against the "Roman Catholics," as if that were now a thing quite inconsistent with liberality and Christian charity. I know that this proceeded from ignorance; and I was neither surprised nor offended by it. Most people had forgotten, and the younger part of our population did not know, what popery was. It appeared among us a very harmless thing. Great pains were taken to make us believe that it never was, at any time, or in any country, worse than we have seen it in Glasgow for twenty years past; and I believe the general impression upon the community, especially upon the young and the sentimental of both sexes, has been in favour of that system, ever since so many of their priests sought and found an asylum in this country from the miseries that threatened them, at the time of the French revolution. At that time the sympathies of the people in general were awakened on their behalf. The support of the popish exiles became identified with the preservation of social order; our ministers ceased to pray for the downfal of the man of sin; they ceased to instruct their people with regard to the nature of popery, or to warn them of their danger from it. I believe most of them did so, in the simplicity of their hearts, not contemplating the possibility of danger from a system which seemed to be overthrown while Bonaparte was sovereign of continental Europe. From these circumstances, great ignorance with regard to popery prevailed all over Britain; and the labours of the PROTESTANT were at first received very coolly, except by Christians of the old school, who could not forget what their fathers had suffered from the cruelty of the antichristian beast.

It does not become me to say that my writings have produced any important change in this respect, but it is certain that they are now received with more favour, and read with more avidity, than they were at first. Many have confessed to me that they did not know what popery was till they read my papers; and from the noise which has been made about them at different times in their own chapel, I am led to believe that Papists themselves feel the truth of what I have written.

I had said, in my first letter in the Glasgow Chronicle, if the subjects of the late Oratorio could be considered as matter of amusement, then the permission of the bishop. was nothing less than a popish indulgence to commit sin. AMICUS VERITATIS replies, (See Part I. p. 32.) "I am really astonished to see him trifling thus. Does he not know that the Catholic chapel was asked for a charitable purpose? Does he not know that charity is the essence of religion? Consequently the chapel was granted for a religious purpose, not for the purpose of amusement.'

AMI

My remark did not regard the charitable object of the Oratorio, but the feeling of those present with regard to the subjects of it. (For the subjects, see Part I. pp. 9, 10.) They embrace some of the most important doctrines of the word of God. I do not think it lawful, in any case whatever, to make these the subjects of amusement. CUS VERITATIS disclaims the idea of their being so. Then the Oratorio is admitted to have been an act of solemn worship. I know, however, that it was not at the time held out as such; if it had, there would not, perhaps, have been so many Protestants present, especially as the whole service was conducted in Latin, in which no person could VOL. I.-19

possibly worship, but those who understood the language. Of those Protestants who attended the popish chapel on that day, I am persuaped not one went for the purpose of divine worship; but the Papists understand them to have done so.

AMICUS VERITATIS asks, if I do not know that charity is the essence of religion? I do know it, if it be the charity of the Bible; that is, love of God and of our fellow-creatures. This is undoubtedly the essence of religion. The end of the commandment is charity, or love; but I do not know that giving and receiving money is the essence of religion, though I believe it the best part of popery. I think I am giving weekly evidence of my charity towards Papists, in my labours on their behalf. I do not know how I can show this better than by endeavouring to open their eyes to their own true interests, both for time and eternity. Their priests are deceiving them by means of lies and imposition; whether they profess to regenerate them by baptism, or establish them in Christianity by confirmation, or pardon their sins by the sacrament of penance, or clear their way to heaven by extreme unction, or deliver the souls of their friends from purgatory, on being paid for it,-all is downright imposition. And I have such charity for all the Papists in the world, that I wish every one of them was convinced of the truth; I wish that they would forsake their priests; or, what would be still better, they would all come to Christ, and bring their priests with them, not by force, but by means of persuasion-by convincing them of the truth.

Christ is exhibited in the Bible for the salvation of sinners; and he makes all sinners, without exception, welcome to come to him directly and immediately, promising, " him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out." What is the use of going to a priest for the pardon of sin? Priests are sinful fellow-creatures; they need pardon as much as those whom they profess to pardon. Christ alone had power on earth to forgive sin; and he is exalted to heaven for the very purpose a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance and the remission of sins. I request my readers, especially those of the Romish communion, not to take this on my word, but to read the Bible for themselves, and see if it be not so, that Christ bids them come to himself at once; and that a priest can no more save them, than they can save themselves. Charity requires me thus to tell them what I know to be true; and seeing so many of them do me the favour to read my writings, I hope none of them will be the worse, but that they will be the better, in consequence of what they read.

66

Charity is the essence of religion." Then why is it that my popish opponents have no charity for me? They profess to believe that I am in error; and, I suppose, they think my error is a deadly one. Why, then, do they not use means to convince and reclaim me? I have invited Mr. SCOTT to write against me, and to show where I am in error; I have even offered to print what he shall write without expense to him; but I cannot get a word from him. My other opponents are equally silent. It is evident, therefore, that they have no charity for the PROTESTANT-no wish to reclaim him from his errors. They brought a Dublin priest, indeed, to their pulpit to curse him, as Balak, king of Moab, brought Balaam to curse the children of Israel; and the modern false prophet was not like the ancient one,

for he did curse most bitterly, without one word of blessing, or even of compassion for the object of his malediction. This, it seems, is their charity. This is the essence of their religion. They know no way of convincing a heretic but that of burning him, if they have the power, or of cursing him, if they have not.

Charity, I have said, in the Bible sense of the word, is love-the love which springs from the belief of the gospel; and it leads him who possesses it, not to curse, but to bless his fellow-creatures. But it is evident, that AMICUS VERITATIS considers the word only as relating to the giving and receiving of money; and, lest my readers of the Romish communion should suppose that my charity for them is of the same nature, and that I am at all this pains to enlighten them by my writings, for the sake of the profits which I derive from them, I hereby assure them that I have not pocketed a single farthing by all that I have written; and that I am determined not to receive any emolument whatever from this work. The price was fixed so low as not to afford a prospect of any profit; but the circulation of my numbers has of late become so great, that my printers give me reason to hope there will be something over, after defraying all expenses. This, whatever it may be, shall be cheerfully applied to promote the education of poor persons belonging to the church of Rome, if it shall be accepted for that purpose. I invite, therefore, persons belonging to that communion to buy and read THE PROTESTANT; and in doing so, they will contribute to the welfare of themselves and their children.

AMICUS VERITATIS lays down a somewhat curious principle, in the passage which furnishes the text of the present number. "The Catholic chapel was asked for a charitable purpose; charity is the essence of religion;-consequently the chapel was granted for a religious purpose, not for the purpose of amusement." I believe there are few charities better entitled to the support of the benevolent than our royal infirmary. I believe also that stage-players, and mountebanks, and Indian jugglers, and incombustible ladies, have most, or all of them, performed for the benefit of this and other charities. Does it follow that their performances assumed a religious character when the profits were thus appropriated? Were the theatre, and the circus, and the trades' hall, not places of amusement, but of religious worship, on these occasions? Certainly, if the goodness or charitable nature of the object sanctified the means of promoting it; which seems to be the meaning of AMICUS VERITATIS, and which is, I believe, an acknowledged tenet of popery.

AMICUS VERITATIS repeats his assertion, "that it never was a doctrine of the Catholic church, that a pope or bishop could grant indulgence to commit sin." I have, I think, refuted this assertion already, and I may take up the subject again, when I come to vindicate my evidences against his exceptions to their validity. In the mean time, I see plainly that he conceals a quibble under the words doctrine and sin. When any thing of this kind bears particularly hard upon Papists, they deny it to be a doctrine of their church. To be a doctrine, it is not enough that it has been practised without opposition for hundreds of years by popes and bishops, and even sanctioned by general councils. Much less than this, indeed, will make any thing a doctrine, if it be not controverted-if it be not a thing which Papists

find it convenient to deny but if it be any thing that happens to be odious or unpopular at the time, or in the country where it is spoken of, though it has been sanctioned by ever so many councils, and practised by the pope for ever so long; Papists will deny it to be a doctrine of their church.

