not regaining it; and in this case, great discretion is to be used, in forming a judgment of the natural inconstancy of women."

"Let women that are young, and descended from rich and noble parents, be placed with those widows, that they may, by degrees, become subject to our directions, and accustomed to our mode of living.""That the widow may dispose of what she has in favour of the society, set as a pattern to her, the perfect state of holy men, who have renounced the world, and forsaken their parents and all that they had, with great resignation and cheerfulness of mind, devoted themselves to the service of God."-" Let several instances of widows be brought, who thus, in a short time, became saints, in hopes of being canonized, if they continue such to the end. And let them be apprized, that our society will not fail to use their interest with the court of Rome, for the obtaining of such a favour."-"If a widow does not in her lifetime, make over her whole estate to the society, whenever opportunity of fers, but especially when she is seized with sickness, or in danger of life, let some take care to represent to her the poverty of the greatest number of our colleges, whereof many, just erected, have hardly as yet any foundation; engage her by a winning behaviour, and inducing arguments, to such a liberality, as (you must persuade her) will lay a certain foundation for her eternal happiness."

Such are a few of the secret rules of that society, which the pope has lately restored,-which has obtained a rich establishment in the very heart of England; and which will, very probably, soon establish itself in our own city. Let every lover of his country, of his friends, and fellow-creatures, consider whether it were not better for us to be invaded by a host of locusts and caterpillars, than by such incendiaries, who will insinuate themselves into our houses, and worm themselves, by fair speeches, into the confidence of the simple and unwary, until they have got the entire direction of our domestic affairs, the command of our property, and perhaps the disposal of our lives.

Before entering upon a new subject of discussion, I beg leave to congratulate my readers on the appearance of a reply to THE ProTESTANT; and that by no less a personage than WILLIAM EUSEBIUS ANDREWS, editor of what he calls THE ORTHODOX JOURNAL,—the great champion of the popish cause for England, and now, also for Scotland. I dare say his friends think I ought to have noticed his publication sooner; but I did not choose to break the connexion of more important matter; and I was willing to let him have his own way for a time, without interruption. He has now published six numbers in Glasgow, under the title of THE CATHOLIC VINDICATOR, The work is both written and printed in London. I suppose nobody, able and willing, could be found nearer Glasgow; and the author calls for the assistance of the whole Catholic body, in his arduous undertaking.

I do not intend to enter upon a formal refutation of this writer, till I have done with AMICUS VERITATIS; but I shall simply state, for the information of my readers, that, in so far as it is my object to expose the errors of popery, I look upon Mr. ANDREWS rather as an auxiliary than an adversary. He tells us plainly, and I believe honestly, what his own faith is; and he assures us, that, in the church of Rome, the faith of one is the faith of all. For the advantage which

he has thus given me, I am content to bear all his abuse; all his real or affected misapprehension of the meaning of my words, which he exhibits in numerous instances; and all his insinuations, with regard to the badness of my principles and motives.

The poor man is seriously of opinion, that he must satisfy divine justice for himself. He expresses no small degree of wonder at the Protestant doctrine, that Christ alone has made satisfaction. He is absolutely overwhelmed by astonishment, at an assertion of THE PROTESTANT, that "there is no salvation for a sinner, but in the way of depending, solely and entirely, on the finished work of Christ;" and he prints some of these words in great capitals, to show the magnitude of the mistake into which he supposes I have fallen. He knows nothing of the place which good works hold in the method of salvation, but as meriting salvation. In short, according to his doctrine, sinners must both satisfy divine justice for themselves, and merit their own salvation. I must do my opponent the justice to say, that this is not a corruption of Christianity. It is a totally different religion. It is as much opposed to the doctrine of Christ, as I hope to show in due time, as the worship of Juggernaut is to that of the true God.

While the "CATHOLIC VINDICATOR" takes his stand upon the ground of satisfying divine justice, and meriting salvation for himself, he is not to be reasoned with as a Christian. If the faith of one be the faith of all, as he tells us, then, instead of being the most numerous and respectable body of Christians in the world, as Papists proudly assert, they are not Christians at all. To dispute about the mode and form of such a religion as theirs, is as idle as to wrangle about the colour and shape of the broadcloth that covers the shoulders of the great idol of Orissa.

As my papers are often written in great haste, amidst numerous avocations of a public and private nature, without the assistance of any other pen whatever, it would not be surprising if I had made some mistakes, with regard to the dates of facts, the names of authors, and other unimportant matters; but, hitherto, THE VINDICATOR has detected nothing of the kind. In short, he has not invalidated a single fact, in any of my statements; and has not pointed out a single sentence in "THE PROTESTANT," which I would wish to alter if it were to be written again.

CHAPTER XXX.

WITHHOLDING THE BIBLE FROM THE PEOPLE. NOTE FROM THE REV. ANDREW SCOTT, DENYING THAT THE CHURCH PROHIBITS THE READING OF THE SCRIPTURES. REPLY

FROM W. M., QUOTING THE AUTHORITY OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT. NOTICE BY AMICUS VERITATIS OF SOME REMARKS ON THIS CORRESPONDENCE. BY FAIR CONSTRUCTION THE COUNCIL DO PROHIBIT THE READING OF THE SCRIPTURES GENERALLY. TO TALK OF PERMITTING IT, IS ANTICHRISTIAN PRESUMPTION. NONE COULD READ THE BIBLE BUT THE LEARNED, SINCE THE CHURCH FOR CENTURIES AUTHORIZED NO VERSION BUT THE LATIN VULGATE.

SATURDAY, February 6th, 1819.

I COME now to the subject of withholding the Bible from the people, of which the church of Rome has been accused. This subject, like

that of not keeping faith with heretics, has become a little troublesome to modern Papists, especially to those who live among Protestants. About five years ago, the Rev. ANDREW SCOTT published the following declaration in the Glasgow newspapers. "If it really was a principle of the Roman Catholic church to deprive her members of the use of the divine word, by forbidding them to read and search the scriptures, she would indeed be cruel and unjust. But I can publicly declare, (without danger of being contradicted by my brethren, or censured by my superiors,) that it is not at present-that it never was—a principle of the Catholic church, that the scriptures should be withheld from the laity; and there never was any law enacted by the supreme legislative authority in the Catholic church, by which the reading of the scriptures was prohibited." Letter dated February 11th, 1814, in most of the Glasgow newspapers.

In the same month a letter appeared in the Glasgow Chronicle, under the signature of W. M., from which I extract the following. What is it that constitutes a principle of the Catholic church? Are the decrees of general councils, sanctioned by the pope of Rome, recognised as such? Then I request that the Reverend Mr. SCOTT would consider the following decision of the council of Trent: (Regula IV. list of prohibited books) "Seeing it is manifest, by experience, that if the Holy Bible be permitted to be read every where, without difference, in the vulgar tongue, more harm than good results thence, through the rashness of men; let it, therefore, be at the pleasure of the bishop or inquisitor, with the advice of the parish clerk or confessor, to grant the reading of the Bible, translated by Catholic authors, to those who, in their opinion, will thereby receive an increase of faith and piety. This license let them have in writing; and whoever shall presume, without permission, to read or possess such Bibles, may not receive the ablution of his sins till he has returned them to the ordinary."

"What is this but denying the use of the Bible to the common people? None were to read it, or have it, but those who had license from the bishop or inquisitor, and these officers were authorized to give license only to those who, they thought, would make a good use of it.

*W. M. gave only an extract in English. The following are the express words of the whole canon :-" Cum experimento manifestum sit, si Sacra Biblia vulgari lingua passim sine discrimine permittantur, plus, inde, ob hominum temeritate, detrimenti, quam utilitatis oriri, hac in parti indicio Episcopi aut Inquisitoris stetur: ut cum concilio Parochi, vel Confessorii, Biblorum à Catholicis Auctoribus versorum lectionem in vulgari lingua eis concedere possint, quos intellexerint ex hujusmodi lectione, non damnum sed fidei atque pietatis augmentum capere posse: quam facultatem in scriptis habeant. Qui autem absque tali facultati ea legere seu habere præsumpserit, nisi prius Bibliis Ordinario redditis, peccatorum absolutionem persipere non possit. Bibliopola verò, qui prædictam facultatem non habenti Biblia idiomate vulgari conscripta vendiderint, vel alio quovis modo concesserint, librorum pretium, in usos pios ab Episcopo convertendum, amittant, aliisq; pœnis pro delicti qualitati ejusdem Episcopi arbitrio subjaceant. Regulares verò non nisi facultate à Prælatis suis habita, ea legere, aut emere possint." De Libris prohibitis, Regula IV.

The following is the latter part of the canon, in English :-But all the booksellers, who may sell, or in any other manner supply, Bibles, written in the vulgar dialect, to any person not possessed of the aforesaid license, shall forfeit the price of the books, to be applied to sacred purposes by the bishop, and submit to other punishments at the will of the said bishop, according to the nature and degree of their fault: but let no one buy or read these Bibles, without the permission of their pastors.

That this was reckoned a very just limitation at the time, will appear from the speech of Richard Du Mans, in the same council. He said,

That the scriptures had become useless, since the schoolmen had established the truth of all doctrines; and though they were formerly read in the church, for the instruction of the people; and still read in the service, yet they ought not to be made a study, because the Lutherans only gained those who read them.'

"If the above does not establish it as a principle, that the scriptures were to be withheld from the people at large, I ask again, What is it that constitutes a principle of the Catholic church?

"Besides, was it not the uniform practice of that church, for at least a thousand years, to withhold the scriptures from the people? Was not their religious service conducted in an unknown tongue? Was it ever known that they gave the common people, in any country, a translation of the Bible in their own language, till a long period after the reformation? Nay, is it not well known, that all the influence of the Catholic clergy was exerted to prevent the people from reading the scriptures after Wickliffe and Luther had given them translations?"" Mr. SCOTT says in his letter, If it really was a principle of the Roman Catholic church to deprive her members of the use of the divine word, by forbidding them to read and search the scriptures, she would indeed be cruel and unjust.' Well, then, by his own verdict, his church is convicted of cruelty and injustice, for they so far withheld the scriptures from the people, that they did not give them when it was in their power; and when the people were receiving that invaluable treasure from another quarter, they did their utmost to prevent it; they not only refused to give the blessing themselves, but persecuted and murdered those who did." A sensible letter on the same subject appeared about the same time, in the Glasgow Courier.

Mr. SCOTT did not choose to reply to either of these letters; but whether his silence arose from a conviction that he was mistaken, or from some other cause, I cannot tell. I have no hesitation in saying that he ought to have replied, and answered the question, what he meant by a "principle of the Catholic church?" and how far he acknowledged the authority of the council of Trent? If it be replied on his behalf, that he was not at liberty to make any exception against the authority of that council, seeing he had bound himself by solemn oath to believe every doctrine, and obey every canon declared by it, then I reply, he ought to have taken care what doctrine he published, so as not to have contradicted the holy council, whose doctrines he had sworn to maintain.

In one of my letters in the Glasgow Chronicle, (See Part I. p. 22,) I alluded to the controversy between Mr. SCOTT, and W. M., and mentioned his silence when the authority of the council of Trent was quoted against him. In reply to this, AMICUS VERITATIS says, Part I. p. 33,)" In your correspondent's last letter, I noticed an allusion to a reverend gentleman, which was certainly characteristic of the author. Every minister of the gospel should be a minister of peace; and it was unfair to suppose, that because the reverend gentleman here allu: ded to did not reply, it was either from a conviction of the validity or correctness of what might have been advanced against him. I myself am confident, and I do not commit myself when I say so, that your VOL. I.-30

correspondent cannot produce any decree of the council of Trent absolutely forbidding the reading of the scriptures. The council of Trent, and the church, merely command her children not to read any edition of the scriptures but that which is approved by the church; and consequently, cannot be said to forbid the reading of the scriptures, any more than the Bible society, who will not permit the circulation of any edition of the scriptures but their approved version, although many other different editions exist."

There are many strange things in this paragraph which require a particular reply. The last is the first that I shall notice. The Bible society, it seems, according to the assertion of AMICUS VERITATIS, "will not permit the circulation of any edition of the scriptures but their approved version." The British and Foreign Bible Society has been accused of many things by Papists, and by Protestants popishly inclined; but I believe AMICUS VERITATIS is the first, and the only writer, who has accused it of not permitting the circulation of more than one version of the scriptures. The fact is, the Bible society never presumed either to permit or prevent the circulation of the word of God, in any version or edition whatever. The society was formed for the purpose of distributing the scriptures gratuitously, or at a small price, in order that the poor might have free access to the words of eternal life; and the society made it a rule, which they had a right to do, that the version which they would print and circulate in our own language, should be the authorized one. But this is very different from not permitting the circulation of any other version. If I choose to give to a few poor families in the city a comfortable dinner from the stall of my own flesher, does this imply that I will not permit any family in Glasgow to procure a dinner from any other quarter? This is the amount of my opponent's assertion. The Bible society profess to give away only one version in English: ergo, they will not permit the circulation of any other. A child would be ashamed of such logic.

But there is more in this than at first meets the eye. AMICUS VERITATIS wishes it to be understood, that, with regard to the circulation of the scriptures, his church acts upon the same principle with the Bible society. He knows that this society is popular. He knows that they confine their distribution of the English scriptures to the authorized version; and, taking it for granted that this is the same as not permitting the circulation of any other, he brings his church under the protection of this respectable society, and hopes that all the friends of the latter will respect the former, for she does not permit her children "to read any edition of the scriptures but what is approved by

the church."

I am persuaded none but a Papist could have used the language of AMICUS VERITATIS, at least no enlightened Protestant would speak of either permitting, or not permitting, the circulation of the scriptures, except it were in reference to the practice of the church of Rome. From my opponent's own words, I hope to prove that his church is guilty of antichristian presumption, and rebellion against God. He falsely asserts, that the Bible society will not permit the circulation of any but the authorized version of the scriptures; and he represents this as the same that is done by his church, that will not permit the