^, '^T^^. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I *- 1^ ll|||2.2 " lis IIIIIM 1.8 1-25 1.4 III 1.6 •• 6" ► Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 \<^ 4i. CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes tachniques at bibliographiquaa Tha Instituta hat attamptad to obtain tha bast original copy availabia for filming. Faaturas of this copy which may t>a bibliographically uniqua, which may altar any of tha imagas in tha raproduction, or which may significantly changa tha usual mathod of filming, ara chackad balow. D D D D D D Colourad covars/ Couvartura da coulaur I I Covars damagad/ Couvartura andommagia Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^ et/ou pelliculAe I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes g6ographiques en couleur Coloured Ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de ccuieur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intirieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 film^as. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplAmentaires: L'Institut a microfilm6 la meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 4tA possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibllographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m6thode normale de filmage sont indiquAs ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ D Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^as □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages rastauries et/ou peiliculies [77] Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 'Jl J Pages dicolories, tachetAes ou piqu^es n Pages detached/ Pages ditacih^es [~7j Showthrough/ L^ Transparence Quality of prir Quality inigale de I'impression Includes supplementary materif Comprend du materiel supplimentaire I I Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ I I Only edition available/ Seula Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont M filmies A nouveau de faqon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. Thi to Th( poi of filr Ori be] the sio otii fin sio or i Th< shi Tl^ wh Ma difl ant be^ rig red me This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X ails du idifier une nage The copy filmed hara hat baan raproducad thanka to tha ganaroalty of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. L'exemplaira filmA fut reproduit grlce i la ginArosit* de: La bibliothAque des Archives publiques du Canada Las images suivsntes ont MA reproduites avac la plus grand soir4, compta tenu de la condition at de la nettetA de I'exempieire filmA, et en conformitA evec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covera are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when eppropriata. Ail other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^»> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est ImprimAe sont flimAs en commen^ant par la premier plat at en terminent soit par la derniAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustretion, soit par la second plat, salon le cas. Tous las autras exemplaires originaux sont filmAs en commen^ant par la premiAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminent par la derniAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la derniAre image de cheque microfiche, seion le cas: le symbols --^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols ▼ signifie "FIN". IMaps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartos, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre filmAs A des taux de rAduction diffArents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clichA, il est filmA A partir de I'angie supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite. et de haut en bas. en prenant ie nombre d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants iliustrent la mAthode. rrata pelure. Id □ 32X t 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 :i 1 ni POLEMICAL 6011EifiIilI€I, AM I'UBLI8Iil£D IN w I r I THE YORK KEHAI.I>" DUBINO TUK MONTHS OW JULY, AUGUST & SEPTEMBER, 1868, BKTWEXM •r. IMC THE REV. JOHN BKEDIN, AND OTHERS. U'^ ( RICHMOND HILL: PRINTED .\T "TfTR YORK HEKALD" OFFICE. • * • , * > I • I * i ' 1 ( iM POLEMICAL iOllESFORiEHi;!, AS PUBLISHBD IN «« THE YORK HERALD " DUBINa THE MONTHS CV JULT, AUGUST & SEPTEMBER 1868, BETWEEN V. J*. »c THE REV. JOHN BREDIN, AND OTHERS. RICHMOND HILL: PRINTBD AT "THE YORK HERALD" OFFICE, 1868. • ^ V^ ^ \ ■ ^ /i -*'""-' "^ !» PUBHSHER'S NOTICE. The publisher of the Y- endeavouring to excite, more and mote, those hard feelings, and by their unfounded assertions to widen the breach already large enough; I must say that these men little understand the nature of such a mission, or that they prefer to do evil rather than good. When men, such as those come forward to excite Protestants against Gatholios, it is time for peace loving subjects to raise their voice scaiust such conduct When they publicly malce a wonderful dis* flay of their profound ignorance of the past, it is time to refer them to the pages of history, not of Catholic history, which, though true, would have no authority with such men, but to the pages of Protestant history. When they speak of the glorious age when 6 T. J. M. betrays his Jesuitry, in giving ns Maeaulay'a estimate of Henry Y III. We all know that Henry was a bad man, just as we all know that the Pope sent him his blessing, and conferred on him the title " Defender of the faith ;" but we are all at a loss to know what connection Henry's doings in 1529 had with William III in 1689. The Keformation is one thing, the Hevolution ia another thing. Even a Priest of Rome ought to be able to make the distinction. If the man at Thome Hill wants Maoaulay*s evidence of William III, I will let him have it. Tallard the French ambassador said of the Prince of Orange — and the elo<]|uent hii- torian endorses it— " He acts with good faith in every thing : his " way of dealing is upright and sinoere : he has hitherto acted "with great sincerity." Macaulay further says—" The hearts of " men were in the struggle against France for independenoe, for " liberty, and for the Proteetant religion. The consequence was that " the country was resimed from its dangerous position." It is a very small matter to slander an humble individual like myself, but the thing becomes serious, even when a Romish Priest attempts to make Lord Macaulay appear inimical to William III, and the glorious revolution achieved under his reign. But I want your anonymous correspondent to have a little more of Macaulay. He says of Portocarrero, Archbishop of Toledo that he " was one of a " race of men whose influence has been the curse of Roman Catholio " countries. He was, like Sixtus the fourth, and Alexander the " sixth, (two popes) a politician made out of an impious priest. Such " politicians are generally worse than the worst of the laity, more " merciless than any ruffian that can be found in camps, more " dishonest than any pettifogger who haunts the tribunals. From " the pulpit where he daily employs his eloquence to embellish what "he regards as fables, from the altar whence he daily looks down "with secret scorn on the prostrate dupes who believe that he can " turn a drop of wine into blood, from the confessional where he " daily studies with cold and scientific attention the morbid anatomy " of guilty consciences, he brings to court some talents which may " move the envy of the more cunning and unscrupulous of lay ooar> "tiers. Such a priest was Portocarrero, and he seems to have " been a consummate master of his craft." Think of such a por- trait as belonging to two Popes and one Archbishop of the Holy Catholic Church ; and ask, is there anything half as bad in the life of Henry VIII ? I have more in reserve from Macaulay ; but I caution the priest not to slander him. It is alleged that Rome gave the Bible and liberty to England. Will the man give us any kind of proof lor the assertion. If he cannot, then he is slandering Rome 1 And unless he does prove it, the community will not believe him. When Agustin came to England in 596 he brought losaries and relics, crosses and trinkets in abundance, but not so much as one copy of the Holy Bible. Rome does not believe in giving the Bible to the nations. She has kept it out of Italy as long as she could. She withholds it from Spain^ . and Spanish law makes it a capital crime to distribute the Biblei^*: RomebM eoBdemiMd the great British and Foreign Bible Sodety. JUme hmi burued piles of Bibles ; and I doubt whether the Thome Hill Priest ever brings a Bible to Mass, or whether one oonld be found in the possession of any of his eongregation, when they go to worship. But this Priest gravely accuses us of " shameniUy mutilating tho Bible." He must give us chapter and verse, else we oannot accept his mere dicta. And then, ho must prove by his floholarship the truth of his allegations. Your readers, Mr. Editor, may expect a fine display of this man's erudition, of his intimaoj wiui Oriental linguism, although he oannot print his own vernacu- lar in passable Queen's English. Well, who has "mutilated," when they could no longer suppress the Bible ? Why has Rome taken out of the Douiy Bible the second commandment ? Answer : that her people might not learn tho sin of image worship. Why has Rome added the apocryphal books to the inspired cannon ? Answer : that her pnests might have some show of authority for teaching the doctrines of purgatory and prayers to the dead. Whv does Rome give a bit of a wafer in her communion service, mstead of both bread and wine ? Let her answer, if she can, who mutilates the Bible ? How is it, Mr. Editor, that T. J. M. assumes the duty of " ehastUing the Rev. Oents f" I have often heard of a prient rushing into a crowd, with whip in hand, for a smiliar purpose. I have heard of altar denunciations, and of Rome's curse on all heretics — that is all protestants — fur the purpose of c^xtinn^ them ; I have read of the bloody inquisition managed by meni in priest's garb, and a part of the machinery of the holif church, fbr the pur- pose of chastising men. But who is this pedagogue that comes with fllander T He is either a daring man or an impudent man to avow «uoh a purpose, in this land of liberty. But then, he entrenoheB himself behind a mask — if there is to be a fight, let it be fair and above board — don't be ashamed of either name or profession ; and Protestantism will guarrantee fair play. In the mean time I commend (o his best consideration the ninth commandment, which " Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.' JNO.BREDIN. tlichmond Bill, July 21, 1868. Bays, LETTER NO. Ill, FROM T. J. M. To the Editor of the York Herald. Sir : — ^Your correspondent, "John Bredin, " who is, I believe, entitled in courtesy, at least, to be styled Reverend, reminds me of the anecdote related of his countryman (and my own also) rush- ing into Donneybrook Fair, and with a flourish o£ his blackthorn, demanding to know from the assembled crowd, who trod on the tail of his coat. Tour correspondent affects a great deal of virtuous indignation at an humble individual like myself, presuming to question the truthfulness of what was said to the Orangemen at Thomhill, on d tho 13th iut. He does not ptoUu to defend the eouiMpnnraed by Onogemen, in their annnal eelebnUioni of a yiotory won by rebels and invaders over loyal adherents to the righiAil Boterpign of Oreai Britain ; he knows that he cannot justify them on soriptoral .grounds, and prefeis to launch off into matters that are ebtirMy be> side the question. I have no doubt but some of your readers may oonolade that your, correspondent of last wees, is a "Boanerses** in his own way, and that his thunder is of the most stunning description } yet I flatter mvself that many of your better informed readers, on perusing my letter of the 16th instant, and his reply, will con- olnde that from fear — or some other cause — he is endeavouring to raise side issues and create a religious controversy, involving ones' tions that have been discussed, over and over again, by more ^gan< tic utellects than ever he or I can lav claim to possess. Of course . ibis is ground I will not be tempted by vour correspondent to enter upon, until the quefition in hand is settled, as I think it wonld npt be fair toward you and your readers. Moreover, I think it would not be prudent for the Rev. Mr. Bredin to venture out upon the tempestuous billows of polemical theology, if be be not able to Bostain a discussion involving questions of minor importadoe. Let ns therefore keep to the point. After reading Bev. Mr. Bredin's letter, and analitfng it, I flkd it resolves itself down to the following : — Firstly, Rev. Mr. Bredi.i calls me a '^slanderer," because I durad to say in my letter that those Rev. Gentlemen made "unfounded assertions." He challenges me to give " even one instance." I will therefore be satisfied with giving him one. When they any tiiat " were Rome to gain power over the people, it woiild soon de- prive them of their liberty and their Bible;" I say this is aa «< unfounded assertion," as Rome gave the Bible to the ohristiaa world, and never yet deprived a nation of their Bible — not even when Kings and Princes placed their crowns in the hands of the Sovereign Pontiff. Not having done so, even in one single instance, during the space of about eighteen hundred years, where are. the grounds for asserting that *'were Rome to gain power over the people, it would soon deprive them of their liberty and their Bible." E videnUy there are no grounds for making such an assertion ; consequently, the man who calls it an " unfounded assertion" is not a " slanderer," whatever I must say ot my accuser. Secondly. I am called a slanderer because I accused my Rever- end friends of ignorance of history, and Rev. Mr. Bredin challenges me to publish " one historical statement" of his, "which dli^lii^'S ignorance of history." In this he is quite safe, as his statements — or rather assertions— are anything but luttoricaL Does the Rev. Mr. Bredin remember when he said that James II was driv- ing England " under water Y' as he ezpiessed it. How, I would ask him,was James driving England "under water?? waahQahursh, despotic tyrant? Hallam says, no-— P 538 Gonstit. Hist. Was ho an immoral Kina, who, like iome of his predeooasora, diflgraoed the throne? the world will answer, no. Did ho lose pofiieMiionH dearly bought by the blood of his couutrymen ? hiutory says no. Cobbett says " He did not, as Protestant Edward VI had done, bring " German troops into the country to enforoo a change of rsHgion ; " nor did he, like that young saint, burn his starving subjects wiUt ** a hot iron on the breast or on the forehead, and make them wear " chains as slaves, as u jpunishment for cndeuvorioK to relievo their *' hunger by begging. He did not, as Protestant Betsy had done, " make use ol whips, boring irons, racks, gibbets, and ripping- " knives to convert people to his faith." * * * * " He did not, as Protestant Betsy had done, give monopolies to " his court minions, so as to make salt for instance, (which in his '' day was about fourponoe a bushel) fourteen poundi a bushel, " and thus go op till at last the Parliament feared — as they did in '^ the time of good Bess, that there would be a monopoly oven of ''bread." This quotation is from the pages of aProtestan; his- torian. Should Mr. B. like to know where it can be found, or wonder how it was possible for it to escape his great historical researches ; I would refer him to the 204th page of Cobbett's hl« .y of iho Protestant Refnrnni tion. But perhaps he was driving England ** under water" because (as the same author says in the same -^v ) he " put, .1 far as he was able, an end to uU persecution on account ** of religion." Another Protestant historian, speaking of the Teign of James II, says '' No man had been deprived of liberty by " any illegal warrant." • • "Innstalso add, that the government of James II will lose " little by comparison with that ot his father." — Hallum's Constit. Hist P. 538. But it is needless for me to quote any more au- thority — those better acquainted with the facts of history than Rev. Mr. B. need not these quotations. But this ie what history says of James II, who, according to Mr. B., was driving England "underwa- ter." I am called a '* slanderer, ' because I accused Rev. Mr. Bredin of his ignorance of historj^. It is not necessary for me to draw the conolusion that my accusation was not made without good reason, as those who have read his letter must be already convinced of it ; for he himself says in his letter that it is not required to demonstrate his own ignorance of the past. I give him credit for his open con- fessfciun ; I fully agree with him, and say it certainly is not requir- ed, OS he hvui already made it evident. Thirdly. In referring to the unjustifiable raid at Ridgoway, Mr. Bredin omits lo mention the name of Rev. D. F. Lumaden, Protes- tant Minister, and Fenian chaplain under Colonel Starr. Ho also holds the Church accountable for the conduct of the murderers of Brett, McGee, etc. I would be equally justified — on hie principle — but am forbidden by my own sense of justice, as well as a feeling of charity, to hold the numerous and respectable body of which he is recognized as Minister, accountable for the wicked practice of the infamous abortionist, Doctor Williams, and of hb accomplices and victims. , ■ »•■ ii! ; 10 I pMM over, without a word, everything that Rev. Mr. Bredin qaotes, or may quote, against me on the authority of Thomas B. Macauley, as he has n;; right to quote that author, being the ac- knowledged bigot of his day. It i» on this account that I quote him, as his opinions and statement of facts are entitled to, and certain to obtain, greater weight with Mr. Bredin and every other Protestant, than if he were *' Popishly inclined." Fourthy. Mr. Bredin says: " It is alleged that Rome gave the "Bible and liberty to England," and then he asks ** will the man " give us any kind of proof foi the assertion." I answer, I will, and can. But, first, I must here remark, that he appears to be in doubt whether he should deny this, oi ask for information. Men who have read a little history will say, unhesitatingly, that he has taken the most prudent step, by asking for information. I will let you have a little, Mr. Bredin, but I cannot give you much of my time : however^ I will put you on the trade, so that you may find it out. If you would just read the tenth page of Cobbett's intro- duction to his history of the Protestant Reformation, you will find these words : " What a shocking fact that we should have received " this book from that Pope and that Catholic Church." Here be is speaking of the Bible. Again, in the very next page he says : '^ We swear on the four Evangelists, and these, mind, we get from "the Pope and a Council of the Catholic Church" But, Mr. Brediit says " that Augustine brought no Bible with him when he came to England " Whether he did or not, has little to do with the question. Perhaps Mr Bredin is not aware of the fact that he (Mr. B.) could not have a Yoik Eerald for a dollar a year at the time " Agustin" came to England. Does he not know that in those days each copy of the Bible was a manuscript, so that it was not eaay to supply each Missionary with a copy. I doubt, very much, Wiere Augustine going to England again, if Mr. Bredin would very willingly transcribe a copy cf the Bible for him, even if it were the only possible means of having one. As I intimated, in my former letter, I still contend, that from Protestant history 1 learn that the best laws of England are the produe- tioA of catholic minds ; the evidence of which is to be found in the boasted inheritance of British freedom, secured by Magna Charta, and the writ ot Habeas Corpus — known to Englishmen long before the so-called reformation. Mr. Bredin appears particularly exercised at my assertion that the Bible has been mutilated He asks me tor proof, and demands " chapter and verse. " Now, Mr. Editor, it would require more space than you can afford, and it would leave me no time to attend toother and more important duties, were I to comply minutely with the Rev. Gentleman's demand. I think it sufficient to say that every well informed person is aware, that soon after the *' reformation," there were Protestant editions of the scriptures published, which were made to differ from the then universally received text. TheM published in 1562, 1577, 1579, all of which differed in many partri from the present received edition, commonly known as Kiog 11 James* Bible ; which, in its turn, has recently sufiered severely at the hands of 7)r, Colenso, a Itisbop of the English establishment. The first named editions differ from the last, and now we find a Protestant Bishop denying the divinity of important portions of that. Mr. B. speaks of Rome adding "apocryphal books to the inspired canon/' What does he know about the inspired canon ? What authority has he to prove that any part of the Scriptures is inspir- ed if he try to reject that of Rome — of the Catholic Church — Is it possible, that Rev. Mr. Bredin was at the council of Carthage, in 397, eleven hundred years before ever Protestantism made its ap> pearance. Does he want to make us believe that that Council — in which the books of scripture, authentic and divine, were approved of— -was composed of Methodist Ministers with the Pope at their head. Or could it be imagined that John Wesley was alive to business so long before he was born. Mr. Bredin asks the question. " Why has Rome taken out of the Douay Bible the second commandment ?^'— and has not the courtesy to wait for ray reply, but answers it himself by asserting, in a clumsy and obscure manner, that which I pronounce untrue. As proof, I refer him to the twentieth chapter of Exodus— Douay Bible But enough, more is needless. I am sure I have sub- stantiated my '' assertions' to the satisfaction of the more intelligent portion of your readers. It now remains for Rev. Mr. Bredin to go and do likewise. But I hope he will do so as a gentleman and a scholar — two qualities which have not made their appearance in his first production. Should he fuil to do it in this manner, or should he ramble away from the subject, to indulge in a littb more unmeaning and unbecoming language, I cannot deign to answer him. Had Rev. Mr. McCollum answered my letter of the 16th ivstant, I would expect something learned and worthy of a gentle- man ; and though Rev. Mr. Bredin has not given anything to interest the respectable and well informed class of your readers, he might succeed better the next time. I would therefore invite him to try again ; but for pity sake, and for his own credit, let him not be trying to make the people laugh at his worthy production. Yours, &c. T J M' *T Tbomhill, July 28, 1868. LETTER NO. IV, FROM ONE OF THE REV. GENTS To the Editor of the York Herald. Dear J^ir : I was very much pleased with T. J. M's notice of my speech at Thornhill on the 13th July. '.' would think there was everything wrong with me and it, should a Roman Catholio Priest praise my address to the Loyal Orangemen of Canada on the ever-memorable 12th. Had he praisea it, I would feel myi^f bound — if possible — to get the Orangemen together again and give 12 thorn au entirely new address — but there is no need, the Rev. Mr. Morris' letter shows I have succeeded to my wish ; a mustard blister is of no use on earth, if it does not bite. With respect to the Eighth Henry, about whom and his wives the Rev. Mr. Morris seems to be bo souly-exercised, I make him a present, body and soul to Romanism : I have nothing to do with the monster, the sacrilegeous robber of my church, who lived a papist, received from the then Pope the title ot " Defender of the faith," for his defence of Popery, and died a papist — if he died anything. I make a present of the cruel man to the Rev. Mr. Morris. Popery taught him, and Popery must keep him, I will have nothing to do with him ; he robbed my church and broke the laws of the Magna Charta, to enslave her. If the Rev. Mr. Morris comes to our next Orange walk as he did to the last, we will open his eyes a little, about Henry VIII and the Reformation, and, after that who knows but the Rev. Mr. Morris may have up the Orange and Blue, and aid us with the usual collection for the Protestant Orphan Home. I have no unkind feeling towards T. J. M., quite the contary, I Baw him in the crowd before me, and saw him enjoy himself very much I thought. I was agreeably struck with his pleasing de- meanor, and gentlemanly appearance, and I am sure there was not an Orangemen there that offended him, however the truth may. I wish him all happiness in time and in eternity, and I hope to see him amongst us again on our next anniversary. ' Your obd't Servant, "■ ONE OF THE REV. GENTS. July 22nd, 1868. LETTER NO. V, FROM REV. JOHN BREDIN. To the Editor of the York Herald. Sir : — The last letter of the Priest owes its length and its weakness, its evasion of the points at issue and its self contradictions, to the fact that he had three brother priests, a layman and a school-boy assisting him. Notwithstanding the verbiage in which the produc- tion is almost buried, I will endeavor to bring my truant accuser back to the points at issue. I am accused of making " UNFOUNDED ASSERTIONS." When challenged to give one instance, accompanied by any kind of proof; the Priest's reply is, " When they say that were Rome to gain power over the people, it would soon deprive them of their liberty and their Bible." I ask for the |)roo/ that the statement is unfounded ; and the Priest says, '' I say this is an ' unfounded as- sertion' ". Is this any kind of proof? It may be the logic df Rome, but it would not establish the smallest point before a jury. Your readers will ask, whose dictum utters the "i say ?" Why it is an anonymous slanderer, ashamed to publish his name. Surely )3 jontary, I dself very casing de- e was not I may. I ope to see ENTS. Z t^. 1 1 • J •■■ ..." 1 Mill vtreakness, IB, to the ichool-boy e produc- accuser any kind }re Rome \ of their tement is anded as- 3 logic 6f e a jury. Why it Surely the man docs not mean to palm his " / «a^" upon an enlightened public, as proof of his own questioned assertion ? Come, Mr. Priest^ give us the evidence, else we'll nail you to the counter. But the Priest has either a bad memory or a perverted judg- ment, as I uttered no such sentence. '' They say that were Rome to gain power" — who are they say ? Did two speakers utter these same words ? If the Priest's memory is at fault, it is proof of intellectual incompetence ; if his judgment is pre verted, it is evidence of moral incompetence ; he may gibbet himself on either horn of the dilemma. When a Romish Priest ventures to accuse a ne^h- bor of making unfounded assertions, he ought to have a good memory BO as to be able to repeat verbatim the assertion ; and good proof to sustain the charge. If he fails in these qualifications, he is nothing else than a slanderer. I can well afford to accept the authorship of the assertion for argument sake, but I ask the priest to submit his proof that the assertion is unfounded. And this is the first point in the controversy that must be either settled or withdrawn. I am accused again, of ''PROFOUND IGNOEANCE OF HISTORY, AND OP EVERYTHING CON- NECTED WITH THE PAST." Such is the charge as first made ; but the Priest, in his second letter simply makes the charge to consist of " ignorance of history." His friends said the charge was too sweeping, and quite unten- able. In fact it is unfounded. He did not mean it ; he became ashamed of it ; so he garbles his oyrn words and then eats them. I ask, is such a man fit to chastise the " Rev. Gents ?" he would if he could ! Well, as the infallible Priest has demonstrated his fallibility, I will repeat my request, for one instance of historic inaccuracy, with the accompanying proof. Give me just one, only one inaccurate statement. A.nd if he cannot give even one instance, I am afraid , his unfounded assumption involves more than slander. Society ex- pects that even Priests of Rome shall both speak and write " the truth, the, whole truth, and nothing but the truth." When they violate the sanctity of truth — if it be to stretch it point or gain a purpose -society will justly depise them. The Priest says, " Mr. B. IS quite safe, as his statements are anything but historical." Ho cannot fail to see the -absurd contradictiop in which his asserUon involves him. If / am tafe^ I escape his charge, on his own ayoiralf of ignorance. But he adds that my statements are anything put historical. Then, they must be unhistorical. Now, vihat tingle statement is unhistorical f Do furnish the statement itself, that the readers of your illogical letters may see and know for themaelves. They will not take your mere word, Mr. priest ; and when you giyo them your statement, don't fail to add the proof. Unless you do this, I must be under the painful necessity of driving anoUter nail through you, and permanently fastening you as a bad shilling, to the counter, where your customers will exclaim with pity, aa they see you — caught at last I The priest quotes Hallam to prove that the government of James Ilf was as good as that of his fatlier. But he does not tell the '•?; 14 intdligeDt public how that quotatioa would prove me proA>andl7 ignorant of history. If he would read page 304 of Hallam's middle ages, he will learn that the historian compares " decrepid and im- potent Rome to the old heathen King Priam 1" Hallam is as mnefa against Home as Macaulay, whom he says I have no right to quote. Had the priest told us that Friar Tetzel sold indulgences for sins past and future ; that one-teeth of all the Popes were very wicked men ; that there have been several vacancies in the Popedom ; thai one Pope has cursed another ; that the bloody inquisition ha» tortured multitudes of men and women ; or that there is a man in the moon, his argument would have been infinitely stronger than it is. I have disposed of the two chief charges which the anonymoQB Priest brings against the " Rev. Gents ;" and I will now deal with a few of the unfounded assertions into the making of which his want of information and lack of common sense have betrayed him. He says : " ROME GAVE THE BIBLE TO THE CHRISTIAN WORLD." The infidel Cobbet is made to say, " We have received this Book (the Bible) from the Pope.'^ He means the English people. But the Pope and the Thorne Hill Priest say that the English are heretics. How does it follow that one nation of heretics, whom the Pope has so often cursed, is the Christian world. Rome kept the Bible sealed up in a dead language. Wickliffe was the first man to tram- late it into the English tongue 330 years before the Revolution, and 150 years prior to the Reformation. Rome dug up Wickliffe's bones 40 years after his death and burned them. Tindal first printed the Bible in English in 1526 ; the Romish Bishop, Tunstal burned the whole edition ; while Tindal was preparing a second edition abroad, Rome burned him as a heretic in Flanders in 1532. In 1540 another edition was printed in England, when every Parish Church was required to keep a copy, under penalty of fine ; two years afterwards the Romish Bishops obtained its suppression ; Edward VI restored it; Mary again suppressed it, and Elizabeth afterwards restored it. See Encycl. Brit. It is a baref&ced assertion that Rome gave the Bible to the world ; it requires more than Cobbet to prove it. Let Rome give the Bible to her 139 millions, and it will very speedily deliver them from their idolatory and purgatory, their masses and penances. "ROME NEVER YET DEPRIVED A NATION OP THE BIBLE," So says the Priest. Rev. Dr. Miber, a Romish Priest says, "Christ did not intend that mankind should learn his religion from a Book." The Thome Hill Priest says in e£fect that Christ did so intend it. Here is Priest agt inst Priest and Rome against Christ. Will the Priest reconcile the conflicting statements ? The Romish Coundl of Trent, in March, 1564, says : — "Rule 4. Inasmuch as it is manifest from experience that if the Holy " Bible, translated into the vuls;ar tongae, be indiscriminately allowed to "•very ose, the temerity of men will cause more evil than good to arias 15 ^"from it, it is ou this poiut referred to the judgment of the Bishopt or' ^*' inquisitors, who maj, by the advice of the Priest or Confessor, permit *' the reading of tlie Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue by catholic " authors, to those persons whose faith and piety they apprehend will be "augmented and not injured by it, and this permiasion they must have " in writing. But if any one shall have the presumption to read or pos* "sess it without such written permission, he shall not receive absolution "until he have Bist; delivered up such Bible to the ordinary. Book- ."sellers who shall sell Bibles to any person not having such permission; "shall forfeit the value of the books, and be subjected to lation ; secondly, in keeping her people ignorant of God's Holy- Word ; thirdly, in threatening with excommunication any Romanist be he Priest or Layman, who may possess a Bible or any Protes- tant book, without a written license from his Bishop. Your readers will patiently wait to hear the Priest's explanations. ' " THE BIBLE SHAMEFULLY MUTILATED." So declares the Priest. When asked for chapter and verse, where these shameful mutilations are supposed to be, the Priest says in substance, " I have no time for such work." He convicts himself of making "un- founded assertions." Come, Mr. Priest, we must have chapter and verse ; we will insist on that. I will lend you your own latin Bible — for I am informed that you had to borrow a Bible last week, because you did not own one — and surely a man of your pre- tensions to scholarship will easily name the very texts that are mutilated. Until you meet the point, I will not think you other than a Shameful Slanderer. The Priest tells us that there have been four different editions of the Protestant Bible. But does it follow that a new edition is a shamefal mutilation of a book ? The present latin Bible had tm preceding editions ; and I find on its title page the words Editio Nova (new edition). Have all these editions been shameftdly mutilated too ? This latin Bible was published in 1592 ; the Donsy ^n 1610 ; and our Protestant Bible in 1611. The Rev. Dr. John, " her of bad books, which must grossly attack the Catholic rehuion, "are circuluttid, even among the unluarnod, to the great destruction ''of souls, you judge exceedingly well that the faithful should be " excited to the reading of tne lloly Scriptures. For there 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 which aru ao widely disiieminatei in these corrupt times. " This you have seasonably effected, as you declare, by publishing " the Sacred Writings in the language of your country, suitable to " every (ine's capacity." Can this be one of the decrees to which Mr. Bredin refers, as be- ing " delivered in former times' ? It is a great jity (for iVIr, B's reputation) that he did not give the decree from which be professes to have give- an extract. 1 ask your candid and intelligent readers it Pope Pius the sixth's letter is not sufficient to justify me in say- ing that Mr. Bredin has made '' unfounded assertions," Your reverend correspondent, in his usual mirthful way, deals in a little pleasantry, by offering to lend ma a Latin Bible, and adds, '* for I am informed that you had to borrow a Bible last week, be- cause you did not own one." It is kind of him indeed, I thank him for his generous off3r ; but I have a genuine copy of the Holy Scrip- tures, as also one of King James' Bib.es; .therefore the reverend gen- tleman's scout has led him into a very awkward and humiliating position — for a minister of the Gospel — causing him to make two false statements in as many lines. I did not borrow a Bible, nor did any person do so for my use — as I was not under that necessity — having my own. Asa specimen of the Reverend Gentleman's sense of right and wrong, I would invito your readers to observe his mode of dealing with my arguments : He says, " the priest tells us that there have been four different editions of the Protestant Bible ;" I did not say so ; what I said was this (as may be seen by turning to the Herald of 3l8t July) "every well informed person is aware that soon after " the reformation there were protectant editions of the Scriptures " published, which were made to differ from the then universally *' received text. Those published in 1562, 1577, 1579— all of " which differed in many parts from the present received edition, "commonly known as King James' Bible ; which, in its turn, has ^'recentlj^ suffered severely at the hands of Dr. Colenso, a Bishop of " the English establishment. The first named editions differ from " the last ; and now we find a protestant Bishop denying the divinity . ^' of important portions of that." These statements of mine are true, and wiU bear the oloeeBt investigation ; bat to go into minute par- T !l" 20 tionlara of the Tarious differences between the true text, the editloni of 1662, 1577, 1579 and Kin^ James' edition, wonld ooonpy more of your space than would be fair to expect ; and also, it would be a greater tux upon my time than my sacred duties will allow. Mr. Bredin, in his last letter, asserts that, '* Rome kept the Bible " sealed up in a dead language. Wickliffe was the first man to " translate it into the Englioh tongue, 330 years before the revolu- " tion, and 150 years prior to the reformation, Rome dug up "Wiokliffe's bones 40 years after his death, and burned them. " Tindal first jonn^ec^ the Bible in English in 1526; the Romish " Bishop Tunstal burned the whole edition ; while Tindal was pre< " paring a second edition abroad, Rome burned him as a heretic in " Flanders in 1532." Wrong again. Rev. Sir ; and here is the proof;— '* The hole byble was long before Wickliffe's days by vir- " tuous and well learned men translated into the English tong, and " by good and godly people with devotion and soberness wel and ** reverently red." — Sir Thomas More, Dialog. Ill — 14. You will perceive I spell the words as they a/e found in the text, and as they were spelt in More's time. ArchbisLop Cranmer says "it is not " much above one hundred years ago since Scripture hath not been " accustomed to be read in the vulgar tongue within this realm ; and " mani/ hundred years be/jre that it was translated and read in the " Saxon's tongue— and when this language waned old and out of " common usage, because folk should not lack the fruit of reading *' it, was translated again into the newer language, whereof yet also "many copies be found." — Strype's Cranmer, App. 242. Cranmer was one of the Apostles of the "reformation," and cannot be dis- puted by you Mr. Bredin, and it is on such authority I deny, first, that " Rome kept the Bible sealed in a dead language ;" second " that WicklifTt was the first man to translste it into the English " tongue." You are wrong as to the date, in regard to " Tindal." Hallam (see constit. Hist. P. 57) says, that Tyndale translated the New Testament (not the Bible) into English; it was printed at Antwerp, in 1526. " A complete version of the Bible, partly by " Tyndale and partly by Coverdale, perhaps at Hamburg, in 1535." The Rev. Charles Buck, (a protestant) in his Theological Dic- tionary, says : " The whole Bible was translated (into Anglo Saxon) "by the Venerable Bede, about the beginning of the eighth " century " — nearly 600 years before Wickliffe was bom. John Wickliffe, who was professor of divinity in the University of Oxford, and rector of Lutterworth, and Leicestershire, introduced false doctrines in his " Trialogue," but renounced his errors, and died in the communion of the Roman Catholic Church — December 3l8t, 1384. Is this any consolation to your Rev. correspondent ? Mr. Bredin says, Rome dug up Wickliffe's bones 40 years after his death, and burned them, (but gives no proof). He has omitted to mention that after Henry the VIII became a protestant, and proclaimed himself head of the English establishment, he took up the boties of Thofnas A' Becket, Archbishop of Canterbuiy, (who wm '' M-* ^7 21 n^urdered 2dih December, 1170) and buraed them in theyear 1539 ' — see Hajrdn's Eietionory of Uuiversal Ucferenoes — a proteatant authority. Mr. Bredin says, " The infidel Cobbet is made to say, ' we ham " received thU hook (the Bible) from the Fope.' He means the " English people. But the Pope and the Thome Hill priest say *' that the English are heretics. How does it follow that one nation *' of heretics, whom the Pope has so often curst,H. is the christian " world ?" My reply is this, that William Cob* ;tt, Esq., M.P., was a member of the Church of Ijngland; he was u man of extra- ordinary talent, an author of eminence, and as t^ood a christian as Mr. B. himself Mr. Bredin has, in addition to making a misstate- ment, libelled the eminent dead. If Mr. B. wishes your readers to understand that the Pope cursed the English nation, he is attempting to perpetrate a fraud upon snch as are not sufficiently well read to know the real factp of English history. Mr. Bredin says : '' The difference between the treatment of the " Fenian murderers and the infamous Doctor is just this : the " priests of Rome absolved the murderers from all their hins, and '< sent everyone of them either to purgatory or heaven, while the " respectable body of which Mr. B. is a minister carries out the *' scriptural rule, and gives such sinners no more place among them. " Surely a Romish priest ought to be able to recognise a differenco " between the two modes of pioceedure." There is a wide difference, certainly ; the '' priests of Rome act " more in accordance with the example given them by their Divine Master, towards the penitent thief on the cross. Mr. Bredin is welcome to the satisfaction his argument affords him ; but I am unwilling to believe that sincere christian mon, of any denomination, will say that miserable fellow- creatures, who have forfeited their lives, according to the laws of the land, should be denied religious consolation in their last moments. As regards the letter in your issue of the 31st July, signed by " One of the Rev. Gents," I have only to say that it is so palpably at variance with the acknowledged historical facts, yet in language not unbecoming a gentleman, that I do not deem it necessasy to give it more than this passing notice. And now, Mr. Editor, I think your candid readers will acknow- ledge that I have made it clear to an inteligent public, that the Rev. Mr. Bredin did make '* unfounded assertions," and that he has publicly displayed his profound ignorance of history. I am, Sir, &c., ThornhiU, Aug. 11, 1868. T. J. M. LETTER NO. VII, FROM REV. JNO. BREDIN. To the Editor of the York Herald. Si^ : — An anonymous writer, in your issue of July 17, animad- verti»ing on my address at the Orange celebration, accused me of making '< unfounded assertions,'* and of being " profoundly ignorant T I i ** of hiitorr and trerything eonncoted with the put." — ^Witbovt heaitftnoy I pronounced the accusation! slanderous, and challenged my malignor to furnish your readers with one unfounded assertion, or to give one statement thnt evinced ignorance of history ; and, as your readers know, I have twice repeated that request, without receiving the seiublance of u roply. Will th. t corroppondent, whom report says is the Roman priest of Thome Hill, even at this stage of the controversy, give one unfmiudcd assertion and one vnhistotical statement, as embodied m my address on that occasion 'f This is the origin of the controversy ; t'le liisif.nrical uccuracy of my state- ments is impugned bcf )ro the public ; and as a very small proportion of your readers hcaid njy address, ihey naturally enough insist on asking, what are those unfounded assurtiotis ? give us a sample of them, that we may judge for ourselves ? And if the priest, who is the plaintiflP in the case, docs not first specify his charges, and then prove them, judgment must go by default. Whatever .Mdo issues the discussion may present, your readers may rest assured that the grave charges with which the first attack was laden will not be lost flight of. Ill every letter which I may yet write, I will ask the priest to give distinctly and intelligibly the assertions that he says are un- founded, and the statements that he avers to be unhistorical. And when he furnishes the statemeote, we