parties concerned in it, they did, with singular inconsistency, demand an extract, or copy of the declarations, and were instantly promised it. I had nothing to conceal; I had no trick prepared to ensnare them. I did not require that they should constitute themselves parties concerned in the examination, before they had a right to demand an extract of it; but I believe that, virtually, by their demand, and my compliance with it, they have made themselves parties; and their not complying with my request to cross-examine my witnesses, proves that they had no hope of setting aside the force of their evidence.

They waited upon me, they said, in terms of an appointment, for the avowed purpose of putting certain questions to me. Now, they might as well have said that they came to hear me say that a piece of bread is the Saviour of the world. Had they handed me this in writing, and all joined in asserting, that I had professed my belief in transubstantiation, at four o'clock that day, it would have been as true as the assertion which they persisted in making with regard to the avowed purpose of our meeting.

Papists deal much in double meanings, and mental reservations. They have a sort of double oath, half of which they express outwardly by the voice; the other half they express inwardly to themselves; and the latter is usually considered the best half, or that which is most binding. Now, I doubt not, my Papists have a private meaning of their own attached to the words, "avowed purpose," which will render the expression literally true; that is, it was avowed to one another, and perhaps also to their lawyer. But when they connect the expression with that of "in terms of an appointment," and give out that this appointment was made by me, or with me, the words express a downright falsehood. I use no ceremony with the agents and correspondents of Mr. Andrews, who has many times applied the last word of the last sentence to me. I know it is wrong to render railing for railing; but I know also, it is right to call things by their own

names.

I declared that I would have nothing to do with any paper that contained such an assertion; but I dictated the following to Mr. M'Hardy, which he took down. "Mr. McGavin stated, that if any person, Protestant or popish, doubt the truth of the story, or join with Mr. Andrews in calling it a forgery, I shall be ready, whenever required, to furnish them with sufficient evidence of the truth of my statement." (This was all I had promised to do.) "And I have now done so in the declarations of Margaret King, Mary Macmillan, and Elizabeth King, all therein designed, now exhibited, which declarations were begun in presence of Mr. Simeon, &c.; but these gentlemen declined cross-questioning them, and left the room before the first was finished; of which declarations a copy will be furnished by my man of business. I do not admit the relevancy of any questions asked of me, and will answer none, but simply that question, 'Where is your evidence of the truth of your statement in THE PROTESTANT, regarding the story of the man in the Wynd? To which the above, with the documents referred to, is my answer; and I do not consider that the present conference was understood to be for the purpose of putting any other question to me; and that it was not the purpose avowed in the requisition, but merely for taking the evidence

which I had to produce. (Signed) W. McG." In the copy furnished me by Mr. M'Hardy, the word for is introduced in the last sentence, which makes the sense different from my meaning. I have omitted that word, and said what I did say, that it (viz. the putting of questions to me) was not the purpose avowed in the requisition. He has it, not for the purpose, &c., which does not make sense; but whether the error be in my dictating, his writing, or his clerk copying, I can

not say.

On receiving my answer, as above, Mr. M'Hardy read the first of the following memorandums, with a short preamble as follows: "Upon Mr. McGavin's answer, and his refusal to answer any questions, Mr. M'Hardy for himself, and in behalf of those who accompanied him, represented, 1st, That in receiving from Mr. McGavin any written documents, which he might think proper to furnish, they did so without in any shape admitting the correctness of these proceedings, and particularly of the paper called Declarations: against which they have many good objections in respect of the admissibility and credibility of the persons by whom these declarations are said to have been emitted, as well as the form and shape in which they have been taken. 2d, Mr. McGavin is now waited upon in consequence of the call he gave to Protestants and Catholics, doubting his statements in the forty-second number of THE PROTESTANT. The hour of meeting is his own fixing; and the public will judge of Mr. McGavin's candour, in refusing to answer any questions, and of the respect and credit due to what he is pleased to call the evidence of the truth of his statement."

Certainly the public will judge of my candour in refusing to put myself forward as a sufficient, and as the only evidence in my own cause. I shall suppose that I had been so simple as to be caught in the snare; that I had dismissed my witnesses, and honestly answered all the questions put to me; and Mr. