of this subject to AMICUS VERITATIS; and, if he be indeed what his name imports, I hope he will soon see and acknowledge the absurdity of considering any thing holy which is made by human hands.

It is an assembly of Christians, not the place in which they meet, that is the house, or a house of God; and such a house I believe to be holy, because Christ is present with them, though they be but two or three in number, and because they are holy persons, saved by his grace, and sanctified by his Spirit. This house is not the work of man; it is a "building of God."

A word or two on the subject of indulgences. My remarks, it seems, led AMICUS VERITATIS to look into the Douay Catechism, to see what an indulgence is. I wish he had indulged me with a quotation, to assist my understanding with regard to the modern meaning of the word; for I am not so rich as to possess a Douay Catechism. But I do not need any modern writing to inform me that the pope claimed and exercised the power of dispensing with the law of God, and granting permission to commit sin. For instance, he professed to relieve individuals and whole nations from the obligation of an oath. He claimed farther the power of granting to individuals and families a full remission of all their sins, past and future, which probably would operate as an encouragement to commit sin, seeing the persons knew beforehand that they had got a full pardon. I am assured by a reverend gentleman of this city, that he has seen a bull of the pope, granted as a special mark of his favour to the head of the ancient family of Kilravack. It is signed by the then pope's own hand, and grants the most pleasing remission of all their sins, to all the branches of that family, from the time of granting the bull to a period of which there are about sixty years yet to run.

I am not at present disposed to turn over books of history, else, I doubt not, I could easily show that it was no unwillingness on the part of the pope to grant indulgence to commit sin, which prevented him from indulging Henry the Eighth in his wicked project. It is not fair to call that man a Protestant, who did little more than transfer the headship of the church from the pope to himself.

It is gratifying to be informed that the Catholic schools are flourishing; but it ought not to be forgotten that they originated with, and are chiefly supported by, Protestants. While the Catholics were lavishing thousands of pounds on the decorations of what they foolishly called the house of God, (while a plain building might have served their purpose,) they were suffering their poor to grow up, and to perish in ignorance; and it might have been so still, but for Protestant benevolence.

It is amusing to hear a Catholic charging his Protestant neighbour with bigotry, and thanking Heaven that "the darkness which for a time overspread our horizon is dissipating into the more chastened ray of liberality and philanthropy." I suppose the time here referred to is that which has elapsed since the reformation, and of course the light which is now about to arise is that of the dark ages!

I am, &c.

A PROTESTANT.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE GLASGOW CHRONICLE.

SIR-It was not my intention to have noticed your correspondent's letter, signed "A PROTESTANT," containing remarks on a paragraph which appeared immediately after the oratorio; and I am sorry that AMICUS VERITATIS has done so, because it has brought forth from him a second letter, in your paper of Saturday last, which I am compelled to answer. I will quarrel with no man for his religious opinions, whatever they may be; and I respect his feelings too much to turn them into ridicule. My purpose is not to enter into a controversy with your correspondent, on the subject between him and AMICUS VERITATIS, but to repel principles falsely attributed to others, and endeavour to make him feel, if possible, the injustice of his uncharitable remark at the conclusion of his letter. Your correspondent seems to assume the privilege of determining what another body of Christians understand by the word indulgence, and that the Catholic must abide by his definition, and brings forth the report of a reverend gentleman, who assures him he has seen a ball of the pope, granting the pleasing remission of all the sins of the ancient house of Kilravack, for sixty years yet unexpired. Really, Mr. Editor, it is a very unpleasant task to convict any man of committing a mistake, and still more galling to see a whole body of people charged unjustly with professing principles as repugnant to their feelings as to common sense. Your correspondent may have been informed of this; the reverend gentleman may have seen some old Latin scrip, or even a bull; yet I will defy him or any one to produce it, or prove its existence, with the contents ascribed to it, or that by an indulgence is meant the remission of sins. It is at best a gross misinterpretation. Bulls and indulgences are so mingled by your correspondent, that he pretends not to know the meaning of either; nor will he be troubled to turn over the leaves of history to ascertain it, but receives the interpretations of these words from the enemies of the Catholic religion, and thus grounds his charge.

A spirit of irony so prevails throughout your correspondent's letters, that I conceive him to be solely actuated by prejudice, or else why those epithets of papists, popish, wafer, &c., which originated in derision, and were fostered by bigotry? A quarto edition of a dictionary lying before me says, "Papist, an odious term made use of by Protestants when they speak of Catholics." The Catholics do not admit of these appellations; our houses of parliament do not make use of them; why, then, if he wishes not "to make one honest man his foe," does he use derision to insult them?

Your correspondent's observations on the Catholic schools ought never to have been penned,-when penned, never to have been printed. They breathe a spirit in direct opposition to the principles of its supporters, who act from motives of pure charity and philanthropy, and, by their generosity and candour, win the grateful hearts of their fellow-creatures. He, by reproaches, tries to unsheath the sword; but it has long since rusted in its scabbard, and will not yield to the ungenerous tug. A little while, and it shall be found rooted to the hilt.

Your correspondent may trouble the public with a reply, as I have done; but were he to write till the indulgence granted to the house of Kilravack is expired, on religious opinions, to provoke a controversy, I would be silent; but you shall ever find me ready to crush prejudice by stating the truth PAX.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE GLASGOW CHRONICLE.

SIR-I have perceived, in your paper of Saturday, a second attack upon the writer of the paragraph relative to the oratorio, together with some animadversions on my letter of Thursday.

Your correspondent very ingeniously attempts to refute what I said regarding that respect which ought to be paid to places appropriated for the celebration of the praise of our Creator; and so far does he proceed upon the principle he has laid down, as to assert that all "enlightened and consistent Protestants" regard a church with as little respect as they would pay to a place of common amusement. I must necessarily suppose, when your correspondent made this assertion, he was not aware that many "enlightened and consistent Protestants" do not agree with him; among the rest, the celebrated Mr. HERVEY, whose authority gives a zest to all I have advanced on this subject. This "enlightened" Protestant divine writes thus in the commencement of his "Meditations among the Tombs :" he is walking to a church in the county of Cornwall, when he describes "the doors, like the heaven to which they lead, were wide open, and readily admitted an unworthy stranger. Pleased with the opportunity, I resolved to spend a few minutes under the sacred roof." He is even more explicit; he calls places of worship "our Creator's courts," and "the place where his honour dwelleth."

Here, then, is an authority, which your correspondent will not surely call in question, breathing the very same sentiments which were the spirit of what I formerly advanced on the subject. I presume when Mr. HERVEY termed places of worship "sacred," it was far from his intention to suppose the materials of which they were composed were holy, but only in relation to that Almighty Being to whose service they were dedicated. Indeed, there is an innate principle in man, which, when his soul is elevated by piety and devotion, instinctively prompts him to regard with veneration "the place where his honour dwelleth."

Were we to erect a house for the glory of our Creator, why should it not, as much as possible, resemble the majesty of that God to whose service it is to be dedicated? The treasures of nature and of art are ransacked to adorn the palaces of earthly kings; and shall we not employ them to build a house to the King of kings and Lord of lords?" "It must grieve," says Mr. HERVEY, "an ingenuous mind, and be a reproach to any people, to have their own houses wainscotted with cedar, and painted with vermilion, while the temple of the Lord of hosts is destitute of every decent ornament." I think your correspondent might have been more sparing in his reproaches against the Catholics of Glasgow, for the manifestation of their piety and public spirit, and for raising a building which, for ages to come, will adorn and ornament our city.