They sometimes maintain that a doctrine of the church is that which has had the unanimous consent of the whole church, in all ages; and, upon this principle, they can deny whatever they please; for I believe there is no doctrine or practice known to exist, which has not, at one time or other, been impugned by some of their doctors and saints. We have doctors against doctors, councils against councils, and popes against popes; so that, upon this principle, there is nothing that can be brought home to the church of Rome, but what the individual we are dealing with may be pleased to admit at the time, though may be denied by all his brethren, and even by himself the next day. Yet this is the infallible church, which was never wrong or mistaken in any point whatever!

it

But I did not say that it was a doctrine of the church of Rome, that the pope or a bishop would grant an indulgence or permission to commit sin. I spoke of their practice; their avowed and long continued practice, of which the history of Europe, for the last six hundred years, furnishes abundant evidence. I know that Papists also conceal a quibble under the word sin. I have shown, in a former number, from Bellarmine, that the pope claimed the power of making that which is sin to be no sin; so that that was not sin which he granted permission to do. In short, there is no reasoning with Papists with regard to any principle, or even fact, which it is possible they can evade by quibbling or lying. Their system is supported by all deceivableness of unrighteousness.

AMICUS VERITATIS affects great tenderness, and moderation, and fear of giving offence. "If," says he, (Part I. p. 32.) "in replying to your correspondent, I should unknowingly touch the feelings of any of my Protestant brethren, I hope they will not attribute it to the spirit of recrimination, but to my necessity of disclosing the truth. I hope they will also recollect who was the cause of this dispute: and that "The blood will follow where the knife is driven, The flesh will quiver where the pincers tear."

In order to get, as soon as possible, out of the way of the knife and the pincers, those instruments of torture with which my opponent seems so familiar, I shall answer the last part of the quotation first. And all that I have to say is, that I know nothing of such weapons, in conducting an argument. I never applied them to any creature, for the purpose of conviction, or for any other purpose; though it is probable he may have done so, and perhaps he is familiar with those effects which he describes in so feeling a manner. The pen is the only weapon in my armoury; and I assure him I would not break his skin with it, though I confess I wish to make him feel ashamed of his misrepresentations and other delinquencies.

I do not know who was the cause of this dispute, but I know it was the person who wrote the paragraph in the Glasgow Chronicle, which represented the Protestant worshippers at the oratorio, as paying the

like respect to the place, as to the solemn passages of the word of God, which were sung on that occasion. This certainly was not the PROTESTANT; and if this controversy has disturbed the peace of the popish part of the community he is not to blame for it.

AMICUS VERITATIS, it seems, did not write with a view to touch the feelings of his Protestant brethren, or from a spirit of recrimination, but from a "necessity of disclosing the truth." What truth has he disclosed? I have again looked over his letters, and I can see nothing of importance that bears the smallest resemblance to truth, except what he says about the cutty stool, to which I shall pay all due respect when I come to that subject. But truth is a good thing; and by professing to maintain it, though he should do so by falsehood, he tries to deceive those who confide in him.

From whom did AMICUS VERITATIS learn to use the expression, "my Protestant brethren?" Certainly not from Rome, or from the ancient practice of his holy and infallible church. Does he not know that the pope called all those who separated from the church of Rome, “venemous adders," who were without mercy to be trodden under foot? (See his bull for the destruction of the Waldenses, in my second number.) Did not the holy father declare all who presumed to preach Christ without his consent, or that of his bishops, to be under a perpetual anathema or curse? Did not the king of Arragon, at the instigation of the pope, declare all separatists to be "vipers and perfidious children?" Did he not declare that he would not suffer such wretches to live? and that against such enemies of God and man he would not contain his indignation, or refuse to punish them with the sword of just vengeance? (See Chap. XIII.) Did not the pope declare Wickliffe, and those who learned the doctrines of the gospel from him, to be men "run into a kind of detestable wickedness, not only for openly publishing, but also for vomiting out of the filthy dungeon of their breasts, diverse professions, false and erroneous conclusions, and most wicked and damnable heresies?" This is plain language, and I believe it is so far honest that the pope meant what he said; but AMICUS VERITATIS, a Papist, holding the pope as his holy father, whence comes he to speak of these "adders and vipers," and detestable heretics, as his Protestant brethren? It is not because he believes the pope to have been wrong; it is not because popery has become more moderate, for it is incapable of change; it is not because the Protestant religion is viewed by Papists more favourably than before;-but it is because Papists, in the situation of this writer, study to make themselves popular by using "good words and fair speeches." This, in my opinion, is more offensive than the hardest words of the pope.

The reader will see that I have got over a good deal of ground in the present number. I am afraid that I shall be accused, and perhaps convicted, of egotism; a thing which nobody likes worse than I do: but, in case I should add to the crime by apologies, I merely request the reader to remember that it is usual with periodical writers to speak of themselves, and that I have not offended in this respect so much as most of my predecessors.