will all as anxiously wait for his proofs. Failing to do this, I submit that he has slandered me. The principal topics of the priest's last letter — the composition of which is so very unlike his first schoolboy production, and bo dissimilar to the compound character of his second, that I merely express current opinion in saying that he is not its author — I will now place under brief review. The case of Rer. Lumsden; from the Globe's extracts is this : Dr. Fuller testifies that Lumsden vol- untarily left the Rectorship of Trinity Church (it is not stated at what date) : Bishop Coxe testifies that Lumsden was intemperate ; that he came to Buffalo in June to answer the bishop's citation ; that Bishop Coxe by letter, advised Bishop Potter to suspend him ; and Mr. Newbiggings' evidence proves Lumsden to have been m Canada on June 1st. I leave the priest to supply the missing dates, and then to reconcile the statements that while one hishop cited Lumsden to trial (was that before or after the raid), he recommends another Bishop to suspend him The fact is that Lumsden was cited for trial, if not years, certainly he/ore June, by Bishop Coxe ; and that knowing " his usefulness as a clergyman was at an end,^' he terminated a bad career by coming over to Canada with the Fenian murderers. All this about Lumsden is so much dust thrown into the eyes of your readers, to prevent them from following the Fenian priest McMahon. The evidence proves that Lumsdeu guarded the property and lives of the Canadians from harm, show- ing that he was actuated by commendable humanity ; the evidence, on the other hand, against priest McMahon (will your correspondent publish it in his next, or must I discbarge that painful duty ?) proves that he came over with the Fenians, if not to rob and kill Canadians, at least U) give the robbers and m«rdereri the oonsoU- • tloni of tho Romish religion. And these consolations wa all know, inoludo annointiiig and absolution ; and after that the sending of tho viiiaina orthcr to pur;.'ntory or elspwhore. Then the jury ucquittod Lumsden, but sunt piioht McMuhon to tho gallows — a verdict thnt was mercifully cnmmulcd to twenty years in our Provincial penitentiary. What u uiarvcllKUs difference in the men — in the uiorul position thoy occuoied- and in tho I'.'gul issues attachin also a duty towaidd the government unaer which we have liberty, protection and juat laws. A.s ministers of Christ rnd messengers of tlie God of Peace, we me to stand between the vestibule and (he altar with uplifted hands, to implore the God of Mercy to preaerve ua iu traa* quility and peace.''. *• You will I lease, Rev. sir, to exhort your people to propare to cele- brute the festiVul, of the Patron Saint, of Ireland as pious Catholics, good Irisbuieu, and failhl'ul children of St. Paliiek. by up'proachin^j the Holy Sacr. ment of t.ie Altur, and to pray earnestly to God that throuj^h the intercession of His innnaculare and ever Vir-in Mother and St. Patrick, He would inspire the rulers ot Ireland to extend jujtice and mercy to that poor and distracted country ; and that His divine ir.ercy would change the dispoi.tions of those misguided men who pretend (o remedy the evils of Ireland by anarchy and bloodshed. In order the more to propitiate the Divine mercy we ap|»oiMt the three days preceeding the fe."Jtival ot St. Patrick as days of devotion in each parish, and we grant by virtue of an Apostolic Lidult. a plenary indulgence to all those who, being reconciled to God by the Sacrament of Penance, approach the Holy Communion on thatd^iV, We shall also impart the Papal benediction in our Cathedral at the Ponliticial Mass, which will be cekbrated at 9, a.m." " We hope that the Catholics of our diocese, and especially the City of Toronto, will conduct themselves during those days as becometh pious Catholics and loyal subjects." " Glory and honour and peace to every one that worketh good — Ro- mans 2: lU." " I am, Rev. and Dear Sir, Yours faithfully in Christ, JOHN JOSEPH LYNCH, Bishop of Toronto." I could quote the saying.s of the Right Rev. Dr. Horan, Bishop of Kingston, of the bishops of Lower Canada, (now Quebec) Halifax and Ireland, against Fenianism — but I will not trespass on • your reader's patience ; I think I have shown that the Rev. Mr, Bredin's insinuations against the Catholic body as regards Fenian« ism, are, not only ungenerous but unjust, and utterly unbecoming one who claims to be a Minister of the Gospel of Peace and Truth. The Rev. Mr. Bredin mentions the procession of St. Patrick's day aS being " offensive ;" he in the first irishman I ever knew to make the assertion ; what would be thought of tbe'Englishman who would pronounce the procession of St. George's Society, on St. 0"./f(:"' day 'offensive ;' or of the Scotchman who would say the 5H h" ^.Tocession of St. Andrew's Society, on the 30th of * ,f»a There is no analogy between the celebration of those ,; T f j ',l.e celebration of the 12th of July. The loyalty of C . w -i, even in theory^ of a doubtful sort — their 'oath ' is proof that, luere are conditions attached to their loyalty lo the Queen, beyond those required between sovereigns and subjects Id general Secondly, in practice, they are manifestly disloyal, as I have already proved, in my first letter. But to examine it a little toon miautely. They insulted the Priaoe of Wales when he SI in Canada, and acted outrageously at the Church door in TorontOf when they perceived that His Royal Highness prefened to drive round a whole blook, on his way to divine service, on the 9th Sep., 18t)0, nither tlidu p:iss nitdcr the Orjiige arch ou King street. Under O^jjle 11. Gowan tlicy met Lord Eljiin (the representative of the Queen) on BiKckvllle duck, with the black flag. In the Lender of the 23rd June last, I find that a man named G. Bowea was arrested at Oitawa, for endeavouring to persuade a soldier of the liiflu' lirig I le to desert. Bowes is represi;nted in the Leader as a Sc'(rlet Kiilgkt of tha Oniuge Assad itinn. He is not un- known to fame, in the neighborhoorj of Markham, as some of the oil seekers in the vicmily of Headford have substantial reasons to remouiber. Another spaeimen of tlie kind of stufif Orange loi/alty ismideof, and I will pass on. In the north of Ireland, several meetings have baen held, in the early part ot this present year, to present addresses of sympathy to Mrs. John.son of Billykilbeg. on account of the so-cailed persecution of her beloved husband tor a breach of the Party Processions Act. At one of their meetings held in Enniskillen, the iScv. Mr. Flanagan, one of the speakers is reported to have uttered the following sentiments: " He siiid, if fliey dare to lay unholy hands upon the Church of Ireland 200.000 Onuii^enien will tell theiri it never shall be. (Immense cheer- ing.) It ia very lure, in these days we hear a jjreat deal about passive loyalty, ai'd that we will permit ouisalves to be treated just as people like. Away with -uch a doctrine. (Hear, hear.) Protestant loyalty must make itself undeistoiul. People will say, 't)h, your loyalty is con- ditional.' I say it is eonditional una must he explained as such. (Cheers) Will you Or.in^femen of Ireland, er.dorse the doctrine of an uncondition- al loyulty. (Repeated cries ot No, never.> After referring to the vic- tories obtained at Derry. Auj:hrim,and the Bovne.he said that our enemies sometimes speak al)i)ul I h"; smallness of our numbers, and he wished to know how they could h(! anything else. What had the Pope done to in- crease our numbers ? What had En/land done ? What have the land- lords done ? Now, he saw it was really wonderful and must be attributed to the merciful interposition of God that there is such a thin|r as a Protestant in the country ut all. lietween 1825 and 1834 no less than 17.), 000 emi;^rated and yet we are taunted by the English because our numbers are not more. The cry is raised against us. not because we are nut more, but because w-; are so many. The question arises, on what, are we to show ourselves ? We might plead the Act of Union in 1800, or the provisions of the Emanci- pation Actio 1829, or we mi rhi refer to the past services render- ed England in the hour of need. If. appears wonderful that there is one thing upon which we can coni'.dentiy throw ourselves which has been overlooked by nearly all the speal»ers, he meant the Queet.'s Coronation Oath, bhe should be remi.ded that one of her mcestors, who swore to maintani the Protest.int religion, torgot his oath and his crown was kicked into the Boyne (Cheers) We must speak out boldly, and tell our gracious Queen thnt if she breaks her oath she has no lon4er any claim to the Crown. Let us not put any trust in man, but trust to God and ourselves. Put your trust in God, my boys, and keep your powder dry." Mr. Bredin quotes the Rev. Dr. Milner in a very dishooest fashion, (o prove that th-re were " rival Popes and unhappj. "sohisms in the Church." I use the adjective (dishoneftf) pt^^ T %2 '^ttme Mr. B. appears to wish his readers to infer, that Dr. Milner and your venerable correspondent, are of one mind as to the cod> elusion which Mr. B. comes to. In order that your readers may know what Dr. Milner says, and that they may also see wherein Mr Bredin has not done " the square thing" in professing to quote so distinguished an author, I quote Dr. Milner, from whom Mr. B. gives a mutilated extract ; that part which he left out without giving any explanation, I have italicised — by which means your readers will perceive that your venerable correspondent is not very scrupulous in his mode of giving extracts from authors. Dr. Mil- ner's ** End of Religious Controversy" is a work which could be read with pleasure and profit by the most fastidious protestant, and is comprised of a '* friendly correspondence between a religious so- ciety of Protestants and a Roman Catholic Divine." It is in one volume, and sold for about one dollar. That part of the work from which Mr. Bredin quotes, is Letter XXX, to James Brown, Esq., and professes to answer certain ^objections. Dr. Milner then says: " I grant sir, that, from the various commotions and accidents to which all sublunary things ai'e subject, there have been several vacan- cies, or interreornuma in the Papacy ; but none of' them have been of such a lengthened duration as to prevent amoral continuation of the Popedom •r ot hinder the execution of the important office annexed to it, I grant also, that there have been rival Popes and unhappy schisms in the church particularly one great schism, at the end of the fourteenth and the begin- ning of the fifteenth century : still the true Pope was always clearly dis- cernible at the times we are speaking of, and in the end was acknowledged evnn by his opponents. Lastly, I grant that a few of the Popes, perhaps iV tenth part of the whole number, swerving from the example of the rest, have by their personal vices disgraced their holy station : but even these Popes always fulfilled their public duties to the church by maintaining the apostolical doctrine, moral as well as speculative, the apostolical orders aad the apostolical mission, so that their misconduct chiefly injured their own souls, and did not essentially effect the church. V The extract which Mr. Bredin gives from Dr. Milner's 22nd letter, page 154, is so abridged, as to make an unfair impression on your readers, by abruptly leaving off in the middle of a sentence. Here is the sentence complete : " My answer, dear sir, in brief, to your concluding objections, is thut without Deans your is not very Dr. Mil- )h could be :estant, and 'eligious so- .t is in one 5 work from rown, Esq., lilner then iccidente to '•^ral vacan- been of such he Popedom it, I grant 1 the church d the begin- 1 clearly dis- knowledged >es, perhaps of the rest, even these itaining the ical orders ijured their ner's 22nd Tession on sentence. ■' . >■','■ ii >n8, is th&t have un- iced fhett- istendom ; ted by the )ther in a behaviour y oomtnie- to those Sir. Bre- which I doctor of Tour venerable correspondent says : " My credit in tihe Tboraf "" Hill Priest's mere assertion is still further destroyed when I ••read, in Dr. Reeve's Churck History, page 421, that WiokliffCi **' continued to disseminate bis pestilential doctrines with impunity, " till a paralytic ^ei£ure suddenly hurried him out of life in 1385," Again I find Mr. Bredin at his chronic habit, to sustain a point. Here is what Dr. Reeve says, on page 421 in regurd to Wicklifie : " His novelties escaped not the vigilance of the bishops, they assem- *** bled in a synod and sutnmoned the dogmatiser to «ppear before them. *' Being questioned about his faith, he began to shuffle in his answers, " as to make everyone conceive that he was not inclined to renounce «« his errors, nor yet disposed to run the risk of suffering for them. H« "allowed that his expressions were incorrect, and he attempted to ez- « plain them in an orthodox sense, in which he wished to be understood, '" nis positions as they stood, were formally condemned ^ he, on making " fair promises not to disturb the public peace, was suffered to depart ** without further censure." Here is Dr. Reeve's statements of /acts. And now for his opin- ions ; he says : " WickliS'tf owed his escape to the strength of his party,for he had many •*' proselytes." (that is,raany agreed with the novelties he broached) " h* ** nad a powerful protector in the Duke of Lancaster,the King's uncle, sor- *' named John of Gaunt, a raortiil enemy «>f the clergy, and regent of th« ^'Kingdom during his nephew's rainoritv. Under the protection of thil ** puissant prince, Wickliffe continued to disseminate his pestilential doe- ^'trines with imounity, till a paralytic seizure suddenly hurried him oak "oflite, in 1:J85." Dr. Lingard, the great English historian, says. Vol. IV page 191 : •' But VVickliffe's s'lccess ended here. His appeal on doctrinal mat- ^ters, scatuialised some of his most powerful partisans ; and the Dak* "of Lancaster, hastening to Oxford, advised him to submit to the judg- " ment of bis ordinary. He reluctantly as&ented, reaa a confession of "^ faith in presence of the primate and the Bishops of Lincoln, Nofwicb, ** Worcester, London, and Hereford, and, retiring to the rectory of -*• Lutterworth, was suffered to remain there without further molestation. ^' Two years afterwards, as he was assisting at the mass of his curate, on " the feast of the innocents, at the moment of the elevation of th« ** host, a stroke ofappoplexy deprived him of the use of hip tongue and •"most of his lirnl»s. He expi-ed on the last day of the year 1384." The Right Rev. J. B. Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux, in his history of the Variations of the Protestant Churches, page 122, Vol.2, tpeaking of WickliiFe, says ; " Since his retraction, you hear no more mention of him ; and, finally ■ " his d^in/ in his cure, and in the exercise of bis function, as also does "" his burial in hallowed gtound,proveB that he died externally in the com- " munion of the Church." M. La Roque (a Protestant author) writing of Wickliffe, says : *' Who, either was an hypocritical prevaricator, or a Roman Catholic ; " who died in the Church, even whilst he assisted at the sacrifice, m- *• count>id the mark of distinction between both parties." It is qu te unnecessary for me to add one word to. these quoi»> Mods. I will only ask your readcri — with the authority of thoM 84 «m!ndnt writers before them — \rhercjn doea my former statement differ from Dr. Reeve or any other received authority, I havt taken the trouble of transcribing these cxtructs in regard to Wickliffb's death; not that I fotl a pride in th« fact, but to show Mr. Bredin that I asserted it, not entirely; through ig.ioranco of history. And now, as Mr. Bredin is an ad- mirer of Wickliffe, I will give him Melancthon's opinion of Wick- liffe, as expressed in the preface to his Common Places, where h« says: '' You may jufl'^e of WicklilTe's Hpirit by the the errors he abounded "with. Ho understood tiuthiii'^ of tho justice of fuiih : he miikea a "jumble of gospel and polilifa he mniiitnina it, unlawful for priests to " have anythin^j of their own ; ho speaka of the civil power after a "gedi.ioiis manner, and full of sophistry; with the same sophistry h« "cavils about the universally received opinion touchiiig on the Loid'ii " Supper." Melanctlion, one of the the Apostles of tho so-called reformation oondemns Wickliffe and his doctrine. I should like to know what the profound Mr. Bredin thinks of them. Mr. Bredi i represents Dr. Reeve as saying that Pope Paul th« 4th ' tried, condemned, deposed, excommunicated and delivered to the civil power to be burned at the stake' Archbishop Crantner. I refer your readers to the pages 517 and 518 of Dr. Reeve's Church History, and they will find that Mr. Bredin makes an unfounded assertion. Mr. Bredin acknowledges that the venerable Bede translated th« Scriptures many hundred years before Wick'ifFe's translation wa« known, and makes a futile attempt to be facetious at tlio expense of what he terms 'our over-zealous young controversialist.' In order to expose the dishonesty of tho venerable controversialist, in re- gard to this point of the controversy, it is necessary to invite your readers to turn to his letter in tlic Herald of the 7th August where he says ' Rome kept the Bible sealed up in a dead language. Wickliffe was the first man to translate it into English the tongue 330 years before the Revolution and 150 years before tho Reformation ' I ask is it not the Rev. Gentlemen's object to lead his readers to in- fer that Wickliffe was the first man to translate the Bible into the language f-poken by the English people ; and that " Rome kept it sealed up in a dead language " until Wickliffe broke the seal — this^ is clearly what Mr. Bredin dssires his readers to understand. r ■ As it was the Anglo-Saxon which was spoken in Bede's time ; and as he translated the Bible into that language (which Mr. Bredin admits) then I assert that Mr. Bredin attempted to mislead his readers, and thereby did what wasunbecoaiiug a candid man. Haydn (a Prostestant authority) in his Dictionary of Dates, says: ' The first English Bible is dated 1290, by Usher of which there arc three MSS at Oxford;' this is 90 years before Wickliffe translated his edition. rmer statement )rity. I hav« !ict8 in regard prido in th« , r»)t entirely; 3 red in is an ad- mion of Wick- iices, where ht rs ht abounded ih ; hti nuikea tk ul for priests to I f/ftwer after tt ne sophistry he ; oil ihu Lord'a ;d rcformatioB to knew what ^ope Paul th« i delivered to I Cranmer. I eeve's Church nn unfounded translated th« anslation waa tlie expense ersiali.st.' In ersialist,inre- invite your 7th August !ad language. lie tongue 330 Ileforaiation ' renders to in- ible into the ionie kept it he seal— thi» 'Stand. P in Bede's age (which ttempted to ling a candid of Dates, ler of which re Wickliffe 35 Mr. Bredin ia his letter in the Herald of Aug. 7th, says : < TiDdal ■first printed the Bible in English in 1526.' I answered by say- ing — ho was wrong both ad to fact and date and 1 referred to Hal- lam us saying it was the l\'stiimcnt that Tyndale translated, which was printed at Antwerp in 152o; it was not the ; ible as Mr Brcdip »ES3rts ; therefore he was wrong tirst, as to faet ; secondly, as to date, — since in that year the 'Bible' waa not printed; hence there arc no symptouH of ' p<;rverted iu^'cnuity' exhibited by luy again saying ho ia wrong both aa to the fact and date, in asserting that Tindal printed the Bible in English, in 152G. In Mr. Bredin's letter, in the flendii of 7th August, ho says : "while Tindal was preparing a second oditiun abroad, Homo burn- "ed him as a heretic in Flanders, in 1532 " Wrong again, both as to fact and date. England was severed by Ic^msI itive authority from Rome, in 1534, and Haydn's Dictintiary of D itos states that "Tindal was strangled (not burnt) at Antwerp in 1536. tiO^ AT THE INSTKIATION OF HENllY THE VIII. AND HIS COUNCIL 1" In order to show to your readers tliat your venerable correspond- ent is unscrupulous in liis dciilinir with the ct'ivpfl edition, cr)7nn?t/H.'// /iV(0(r?4 us Km ■ James' " BibUiohirhAii. its tnin.has rrrentl;/ snfftrcd si'vorejii nf. the hnuds of Dr -•' Colenso, a Bishnp of the EiigH.s/i t.ilul)tiskm' i>l. '1 Im Jlr.st mimed " ct?///"o)i.9 (mear.iii^ those of 15(12. 1577, Mu'.^) dilftr froinf/ic last (that "is, Ki.iyr •f-uHM' edition) ; anil no lo wt bo"' pv<'ui tod." Protestant historians may assort this for the purpcac of he.Iping 86 Iheir own oanse ; but the qaestion itt, does the Ohureh hold taoh tenets ? They are not to be found in the Decrees of the Council of Trent, or of any other Council of the Church ; or in any book published by the authority of the Church ; and I defy Mr. Bre> din to prove that such were her teachings in any time or place. ^ I will here quote from the 58th and 59th pa^^e of the Cateohisn before referred to ; by this your readers will know what tb« Ghuroh does teach, as regards the sin of lying : " Q S»7 the eighth coumandment. A Thou ahalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Q And who is my neighbonr ? A Mankind of evury description, and without any exception of per- sons, even those who injure ua, or differ from us in religion. Q What is forbiddeu by the eighth commandme-^ ', ? A All false testimonies, rash judgement, and lies. Q Is it lawful to tell an innoceat or Jocose lie, or tell a lie for a good purpose ? ' A No lie can be lawful or innocent ; and no motive, however good, can excuse a lie ; because a lie is sinful and bud in itself. Q What else is forbidden by the eighth commandment ? A Backbiting, calumny, and detraction ; and all words and speeches hurtful to our neighbour's honour, or reputation. Q What is commanded by the eighth comrnhndment ? A To speak of others with justice and charity, as we would be glad they did npeuk of us: and to witness the truth in all things. Q What must they do who havb given false evidence against a neigh- bour, or who have spoken ill of bim, or injured his character in any res- pect? A They must repair the injury done bim, as far as they are able : and make him satisfaction by restoring his good name as soon as possi- ble : otherwise the sin will not be forgiven them." , Mr. Bredin might profit largely by pondering over the foregoing questions and answers. Mr. Bredin says that " Rome has added ^he Apocryphal — thai is doubtful books to the inspired canou." IVow, sir, I tell Mr. Bredin that whatever doubts ho may entevlara in re<;urd to certain portions of the canonical books of Script uie — and he has a more learned example in Dr. Colenso, who has published his doubts upon what Mr. Bredin accepts — his doubts are based upon vague autho- rity; the Church of Rome holds the same canon now that she did in the fourth century, as enumerated by Innoceat the first, and by ▼arious Councils and DoctorH, from century to century, down to tht Council of Trent, in the sixteenth century. Your venerable cor- respondent exposed his incapacity to comprehend a very clear state- ment made by me, in regard to bis spurious extract from the Coun- oii of Trent. Here is what the Rev. logician sa)'s: — " The objections to my quotation from the Council of Trent leem to be three : first, ' that it is a fabrication'; next, that th» ^ Ooanoil was dissolved before my date' ; and lastly, that my < traot- reh hold aooh the GouDoil of r in any book defy Mr. Bre- e or place. I the Oateohism now what tb« ibour. cception of p«r> on. a lie for a good however good, t? s and speecbfli vould be glad f. gainst a neigh- :ter io any res- they are able : aooa aa poui- bhe foregoing ■yphal— -thai ' tell Mr. rd to certain has a mora doubts upon ague autho- hut she did irst, nod by down to thft ^nerable cor- clear statc- 3 the Coun- 1 of Trent t, that th» my < traut- 87 lation is utterly unworthy of credit.' The fint and third obj«o- tions destroy each other ; inaHmuch na there could be no spur^ow ten dollar bill, unless there had been a good one." '^5 I ask your readers to mark well the last four lines of this verteM^^ ble ' controversialist ' and compare it with what I did say, Mf answer in the Hti'cJdok 14th August '■ead as follows: — } " Mr. Brcdin, in his last letter, prclends to give a long ext^utoi from the ' Council of Trent in March 15G4'. I answer ihat the pretended extract is not to be found among the canons and decrees of thut Council ; that it i» a fabrijtition. I further say that the Council of Trent was dissolved before that date ; therefore the Reverend Gentleman is wrong, both as to fact and date. This can be easily ascertained by reference to Watcrworth's translation of the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent: — which is the only correct and reliable English translation, and is generally fouhd in Catholic libniries. There has been an anonymous translation which is utterlv unworthy of credit, and stands in the same rel4^' tion to the Council of Trent, that a spurious ten dollar bill does to the bank upon which it is forged. So much for the value of M/. Bredin s references to records." •- 1 stand finrily by this statement of facts. It rests with Mr. Bredin to prove the genuineness of hisextruct, referred to aborc— ' and this I know he cannot do. As to his making an appointment fbr me to meet him last Saturday, to translate the ''ten rules" he mentions; I can on!y say that it is a piece of gratuitous impertin-^^ ence, excusable only on the grounds of a defective en? ly training, which has so clearly manifested its If throughout all his letters. If • Mr. Bredin had ever undergone a thorough classical course in pro^' paration for the Ministery, in his youth — of which there are valid reasons for doubting — I question whether he would have made'"*) such an < xhibiiion of himself as he has done. ; III n former letter, the venerable controvcisialist flourished "an imaginary hammer over your humble servant's head, and, in latt^' fuago redolent of the shop, talked of nailing things to the counter, f the Rov. gcjitleman still has his hammer and nails by him per-M baps he would do the honest thimr, and keep .score for me too; as Ij think I have placed hiiii in an excecdimrly unpleasant po.sition be^r; fore your readers, and expect to keep him there. v! I OH 1*4 fVC ft t-Thornhill, August 24th, 18«i8. "' T. J. M, .i f: «i ''[The Publisher of the York []ernld^r\^Vtt^ it necessary to rie.j quest the controver.«ialist,x to curtail their letters, owing to the amount, of space occupied, publihhed the following notice in the local column^ of the Ihndd of September 4th, 1 868 :] "' " To Correspondents. — In future we hope that Mr. T. J. M. and Mr. Bredin will condense their letters so as to occupv a reasoB^I' aWe space — say two columns-r— otherwise the scissors or some other remedy will be applied." 38 LETTER NO. IX, FROM THE REV. JOHN BREDIN. fb the Editor of the York Hentld. Sir: ^he priest has aot yet furnished your readers with the un- founded assurtioas, utid unliistoricj.1 statements which he accused me of making at the Orange celebration. Until he substantiates his random statements, every unbisised person will say that he has alandered me. It is ati uDusual thing, among roinanists, to call in question any averment that th«ar priests may make ; but I will nofc only be excused but justified in demanding evidence in the case. — Wnether "he priest tliought liis word was to pass unchallenged I cannot tell,but he has exposed liim.selt to the charge of printing and publishing statements, the truth oi which he either did or did not know. If he could have proved his statements, I assume that it would have been done long ere this ; if he cannot prove them, it would neither detract fioui hi'; luanhood nor his chjistianity, to •VOW the rash utterances of c()ni|iarative youth Until the charges are either proven or withdrawn, I will feel it my duty to hold up the author of them as an anonymous slanderer. -! The priest accused us of " shamefully mutilating the Bible"; and when asked for proof, your readers know his reply. He first told us that his " sacred duties" so engrossed his services that he had ho time for such work; and then, lie gave us an obscure state- ment of the Bible having passed through four editions. This is. specimen number two oi priestly argument. It seems a pity that this young man, with many amiable qualities, could &pend hours ftt an Orange celebration, and hours in copying letters — for he does not compose tliem — containing vile and calumnious statements for • newspaper; and yet could not i;ive half an hour toward substan* tiating his controverted assertions. The whole thing is anomal- ous ; and there is no more reason to believe the excuse, than the Sflsertion. If the Bible could pen a sentence for the columns of the York Herald, i\\x\t sjntcnce Avonld be — the Thome Hill Bomiik priest has shfim<'/ul/i/ si indered mc . The priest ventures to test, the merits of Fenianism by arithme- tic; and he finds that a fraction over one fourth are protestants. — He does not attempt to prove them Orangemen. It is a sad enough deduction, that GOO, of the 800 raiders belong to the holy Ro> n church, notwithstanding- BLshop Lynch's letter. It is still sadu i.' that, wiiile the protestant, minister Lumsden was acquitted, the Romish priest McM.ihon was sent to the penetentiary I Rome has a very startling doctrine which I will apply to the case at issue. The council of Trent, in nearly the words of the Roman Catechism at p. 76, says that " Baptum, coufinnatinn and holy orders im^ print on the soul a chnructcr or spirifmd mark which never can b§ eff'acedJ" The Feniui convict McMahon was doubtless baptized, confirmed