetical allusions that this meeting is to be swayed—argument is the only weapon that can be wielded here this day. We must be governed by the only unerring standard,—the word of God. One word to the gentlemen of the public Press—all I ask is justice—justice alike to each of us—let our principles and opinions go fairly before the world— let the world scrutinize and examine them, and then give its verdict—I shall not at present occupy more of your time.

Mr. Maguire rose, and spoke to the following effect :—-Gentlemen—As my friend, Mr. Pope, has entered into a very long narrative, touching the circumstances that have led to the present discussion, it will not be considered egotism in me, if I give you a brief sketch of them, as far as they regard myself. I happened, last November, to come to the town of Carrick-on- Shannon, on private business of importance, and I solemnly assure you, that I was not aware, until I arrived in Carrick, that a meeting of the Catholics of Leitrim was about to be held there.

‘I was pressed by a few particular friends to remain for the meeting which was fixed for the next day; and on attending at the meeting, a resolution on the subject of education was put into my hands to move. In doing so, I prefaced it with a few observations, and I distinctly recollect saying, that my great objection to the disputations upon the indiscriminate circulation of the Scriptures was, that they all ended in a wordy war, and miserable speechifying. J objected to that course, and I said, that on the contrary, solid argument, logical deduction, and close fighting should be adopted. I went on to say, that such was the course I was determined to pursue; and that were I (you will

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. il observe that my expression was an hypothetical one) to meet the arch-crusader himself, in the arena of polemical disputation, instead of suffering him to indulge in flights of fancy, which would only obscure, or in strains of eloquence that would only confuse, I would confine him to a few solid objections, such as that respecting the Socinian, which, if he would satisfactorily solve to me, I would myself consent to become a Biblical. You will observe that my expression was put: hypothetically. I did not say that I would meet him, but that were I to meet him, I would avoid the flights of fancy and speechifying, and confine him to a few solid objections. A report of the observations which I made at this meeting appeared in the Weekly Register, and I was there made to say that I was ready to meet the Popes, &c, &c. Ican assure this assembly, that no such expression as that fell from me on that occasion. A newspaper controversy, the necessary consequence of a misrepresentation on the part of Mr. Pope, ensued. Mr. Pope addressed a long letter to me, through the columns of the Evening Mail. In that letter he attempted to solve the- objection with regard to the Socinian. I replied, to show that he had not solved that question ; and I trust, before this polemical conflict is over, to prove to you that he has not solved it, and that he never will. With regard to what he has said about the Roman Catholic Primate of Ireland, it would have been more dignified in Mr.

Pope to be silent on that point.—I avoided hearing or seeing any thing from my own Bishop, Dr. O’Reilly. Since I came to Dublin, I have not received any communication from him, verbal or written.— If I have thus come forward in this public place, and on this solemn occasion, I have not done so until I have been repeatedly challenged to the conflict. A number of persons were hired, I know not by whom, and sent round my parish with green bags containing copies of the challenge, which they circulated most industriously in every possible direction. The challenge was put into every cabin, it was posted upon every wall in the county. I state these circumstances to you, as they will form with you some excuse for the appearance here this day of a man who has lived amidst the bogs of Leitrim—a man who has been the inhabitant of the mountains, and who never before addressed an enlightened audience like the present. It must appear to you from this relation of facts, that it was no overweening desire of notoriety that pressed me forward. Over me Dr. Curtis and Dr. Murray exercise no direct control; and I trust that, in holding a conversation in this public room, I do not involve myself in a breach of clerical jurisdiction. I am well aware that the Roman Catholic Bishops of Ireland never will recognize the principle of public discussions upon matters of religion in this country—disturbed as it is by moral, polemical, and political differences and conflicts. I disclaim, I deny, with uplifted arms, any thing like an indirect sanction of these proceedings on the part of the Catholic Prelates as mentioned by Mr.