With respect to indulgences, I beg leave to inform your correspondent, that it never was the doctrine of the Catholic church, that a pope or bishop could grant an indulgence to commit sin; and, whatever he may say with regard to the ancient or modern meaning of the word, I say, without danger of contradiction, she ever has maintained the utmost abhorrence against all such abominable transactions. As he mentions a pope having granted an indulgence (which in all likelihood is a forgery) to "the ancient family of Kilravack," I hope he will have the goodness to accept, in return, one or two Protestant indulgences. The first was published by the pious Luther, and contains a perpetual indulgence for the commission of adultery in certain circumstances. That it may be concealed from the eye of the profane, I will decline giving the quotation, but refer your correspondent to 119 and 123 pages, fifth volume, of the Works of Luther, edited at Wirtemberg. The second was an indulgence granted by Luther and seven other divines to Philip, landgrave of Hesse, to have two wives at the same time. For the edification of the public, I shall extract a few passages translated into English. The bull itself may be seen in the original Latin, in Bossuet's Variations, L. vi. In his declaration to Luther and Melancthon, the landgrave had informed them that he had never loved his wife; that he had not been faithful to her more than three weeks; and that he could not abandon the dissolute state of life in which he lived. For these reasons, he begs a dispensation to have two wives. In their answer, after some preliminary observations, they proceed thus: "But if your highness do not abstain from an impure life, because you say it is impossible for you to do so, we should wish that your highness were in a better state before God. But if your highness be fully resolved to take another wife, we judge that it ought to be done secretly, as we have said above with respect to the dispensation; that is to say, that none but the lady herself, and a few trusty persons, obliged to secrecy under the seal of confession, know any thing of the matter. Hence it will not be attended with any important contradiction or scandal. For it is not unusual for princes to keep mistresses; and though the vulgar should be scandalized, the more prudent would understand this moderate method of life, and prefer it to adultery, or other brutal and foul actions. There is no need of being much concerned for what men will say, provided all go right with conscience. . . . . . Your highness hath, therefore, not only the approbation of us all, in a case of necessity, but also the considerations which we have made thereWe are most ready to serve your highness. Dated at Wirtemberg, the Wednesday after the feast of St. Nicholas, 1538.Signed, Martin Luther, Philip Melancthon, Martin Bacer, Anthony Corvan, Adam John Liningue, Justus Wintforte, Dionysius Melanther."

upon.

I have often considered it as an extraordinary phenomenon in the history of the human mind, that, in Great Britain, Catholics are not allowed the faculty of understanding their own belief. Of the myriads of declaimers against popery, with which this kingdom abounds, from the unlettered female, who reads theological lectures to her pupils in the nursery, to the right reverend divine who instructs his brethren, the clergy of the diocess, there is not one who does not VOL. I-3

appear to claim a more accurate knowledge of the Catholic doctrine than the very Catholics themselves. Their decisions are more infallible than those of the Roman pontiff. It is in vain that Catholics disclaim the odious tenets which are imputed to them-in vain that they appeal to their professions of faith, and the canons of their councils: their complaints are disregarded, and their protestations treated with contempt. The obstinacy of their adversaries will neither yield to argument nor authority. Objections which have been a thousand times refuted are confidently brought forward as demonstrations of their folly and impiety, and the misrepresentations of prejudice are eagerly received with the veneration due to simple, unvarnished truth.

Your correspondent may reply; but as I do not perceive any good which can be produced to the institution by maintaining a controversy, I hope I shall be excused if I decline troubling you with any more of my remarks. I am, sir, yours, &c.,

AMICUS VERITATIS.

CHAPTER III.

PROTESTANT'S REPLY:-THE WORD CATHOLIC NOT THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. THEIR TRUE DISTINCTIVE NAME. MISTAKE CORRECTED. FURTHER REMARKS ON INDULGENCES. THAT PREACHED BY TETZEL. BULL OF INDULGENCE GRANTED BY THE PRESENT POPE TO THE PEOPLE OF CORK. BULL FOR EXCITING REBELLION IN IRELAND. DOCTRINE OF INDULGENCES AS TAUGHT BY MODERN FRENCH CATECHISM. REFLECTIONS ON THE SUBJECT.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE GLASGOW CHRONICLE.

SIR-I observe two letters in your paper of yesterday, in reply to mine of Saturday last, the one signed "PAX,"—the other by my former opponent, "AMICUS VERITATIS." It is a sad thing for me, sir, to have both Peace and Truth against me; but as I am not conscious of having provoked either of them, and as I am sure neither of them can hurt me, I can cheerfully meet them with open face. Both of them write in a temperate style: the former, indeed, seems a little angry, but the latter appears to be in very good humour; and, so far as I can judge of my own temper, I think there is nothing inconsistent with a state of good humour in any thing that I have yet written on this subject. It is my wish to preserve the same state of mind in replying to the formidable host which is now mustered against me.

PAX says he was compelled to answer my last letter; and I shall not be sorry if he feels himself also compelled to answer this one, if it should be at the period when the bull in behalf of the Kilravack family has expired-until which period, he declares he will not answer me; for by that time he will be a pretty old man, although he should be only a stripling now. And surely he cannot say I wish him ill, because I wish he may live to a great age.

He accuses me of writing in "a spirit of irony," and this is a part of his letter which I do not controvert. There are some things so