and ordained; he received an ineffacable character or mark by these three sacraments ; did they, or did they not make him the consummate villain that the lad^ of the land has stamped on his brow ? my young friend will have the kindness to answer thin question. Hi: 80 The priest says I ** mentioned the procession of Patrtok's day at offensive". When that procession falls into the hands of Romat- ists, it is always offensive, for they make it a display of their errone- ous system. But why does my young friend suppress so many othet things mentioned by me? The Inquisition, altur denuniciationSi Bible burning, and the worship of the wafer are among the topioi which I have mentioned as being "offensive" and outrageous; and while this champion for these enormities garbles what I mention, he most sedulously avoids allusion to them. In tht manual of Catholic devotion, a standard book for the memberB of the Roman Church, at page 89, the instructions at th« •onsccratioo of the wafer are '' Bow down your body and aovi in solemn adoration"; and at the elevation of the host, the prayer ^ommenees thus, " most adorable body T. adore thee with all the powers of my soul." At page 430 of the same book, I read tha following, '■^may all know, adore and praise every momantf alioayi the most holy and most divine sacrament." If that is not idolatry, under the most transparent guise, I ask what is it? The priest cannot conceal the embarassment in which his state- ment about Wickliffe has involved him. He said in his third let- ter that Wickliffe " died in the communion of the Roman church, Dec. 31, 1384," and added with evident glee, " is that any conso- lation to your Rev. correspondent?" My reply, as Hhowing how ignorant of his own church history he was, stated that the Romish Dr. Milner put him among the heretics, and cut him off the apo»> tolic tree as such. The priest has not impugned that authority. My second Romish authority was frum Dr. JReeve, page 421, as- serting that " Wickliffe continued to disseminate his pestilential doctrines with impunity, till a paralytic seizure suddenly hurried him out of life in 1385." My third Romish authority was from the historian L'Enfiint, vol. 1, page 231, who says that ," Wick- liffe died an obstinate heretic, therefore they condemn his memory and order his bones to be dug up." And I will add another from Dr. Reeve, p. 427, where he says, " Forty five propositions, con- tained in Wickliffe's writings, are specifically condemned and an order given th^t his bones, as the bones of a notoriout heretic, shoulti be dug up and thrown aside, as unworthy of christian burial." In the face of such evidence, while the young man does not feel a pride in the facts,he suppliantly asks, "wherein does his former state- ment differ from Dr. Recve,or any other received authority ?" The man that can see and won't see is blameworthy ; but the man that is blind, whether through aiental or moral obliquity, is an object of sincere commiseration. But the young man, after quoting irrelevant matter from Dr. Reeve, with an ingenuity worthy a disciple of Loyola, classifies the historian's statements into opinions onA facta. The liberty is unwarrantable, and any man that resorts to such a course must sink himself even in his own estimation. My friend next addresses Dr. Lin aimoin/, to " sacnlcge, to nijxici/t/ and a general coyvption of monih.'^ This is the statement of a learned Romish divine. It lefcis to popes, car- dinals, arclibishops, bishops and priests of a church that pretends to be holi/ as well as infallible. " I should like to know what the profound young priest thinks of it?' Ho applied the words of divine authority to the Orangemen, in his first letter, and lie will now allow uje to use thoui against his own corrupt dcnoniiiiation ; "Every Kingdom divided af' i he Council of Constance, vol 1, pageGl. Bonncchose, a ron aiiist also gives it in book 2. chap 1. It is quoted by Gieseler iii, p.igo /]51. The Couricil of Con- stance passed two decrees on the subject, in the first of which is the Kt itement that the " person who shall have promised thera " (heretics) security, shall not ill this CMse be ibliued to keep his "promise"; in the second decree, it is declared that "according "to the natural, divine and hun:au hiws, no promise or faith ouj^ht " to have been kept with him (J. Hits) to the prejudice of the Ca- "tholic faith." 1 quote mere extracts from L'Enfant. ii, pi>ie491, and will show the orif>inals to any person who wisl.es. In 1421, Pope IMartin V. wrote to Alexander. Dnke of Lithunia, saying that "he would begnilty of a mortal sin, should he keepf.-iith with "heretics." 8o says Cochlaus, a biu'oted romanist, liber 5, page £12. The priest says he defies me to prove that sttch were Ronse's teachings at any time or place. The above is my answer, and when he disposes of the authorities, I will give him double ihenum- her. liis long quotation froui the five cent catechihm answer* .,.^tl if i i ■ I 'J i \ ' ill • 4£ tery well for the children, hut the fathers of Rome preach somethinf different. I am charged with porpohntina; (does this learned Priest meftil perpetrate) a fraud, if T wish your r aders to understand that tht pope cursed the Kn;>lish nitiou Why, Mr Editor, ' thought every person knew that Rome is ont! vast system of cursinir. In tb^ dark ages it was iicr spiiiiual thunderbolt. Turning to Water- worth's Canons and D.'Crces of tlic Council of Trent, I find no fewer than 126 Anathcmts, hurled on every person that gainsayg Rome's dogmas on pen ^ciiptural teachings. These Anathemas arc denounced against yoursi'lf as well as your correspondent, and upon all who dare to dissent, tVom the absurb and, in many instancejl, biasphomnus teachings of Rome. Nearly the closing words of th« Council of Trent, as simult mconsly uttered by 255 ("ardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots and others, were : Anathema TO ALL Heretics. " Anatiikm v, Anathema." I quote from pag« 283 of the Romish author Waterwortli. It is time that protesl- •nts fully understood the character of that system, of which my young friend, as yet knows so very little. " THE TEN COMMANDMENTS." "What will your readers think (asks the Priest) when T inform them that the ten eominatidmenis, -^s contained in the '-iOth chapter of Exodus, are to be fonnd h )1 •■ tiin S i'>h iih day. Elonourthy t'alli •l•a^(l i!iy molhci " &c. So the tenth commandmei t is divided int.) two. The mutilatioi of the moral law is self-evident; -nd ilie total omission of the se- cond command, irliicli. priijn'hi/cs the making n gravrn thing, is thd most reproheiisible leainie of the whou; n'ifiir. What will your readers now think ? But I tniti to p,ig( s 19 and 50, and under the question '• siy the ten erininiindniOMi-," 1 find a repetition of page 23. And this is the Catholic Catechism I Can you wonder, 43 1 somethbf I'lest mean id that th« ought everj In th« to Water- I find no at gainsayi in.atriraony, Anathemas )rident, and y instances, ords of tha I'ardinala, rilEMA TO from pagt it protesl- which my n T inform ;h chapter ^ism ?" I ; olfice, for iers think, e last leaf hcj arft the con- B not in lot in Dr. it the end something >en I teU the Com- Gods bot a. utilatioM f the sa- '9, is thd 'ill your i under tition of wonder, Kr. Editor, tbat Bomanists are so i^noriint of the Bible when their Bishops and Priests combine to multilate the holy word of God, and then suppress the 2nd Commandment totally. What a libel it is on oommon honesty to c.ill lesson vi and lesson xiv the ten command- ments; and then to allow the young to grow up under the impres- sion that they are the true decalogue, which they have been taught. The priest's style of argumentatiou is in keeping with the whola thing ! But the priest ingeniously says that not one of the twenty- five Articles of Religion, as he found them in the Book of Doo^ trines and Discipline of my church, refers to the Ten Command- ments. The statement is just like all his other random assertions. But the priest says he haf examined (Ms Bnok, Well what doei he find in Article V ? This statement: " The Holy Scripturei " contains all things necessary to salvation.' And every book commencing at Genesis, Exodus, and also the New Testatment, ii named. Are not the Ten Com. in Exodus? So much for tht faculty which I rightly termed perverted ingenuity ; so much for the priest's honesty ; and so much for his qualification to misre- present an obvious fact ! I am thankful for my young friend's statement that "the Church "of Rome holds the same canon (of Scriptures) now that shi *' did in the fourth century." The great Apostacy, at that dat« developed itself, and Rome had then to take the Apocryphal books into her creed, to uive her some doubtful authority for her •arly heresies. ''the council op TRENT." My quotation from the Council of Trent, the priest insists, is a fabrication. He says there hns been an anonymous translation, which is utterly unworthy of credit. That may or may not be true ; h« dare not meet me however, to test the genuineness of his assertion. And if he as umes that no p2rson save a Romanist can translate th» Latin into faithful English, he is asking your readers to believe either too much or to-) little. The Pope seemed to share this idea, for hs prohibited under pains, and penalties, any person cleric or lay from publishing in any form any commentaries, or interpre- tations of the Decrees of Trent, without his authority. This Anathema will explain why the young priest dare not even give an extract from what he calls the only corrtict translation. I find on p. 133 of this ^fcHwrnd translation that Fathers specially chosen by the Council of Trent, should carefully consider what ought to be done in the matter of consurcs and of Books, &c., report in due time to the Synod. On p. 134, it is decreed that such ' Report' shall have th? same force, authority and weight, ns if decreed in public Session. On p. 279, the Decree on Books, states that th« Pontiff" was to exumine and to make public said Report. This report, which was not published for some three months after ths general Council closed, and ichich the boasted work of Waterworth does not contain, comprises ' ten rules.' Parts of rules 2 and 10, as prohibiting Bible reading, I have already published ; and I find that the "Decree concerning the Edition and use of the sacred iff™ 1 ^ ll ii iH !: "I I I !l 44 books/* found on pages 19 and 20 of Waterworth's translation, ig identical in sentiment with the extracts which I have published. The length of the original documents alone prevents my publish- ing them verbatim ; at present I endeavour to give a brief ftatement of them. So much for the veracity of the priest on thu matter. Why the priest should term my invitation to submit the disput- ed quotations to a conmiittee, "gratituous impertinence," doet pot appear very plain, except on the ground that he dare not iubject his assertions to such a test. I have stronger evidence now than I had two weoks ago, that the priedt only copies the let- ters which his friends write for him. He cannot write an ordin- ary letter, on any subject, grammatically correct. Whatever he may think of my education, I am not driven to the humbling ex-' pedicnt of getting third p.iriies to prepare any of my letters for the presf. I • .' 'iiitthe accompanying certificate of moral charac- ter, whiJi V by a young man before the Board of Examin- ers of Coir . ,( >ol Teichers, the other day ; and our village fchool boys can sec bow " thoroughly classical" the Thome Hill priest's "00'^/ trainmg" and present attainments are: "Mr. is a y> u j m....,j u\ a "ood and moral character, as far as !• 'know. His parents arc vciy iOiipectable and much esteemed by all "who know them. (Sij:iied) Thos. J. Morris P priest of of Tiiornhill." It may be " impertinent" on my part to ask the author of such a production to translate a paragraph of Lntin, but it shows whal. ■ort of stuff the man is made of. JOHNBREDIN. a Richmond Hill, Sept., 2, 1868. ' •: M. LETTER NO. X, FROM T. J. To tlie Editor of the York Herald. ,':■:•?.■ I was not surprised to find, by your notice "to Corre«*- Sir :- pondt'iits" m your last it-PuC, that even you may cont^idcr it possible to have " too much of a good tiling"; i therefore tender }(iu an apology for the length of my letter in the Herald of the 28th August; the only cxcusd I have to offer is, that Mr Bred n im- poses the necessity upon me, on account of his unfair dciiling with autliors, as well as the wtint of common honesty he mani-- ftsts in his quotations. He professes to give extracts from Ciitho-. lie authors, but so arranges them by omitting imj)ortant parti; with a view to disguise the true sentiments of those writers whom he quotes, as to lead his readers to form an erroneous . conclusion, he has done the same thing in regard to statementB, made by myself — and, hence the reason why I felt bound tO; niake such copions extracts, and to reiterate some of my former, assertions in full. ■ .■ "'i' ' Your venerable correspondent, John Bredin, profesges to be- iieVC; and appears to wish your readers to conclude that I havs 4ft not exposed his ignorance of history, and made good what I sei jfbrth in my former letters ; that he made unfounded assertions. Notwithstanding all the Rev. Gentleman s bluster, and his efforts to enter upon new points — involving questions I cannot con- descend to discuss with him — he cannot but feel that in his first grand flourish of triumph, to use a common old saying, '• he reckoned without his host.' I have proved from protestant history that the best laws of England are the production of catholic minds; the evidence of which is to be found in the boasted inheritance ot British freedom, secured by Magna Charta and the writ of Habeas Corpus — known to England long before the so-called Reformation. I have proved that the Catholic Church itreserved and gave the Bible to the Christian world; and it is only upon the authority of that church, Mr. Bredin believes that the Holy Scriptures are the inspired word of God. Mr. Bredin attempts to qucHtion the validity of the authori- ty of the Catholic Church, because there were Popes and Bishops whose private acts were admittedly bad. According to hia reasoning the public acts "of that bright occidental star. Queen "Elizabeth of happy memory" as King James' Bible hath it — but whom histoiians consider te have been a ludy of very doubt- ful reputation — would have been invalid. I presume even Mr. Bredin will admit that incest is a crime ; it is so considered by the laws of England, both civil and ecclesiastical. The parlia- mentary church of England — from which Mr. Bredin is an oft- •hoot — has in her book of common prayer. ''A table of kinj- " red and affinity, wherein whosoever are related are forbidden " in Scripture, and our laws to marry together '; amongst other things it says that "a man may not marry his wife's sister." The 24th chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith, Section 4, says " Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of con- " eanguinity or f&nity forbidden in the word ; nor can such ** incestuous marriages even be made lawful by any law of man, "or consent of parties, so as those persons can live together as man ** and wife. The man may not marry anv of his wife's kindred near- " erin blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband's " kindred nearer in blood than of her own." The criminal lair of England, I believe, extends to this country ; does Mr Bredin question the validity of the proceedings of his Conference be- cause it was presided over by an " eminent divine" who has recently married his late wife's sister ? The Rev, Chief Superintendent of schools for Ontario assisted at this violation of law, and will Mr. Bredin say that, because he did so, his official acts are not valid ? Mr. Bredin says Wickliffe was a good man. If he thinks so it must be because Wickliffe has established a good claim to your re- verend and venerable correspondent's admiration. If it were not for your caution " to correspondents" in last week's issue, I would give you ezttacts from Wickliffe's " Trialogue" which would occupy much of your space, and would shock your readers with the Tile doctrines of the man whom fflr. Bredin admires; it is true ii ! M ' ! I 46 Wickliflfe recanted, but the miserable production of bis brain wen) forth to the world. Among the many blasphemous assertions madt by WicklifFe, was the following; — Deus debet ohedire diaholo — that is, God ought to obey the devil 1 John Huss adopted Wick- liffe's doctrincH, and judging from Mr. Bredin'8 opinion of Wick- liflFe, he, (Mr. Brcdin) approves of his ^ritinjrs. Wicklilfe's doc- trines as I have said, were blasphemous, and directly subversive of all ■ocial order. Huss in propiigaiing Wicklitfo's wicked propositioni made himself amenable to the civil luw of the Empire of which ho was a subject, and suiFered the penalty. He conducted hinjself so outrageously as to endanger the peace of the city, by prenching st- dition, and for this reason had to be arrested. The council gave him a fitir hearing ; but condemned his doctrines, degraded him from the priesthood, and left him in the hands of the civil autho- rities. Suppose the Kev. Mr. Bredin were to adopt the doc- trines of WicklifFe, and teach such doctrines as Dcus debet obedlre diabolo, (and, being an admirer of the man it would not surprise me)— or if he should take it into his head to propagate some of Joe Smith's or Brigham Young's tbeorii^s, I ask, how long would the Methodist Conference permit him to remain in that body as a preacher. All who have read history know that the civil laws of every state in Europe, Catholic and Protestant, were ciuol in ths times to v/hieh wc have referred ; and when such men as Husi mingled politics with hersey, they could hardly expect to get out of the hands of the authorities of the state — after preaching sedition — as they did those of the church. The protestant puritans of New England enacted laws that were no less cruel than those of older European nations. Among the blue laws ot Connecticut will be found the following : " No one shall run on tao S.ibbiuh day, or wall; iu Lis garden, or "elsewhere, except reveieutly to iiud from nieetiiij;." "No one shaU travel, cook victuals, make beJd, swoop houses, out '• hair, or shave on the Sabbath day." "No woman shall kiss her child, on the sabbath or fasting day," "The Sabbath shall begin at sunset ou Saturday." " If any man shall kiss his wife, or wife her husband on the Lord's "day the party in fault sbtll be punished at tho discretion of the "court of magistrates." The poor inoffensive Quakers were whipped, branded, had their ears cut off. their tongues bored with hot irons, and were banish- ed upon the pain of death in case of their return, and cctually exe- cuted upon the gallows. I here copy a few extracts from many of the laws and orders of court in regard to tho Quakers : — "No Quaker or dissenter fVoui the established woi'.diipof this dominion "shall be allowed to give a vote for the el<3Ctioii of magistrates or an/ " officers," "No food or lodging shall be afforded to a Quabn-, Adamite, or other ^'Tieretic'^ 1 •' As an addition to tho late order in reference to the coming or bringing iu of the cursed set of the Quakers into this jurisdiction, h is nrdorud that whosoever shall from henceforth bring or canif to bo brought, directly or indirectly, any known Quaker or Quakers, or other blusphemous heretiqurs into thia jurisdiction, every such per- ■on shall lorteit the sum of one hundrctf pounds to the country and ■hall by warnuit from any m.iLjistratc, bj committed to p .ison thert to remain till the peii.ilty bo satisfiod and paid, and if an> person or persons within thisjurisilicticn sliull hci.ceforlh entertain and conceal any ^^uch (ijuaker or QiiaUerp,or other blaHphemous heretiques (know ingthein so to be),evi;ry such porsun shall lorfeit to the country yor/lu thillliKjs for eotri/ hour's entcrtLiitimont nnd conceanunt of an? Quaker or Quakers as n foresaid, ninl shall be comnii ted to prison af aforei-uid. until the forfeitures bo fully s.ttislied and paid ; and it i| further ordered, that if au; Quikei- or Quauers shall presume, after they have once stiffered what the law vtquiroth, to come into thif jurisdiction, every such male Qiiakcr s-h ill, for the first oflPenco have one o/his earn cut o//", and bo ko) t at work in the house of correction till he can be sent away att his o;;Tn charn^ford, who has by times beon local ** preacher, i cboul teacher and labuurur in London township, on the 24th "ultimo, brutally outraged the peiduri of a little girl, his own niece, in "such a manner that her life is dispaired of." Perhaps Mr. Bredin can explain the cause of this incestuous vil' Iain's ruffianism — I should be sorry, indeed, to insinuate that it was owing to his being a preacher. Mr. Bredin has fallen into tho same error that most superfl- oial men find impiossible to avoid. He thinks that by affecting to despise and depreciate others, he is impressing the publia with an idea that he is really an educated man. His pedantia mode of mentioning the names of a great variety of authon, referring to the number of the chapter and page, without pro- ducing their arguments, is intended to lead your readers to sup- pose thathe is a man of extensive reading. I think I am justifi- ed in making these remarks I'rom the fact that he has so frequently exposed himself in this respect. Mr. Bredin is at a loss to understand whether I mean "per- petuate," or "perpetrate,"' when I accuse him of trying to perpe- tuate a fraud when he says that the Pope cursed England — I prefer the word perpetuate, as I find by a file of the True Witnett newspaper, he made the assertion on a former occasion, and was formally contradicted by the Editor i f that able journal. I fear, Sir, I am again trespassing on your patience, by taking •p too much space ; but 1 cannot close without referring to a eerti- icate wbich your venerable correspondent has taken the liberty of publishing, and which in no way helps his ca^e ; on the contrary^ Mr. Bredin shows himself to be untrustworthy, by surreptitiously appropriating to his own use a document which could not be rightly in his possession, except as an examiner, and then only during tha sitting of the board on Wednesday and Thursday, the 26th and 27tJi J! I 49 ines beon heal lip, on the 24th 3 own niece, in days of last month. In the course of our correspondence through your columns, I have had reason to expose your venerable corres- pondent's unscrupulous mode of dealing with the questions at issue; but I was not inclined to suspect him of being " light-fingered j'* however there are circumstances connected with the certificate re- ferred to that reflect seriously upon Mr. Bredin's character christian minister and a gentleman. I am, Sir, &c., Thornhill, Sept. 7, 186v T. J. M. as a LETTER NO. XI, FROM GEO. S. J. HILL, M. A. THAT CERTIFICATE. The following letters have been scat to us by the Chairmati of the Board of Examiners, with a request that they might appear in this week's i^craZcZ, September 11, 1868: — Richmond Hill, Sept. 6th, 1868. To the Rev. G. S. J. Hill, M.A., Chairman of the Richmond HUl Board of Examiners. Sir : — As a member of the Board of Examiners here, of which you are chairman, I beg to call your attention to the publication of a certificate of character, signed by the Rev. T. J. Morris, in the York Herald of Friday, the 4th inst. As you are the proper custo- dian of all papers connected with the examination of Teachers, is the public to understand that you have permitted the Rev. Mr. Bredin to use such documents in a polemical discussion through the columns of a public journal ? I think it is due to yourself as a public officer, as well as to the Board, that an unreserved explana- tion should be given to the public, to prevent any mistake as to .the circumstance which led to the publication of that document. Your most obedient, V^iiVii A MEMBER. OF THE BOARD REPLY. To a member of the Richmond Hill Board of Examiners. Bear Sir : — In reply to your's of the 5th inst,, I have but to : {State that I most emphatically disclaim any complicity with tL' publication of the document you speak of, that I would not have permitted it, had I been aware that its publication was intended, and that I deeply regret the circumstance of anything con- nected with the Board of Education being mixed up with the polemical controversy now going on in the Herald. As Local Sup't. of Common Schools, and Chairman of the Rich- mond Hill Board of Examiners, I have always felc that it would be fatal to our noble system of Common School Education, to have it mixed up in any way with religious disputes ; and I do not think I should have enjoyed the confidence of the public for so many years had I been supposed capable of such a dereleotion of public duty. 1 I : 50 1 may uicutiou in cuuncction with thin, Umt when first appoint- ed to the office ot L. Sup't., 13 youva ugo, it was part of my duty to inspect the Roman Catholic Separate t*!ehool ut Thornliill, at my third visit I found the School closed ; on asking the Prieet the reason of this, his reply was, '• We do not wish lor a Separate 8choi»l, we have every conOdenccs that Catholics will bo treated fairly in the Common Schcols, lot our children nil grow up together as men)bers of one cduiaiui'ity so far as secular matters are concerned, it will help to banish strife and contention." This was a noble and patriotic sentiment, from the Thornhill Priest, not that I understand him to yield up the right it his Church saw fit to demand a Separate School — a right claimed and exercised by the Protestant minority of the Province of Quebec — but I hailed it as an evidence of generous and liberal spirit, one that all would do well to imitate. Prom that timo to the present the Separate School at Thornhill has been closed ! But I fear we shall cease to enjoy the confidence of our Ro- man Catholic fellow subjects if they find that at a Board of Examineis, consisting for the most part of Protestant divines, the certificate of mural character of the only Roman Catholic candidate present liti^ been clandestinely abstracted from the custody of the chairman ; a copy of it made use of in a controversy against that candidate's religion, and the Priest who kindly gave it to him held up on account of it — I cannot see why — to the scorn and derision of the boys of Richmond Hill and the public ia general. Your obedient Servant, GEO. S. J. HILL, M. A. Local Sup't. & Chairman of Bd. of Ex. Markham, Sep. 18th, 1868. 9 ■ II Hi* ' i fir;'! LETTER NO. XII, PROM THE REV. JOHN BREDIN. To the Editor of the York Herald. Sir : The Thome Hill Priest opened his attack on me by asserting that I made unfounded assertions ; that I was profoundly ignor- ant of history, and that we had shamefully mutilated the Bible. I have asked, in vain for any evidence corroborative of such reck- less assertion ; and until the primary charges are cleared up, thou"-h his friend leads him through the files of all the newspapers ever published, the priest will remain a slanderer. For liis own sake the man ought to prove his assertions; and for his people "s sake he ought to put himself right before the public. From his own Douay Bible, as well as his own prayer book I have proved the priest and his church guilty of gross idolatry, in making a graven thing, and then in worshiping it. To this there is not a word of reply. I i rat appoint' r my duty iliill, at my tlu! PrinEt wish J or u lies will be !ill j^row up lar mutterd right Thornhill ii his chiimod and 3i' Quebec — il spirit, one the present of our Ro- Board d' ant divines, lan Catholic i from the , controversy indly gave it to the scorn he public in of Bd. of Ex. BREDIN. 3 by asserting undly ignor- d the Bible. f such reck- d up, though vspapers ever own sake the 3le"8 sake he rayer book, I 3S idolatry, in To this there 51 NVlien th« priest i^roiiounced ray citation from Dr. Keeve's history "an unfoiiiuled ai^ser^ioIl," aiul when 1 reprodncod tho very words of that Romish liistoriun, proviivjf tho piie^it to be utterly reckless in his slate* tnents, ho '^ivos your roiidors neilhor ox [)hi nation nor apolo<];y. How true it is that Rainisli piioit.i will lie and deoeivo, when thy interests of their ch\irch aro to l>o soivcd I The priest defied nu- to piove that tiome ever taught, in any time or place, that lyin/ and dccclvin;? were practiced fbrtlie^'ood of his church j and when I gave hiiu four or ':v(' uuthoritios, with the i)romi8e of double that number, he sdontly ignores tho charge, or he tacitly admits its truth. When the priest declared that not one of the Articles of religion, in the Wesloyan Hoolt of Discipline refemd to the ten commandments, I quoted Articlo V, which s|)eciiiliy niuntiona the Boole of Exodus— and we all know that the 20th Chap, of th't book contains the ten com- mandmonts— he had not a word of coinnient to olio r for his additional misstatement. And when 1 proved by quoting his five cent catechism, pages 2.