Pope. I stand forward here, of myself, to defend my religious principles, which have grown with my growth, and for the assertion of which I am ready, if called upon, to lay down my life. These principles I am determined to maintain, unless indeed Mr. Pope shall convince me that I am in error. If I be convinced that I am in error, lam ready to change my religious opinions, and to adopt whatever creed reason might in that case point out as preferable to my own. Having stated so much with respect to the challenge, I have a few words to say with respect to Dr. Curtis. It may not be inappropriate here to remark, that though 1 am independent of the control of Dr. Curtis, the Roman Catholic Primate of all Ireland, I am ready to listen- to any advice emanating from him, with respect and dutiful attention. I am well aware that obedience is one of the great and principal duties of the Christian—I know, as the Apostle has it, that he who refuses to obey the authorities set over him by Divine Providence resisteth the ordinances of God, and procureth to himself damnation. I would not, therefore, disobey my superiors, as, in doing so, I would be guilty of a violation of moral principle. It may not be out of place for me to mention to you the personal disadvantages under which I labor on the present occasion. Mr.’ Pope is an old practitioner in the business of disputation. He has become, by habit, eloquent on the subject, and he has a fatal facility of expressing himself, sufficient to make any cause in his hands appear plausible.

His system has all the charms of novelty to recommend it—and fashion, we all know, is a formidable temptation. He has arrayed in his favor worldly power and influence. He has, besides, all the saints and sinners of modern times, whose pride and self-interest will secure him attentive ears. He knows how to estimate the value of such influence. I donot mean to say that ithas any weight with him in the assertion of his religious principles. I solemnly declare that I give him credit for sincerity. But I have one complaint, and a serious one, to make against him. He has left me little or no ground for attack. I could not obtain from Mr. Pope, without difficulty, a profession of his creed. When called upon to define his faith, he has called himself a Protestant. Mr. Pope protests against the church of England—so doI. He protests against the church of Scotland—so do I. Against the church in Germany—so doI. Against the Greek church—so do I. Mr. Pope, in fact protests against every church, but, in a more especial and particular manner, does he protest against the errors” of Popery ; and if any errors do exist in Popery, I am ready to protest as strongly against them as Mr. Pope. So far Tam equally a Protestant with Mr. Pepe, and my Protestantism goes as far as his, consisting, as it does, in a simple negation of Popery, if it be understoed in the sense in which Mr. Pope would exhibit it. On the ether hand, Mr. Pope has the whole range of Roman Catholicism, whence to select three favorite charges against my known and established principles.

Where are the points which I am to select againsthim? | In the confession of faith which he made to me, he admitted the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation and Justification, by Faith onty. Now there is not one of those principles which I do not admit, except the word “only.” Seo far it is difficult for me to select three principal charges against him. It is true that Mr. Pope has volunteered to defend two points which he does not entirely and undoubtedly believe, but which he has the kindness to support against me. Ihave a few preliminary observations to offer to you regarding the scriptural proofs of the existence of an infallible church. Mr. Pope is not the advocate of any church. { avow myself the child and champion of an infallible church. It remains for you to see whether the motives of credibility which attach me to that church are defensible—it remains for you to judge whether the doctrine, that Christ established a church upon earth, and endowed it with infallibility, be grounded upon scripture—be consistent with the primitive faith of Chris- > tianity—be agreeable to common reason and common sense. It is easy to perceive, that he who denies the necessity of bending to a spiritual authority, is establishing a principle Jatitudinarian and revolutionary in the strictest sense of the words. If there exist no spiritual authority upon earth, to which man is to yield ebedience, | assert that every act of rebellion against the church and against the state is the admitted and unqualified right of every individual. If the principle of private judgment be founded upon the law of nature, or upon the positive law of God, there can be no limitation of the right. The law has made no exception, consequently every individual has a right (and there is no exception, either in religious or political matters) to set up his private judgment against the laws of the church and of the community. It was such principles that caused the revolution in England, and brought a king to the block. To similar principles we are to attribute the bloody scenes of the desolating revolution in France. Such principles have involved Germany in the darkest Atheism. I hold in my hand the work of the Rev. Mr. Rose, dedicated to the Bishop of Chester, in which he laments the state of the churches in Germany, with the pathos of a Jeremy—he describes them as plunged in the darkest ; 9