}, 19, that Rome has wholly onimitted liie second commandment (which jirohibils all Idolatry), and that she teaches her children a muti- lated decalogue, the priest is again reticent. His silence is tantamount to consent I When the priest charged me with perpetrating a fraud on your readers, by stating that Rome cursed England, I cited no fewer than 126 Anathemas from the genuine (?) translation of the Council ot Trent, by Waterworth, against all who do not believe m purgatory and penances, the mass, extreme unction and other liogmas that the Douay Bible condemns. The prie.sl has not ventured to dispute my statement, and once more silently admits the truth. The priest has not to be informed that Anathematizing — that is cursing — and frequently ■with bell, book and candle, has been Rome's most terrible and tortuous spiritual weapon. The following, which I piote from the genuine Waterworth, page 194, canon 3, is a specimen : "If any one said that "those degrees only of consanguii ity and affinity, which are set down in ''Leviticus, can hinder matrimony from being contracted, and dissolve " it when contracted ; and that the church cannot dispense in some of "those degrees, or establish that others may hinder and dissolve it ; let '*him he Anathema.'^ Here Rome curses all who deny her right to sup- {3ercede or to "dispense" with God's own authority, as revealed in the )ook of Jueviticus. On this very point tho Douay Bible says, in 2nd Thesalonians, 2nd chapter, 4th verse, " Who opposeth and is lifted vp ^^ above all that is called God, or that is icorshipped, so that hesitteth in ^^ the temple of God, shelving himself as if he tcere God,^' I ask the special attention of Roman Catholics to the above disoription oi *'theman of sin,'' as presented in their own Bible. But does Rome ever grant "dispensations" to marry within the prohiMted degrees? I reply that she has done so : and quote from a decree, found in the genuine Water- worth, page 201, which declares that " A dispensation shall never be "granted in the second degree, except between great princes, and for a " public cause." Ho it appears plam that Rome can set aside her own book of Leviticus, when it is for princes ! Will the post office explain why the holy and infalible church, contrary to the law of God, sanctions and authorizes such incestuous marriages " If the criminal law of England "extends to this country" (the assertion requires proof), it is a pity it could not be carried to Rome and enrorced among the nun- neries. While on this subject, I beg to refer to two " Decrees" of the Council of Trent, as given in the genuine translation of Waterworth, p.p. 270, and 272. The first is on " the manner oj proceeding against Clerics who keep concubines.'' The "Decree" terms the priests and 52 .; ■> I'!; 1 fli I r; Mirl e, or of the aws of the is bloody, indsj" and On this ter, that he )f England, le Reforn?a- on in the "the civil ivere cruel lid be good 2 could be ivhile their he Roman enough to ind Canons :cept under )uril,ies and matized. e evidence and religi- iitet I will has held :euiu3 and I 'despise' catechism >lt/ orders yer caji be ominatiou ow, in the to Rome, character 3ter froqi 63 thoM rites, it may develop itself in various forms. It makes one a fenian ; it may make anotl^r a drunkard ; and it may make a third pugilistic, even at a pic-nic. Such is Rome and such are her teachings 1 The priest asser+ud that Wickliffe died a Romanist ; and when 1 con- fronted him with four learned Romish aulhoiities, who declared ttiat the Reformer died a heretic, my young friend innocently asks, wherein he differs from them ! Poor fellow, his perceptive lacullies sadly need illu- mination ! He quotes a latin sentence to prove that Wickliffe taught thi t " God ou^ht to obey the devil," I need hardly inform your readers that the sentence is an invention of Rome, and is not found in the genuine •works of the man whose bones the holy church dug from the grave forty years after his death. Here is another proof that Rome will lie and de- ceive, when her corrupt system requiies such aids. But the priest ought to be more careful how he quotes latin ; he dave not risk his reputation as a scholar, in the presence of a competent committee, and translate a page of latin into grammatical English. Even in the phrase which he attributes to WicklitFe, he betrays his ignoiance of the orthography of the latin languiige, by incorrectly spelling one of the four words which he attempts to quote. "That Certivicate" which the priest wrote, with its faulty grammar, bad ^punctuation, and superfluity of prepositions, has fully convinced your readers of two things, namely: that he is a literary sciolist, and that the letters which he fathers are not his own productions. How h's friend, who writes for him, will get him out of the difficulty and the disgrace, remains to be seen. At last my young friend admits the character of some of his popes; cardinals ana bishops to have been "bad." But his Romish Dr. Reeve says they were guilty of simony, sacrilege, rapacity, and I may add other nameless crimes. These gross outrages against the laws of heaven, it is asserted do not. invalidate their public acts. Such are the monstrous doctrines which the priest and his church teach I Let us examine this matter. Simony '\s the crime of buying or selling ecclesiastical preter- ments. Sacrilege is the crime of stealing things that are devoted to holy purposes. Rapacity is the crime of pluader by extortion or force. Popes and priests, be it remembered, have been guilty of all these crimes ; and yet they constitute the only holy and infallible church in existence ! How a man or a church can be holy and unholy at the same time, is a question that I leave my young friend to explain. Again : these sins, which Rome ingeniously calls their private acts, are said not to affect their public acts. What does the Douay Bible teach on the point? In psalm 49, 16 verse, I read, "But to the sinner, God hath said, why dost thou " declare my justice, and take my convenant in thy mouth?" In St. Matthew 7 chap. 15 and 16 verses, I read. "Beware of false prophets, "who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are *' ravening wolves. By their fruits ye shall know them " If a priest comes in the garb of a sheep; that is, if his public acts appear harmless, while his private acts consists of "simonj'. sacrilege and rapacity," (as Dr. Reeve declares such to be the case) the Douay Bible warns you to " Bewauk of him." No further evidence than that :presented by Rome herself is required to prove her an apostate church. By their fruits ye shall know them I Were all the laws enacted under the reign of Elizabeth, and all the proceedings of the Puritan legislature, one hundred fold worse than Rome represents them, while they would prove the fallibility of mere civil governments, they could not possibly extenuate much less justify the enormities of a religious systens claiming to be the only holy and infal- lible church on earth. The priest reasons as if bad civil laws were an excuse for the "general corruption of morals" into which bis popes i i|i I \\;..i . 34 and priests had fallen. I dou't envy the man who is bound to advocate a moral distinction between private and public acts ; and if Rome did not insist on the doctrine, 1 would express the hope that my young friead the priest is not guilty of preaching one thing and practising another. To the charge of garbling the authors from whom I quote, I reply, by offering to submit for examination, every book mentioned by me. When the priest finds hi.iiself in antagonism with authors of his own church, and when he finds those authors exposing the unholy character of their own popes, it ia very easy for liim to raise the cry of misrepresentation. He may name the Rooks, fix the time and place where I will meet him, and the public will then learn how little credence is to be placed in the assertions by which he seeks to cover his deleat. The following is a specimen of l^ome's self contradiction, as also of her unsoripiural teachings : in the five cent catechism, p. 5.S, I read, " Q. "How do Catholic's distinguish between tlie honor they give to God,and " the honor they give to ihe saints, when they pray to God and to the *' saints?" "A. Of God alone they beg grace and mercy, and of the " saints they only ask ihe assistance of their prayers." In the "Key of .heaven," p. 348 is the following. '' God who by the merits and interces- '* sioii of blessed George thy martyr, rejoices the hearts of the faithful, mer- •' cifully grant that what we ask in his name, we may obtain through the "gift of thy grace." And in the " Garden of the Soul," P- 410, I read this prayer. '' We beseech thee Lord, by the merits of thy saints, " whose relics are here, and of all the saints, that thou would'st vouch- " safe to forgive me all my sms. Amen." Here the two prayer books contradict the catechism : they teach that the saints and their relics (they may be old bones) may secure salvation, while the catechism says that Romanists only ask the prayers of the saints. In the Douay Bible Acts 4, 12, I read, "Neither is there Salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." The name is neither St. GeorgC nor relics ; and the text plainly convicts Rome of teachuig anti sciiptural doctrines. I must reserve other selec- tions from these profane boolcs for a future letter ; and in the mean time I would respectfully press on the priest's attention the necessity of prov- ing or withdrawing, his orij>inal charges, as well as answering the scrip- tual objections which I present against the whole system of Romanism. JOHN BREDIN. Richmond Hill, Sept. 16, 18G8. LETTER NO. XHI, FROM THE REV. JOHN BREDIN. For the York Herald— To ihe liev. G. S. J. Pill, M.A. Dear Sir: — The urdesirable manner in which you have thought proper to reflect on the publication of a Teachers' certificate of moral character by me, in the York Herald, leaves mc no alternative oth*ir than the same channel by which to convey to you my reply and explana- tions. And I exceedingly regret the necessity which compels me even to appear in antagonism to you on any such matter. The times demand a closer union among all Protestants than that already existing. We cannot afford to give our common enemy the advantage of noting our minor ditferences ; and the thought has been painfully forced on me that, were you equally zealous for g^reat and vital principles as you appear to have been for a matter of comparative indiirerence,the late correspondence in onr village newspaper would htive afl'orded you an excellent opportunity. I believe you are a member, if not a chaplain of the Orange Society. When a Roman Priest publiciv terms that Society '• disloyai,," and the 'nave men who won onr liberties under William III " rebhi.s," ymi have not one word to say. 55 13 When the same Priest deuoauoea the Prelates of your time-houored Church, and declares that the Establishment ia ''a Parliameutary Church." ^ou remain silent ! The priest and his church believe and teach that you and the entire clerical order of tlie Church of En.^land are more laymen— unlawful intruders into the mmm-y—aHdyoucansubinit to it all. When you subscribed to the 39 articles at yojir ordination — I he 19th of which declares that "Rome has orred in matters of faith;" the 22nd of which declares that her doctrines of " pur *^ 66 Board ; that ia fact they are as much my property ai years. All sach documeuts are utterly valueless, as sooa as a record (not a copy) of the fact is entered in our book. In the Consolidated Acts of Common Schools, page 93, the following is "prescribed by the Council of Public "Instruction" : "Candidates are not eligible to be admitted to .ezamina- " tion until they shall haiw furnished the Examiners with satisfactory "evidence of their strictly temperate habits and good moral character." Whether your duties as chairman fully occcupied your time or not, I will not now enquire ; but it is a fact, that you performed very little, if any,, of the labour of examination at the late Board meeting. You will admit I am one of the examiners ; you will also admit that I had a right to inspect tfie certificates of character ; and I claim the right ot consigning such documeuts as I have examined, to the tomb of the Capulets. Because I picked up the priest's bungling certificate from the floor, and afterwards published it, to prove how highly educated he was, you decry ihe intro- duction ot it into the polemical controversy then going on in tho- Herald. The priest, who is not a member of the Board of Examiners, knows right well that his certificate could neither prove nor disprove any point in dispute between us ; but he was hard pressed for assistance and sympathy, and his friend here succeeded in committing the Rev. Rector of Markham to throw his influence, as Chairman of the Board of Examiners and Local Superintendent of Schools,, in favor of a system that his church denounces as " damnable Idolatry." If it was wrong in me as an examiner, to quote the priest's letter against himself; it was doubly wrong for the Chairman of all the examiuera to allow himself to be used for an opposite purpose. I am, Respectfully, &c., JNO. BREDIN. Richmond Hill, September 30,. 1868. LETTER NO. XIV, FROM GEO. S. J. HILL. To the Editor of the York Herald. Dear Sih : — I beg permission to correct, through your columns, an erroneous statement regarding the operations of the Board of Examiners- at Richmond Hill, made in last week's Herald. The proceedings of the Board are regulated by the By Laws of the County Board of Public Instruction for the County of York, of these. No. 11 reads thus, " Examination reports, papers, and certificates of character shall be forwarded to the Clerk of the Board, to be entered on the minutes.'' In accordance with these instructions, I have always been careful to send the papers mentioned to the Clerk of the Board in Toronto. At the examination last August, after the names were all taken down, I requested some of the members present to fold the certificates of character and label each one with the name of the candidate, and of the person granting the certificate ; they were then carefully tied up with ofB.ce tape preparatory to being sent to Toronto. It sometimes occurs that candidates depend upon some member of the Board present to give this certificate of character, and the member who consents to do so makes out ttie document before the Board seperates. In the case of the Richmond Hill Teacher mentioned, this condition may not have been lulfiUed, but the exception proves the rule, and it now becomes my duty to have this omission rectified. Your obedient soivant, ) GEO. S.J. HILL ' Markham, Octol)cr 5, 1868. ITS. All Mich a copy) of the } of GommoQ moil of Public 3d to .dxamina- th satisfactory al character." e or not, I will y little, if any,. I ou will admit right to inspect )nsigning such its. Because I ind afterwards jcry ihe intro- ng on in the- of Examiners, 5 nor disprove •d pressed for in committing as Chairman t of Schools, able Idolatry." s letter against the esamiuera >. BREDIN. LL. ir columns, aa d of Examiners- «? ly Laws of the k, of these, No. tes of character entered on the jQ always been ard in Toronto, ill taken down, tes of character '. of the person with office tape member of the 3 member who card seperates. 3 condition may lie, and it now sotvant, !0. S. J. HILL A