14 I THE INFALLIBILITY OF

Atheism. Every thing in the scripture is explained away there, and the test of natural philosophy is absurdly applied to the miracles of our Redeemer. If the principle of private judgment be once recognized, then had the heretics of former days, Arius, Cerinthus, Manicheus, &c, as good a right to the exercise of private judgment as Mr. Pope, or any gentleman of the 19th century. If those heretics had a right to exercise it, upon what principle did the Catholic church condemn them—cut them off as rotten members, and treat them, as Christ said those shall be treated who would not hear the church, as heathens and publicans, and reprobates upon the earth? Mr. Pope, I suppose, recognizes the first four councils, and the Athanasian creed—he must then admit that the church had a right to condemn Arius, Eutyches, and Manicheus, and every other heretic and heresy that appeared for the first four centuries of the Christian era. If he acknowledged the power in the church to condemn heresy in the first century, why not acknowledge it now? Gentlemen, { am about to enter upon my proofs of the authority of the Catholic church. Mr. Pope’s rules of faith will be amply discussed hereafter, but now you are about to hear, what, to some of you may appear the antiquated doctrine of church authority, which has been discarded by modern Reformers for the last 300 years.

Mr. Porz.—lI beg to call upon Mr. Maguire for proofs of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome.

Mr. Macuire.—lI shall make a few preliminary observations before I directly enter upon the subject. If the unlimited right of private judgment be recognised, then will a seven-fold shield be thrown over every error, however impure—every heresy, however damnable—every folly, however ridiculous. It will be the origin of every species of madness, violence, and fanaticism. What will each of the heretics say? “1 exercise my judgment conscientiously and to the best of my ability—I have prayed to God that he might enlighten me with his grace. I have taken every means in my power to arrive at the truth, and my decided conviction now is that Christ is not the Son of God.”? Thus would Arianism, that heresy which distracted the church of Christ, and which, if the protecting influence of the Almighty had not been extended to his church, would have eradicated every Christian principle, and sapped the foundation of that heavenly and noble edifice, become justifiable. How could Mr. Pope blame the Arian? Mr. Pope would appeal to the scriptures—but in vain he would appea! to the scriptures against the obstinate Arian or Socinian. They would in reply appeal to their conscience—they will say that they have read the scripturés, and that they have as good a right to interpret their meaning as Mr. Pope. Can Mr. Pope, who recognizes the principle of gospel liberty, blame them for their conduct? Will he, in this regard, violate that principle which is the boast of the Reformation? Who is to judge between Mr. Pope and the Socinian or Arian? God alone can be their judge, and that not till the soul is separated from the body. Mr. Pope has called upon me for proofs of the infallibility of the church of Rome. I beseech you, gentlemen, for the tender mercies of God, as far as in you lies, to divest yourselves of every feeling, of every prejudice, of every prepossession in favor of your own opinions that have been dear to you, and to weigh in the honest balance of sincerity the principles which I shall lay down, and. which I shall invariably found upon texts of scripture, and upon the authority established in the church for the first five ages of Christianity. I assure you I do hope, with the blessing of heaven, and by the influence of the Holy Ghost, to make some converts. Iam serious, believe me. Protestants are not in the habit of examining the Roman Catholic religion. The very name of Popery is sufficient to frighten them—the basilisk does not appear half so dangerous in their eyesas Popery. And for my part I should not wonder at their thinking so, if Popery really were what they have been taught to believe it is. It is incumbent on you then to commence an examination of the tenets of the Roman Catholic religion. ‘The first text to which I shall refer you, is taken from Isaiah, lix, 21. It is admitted by Protestants, that the inspired writer in this passage spoke of the church that was to come.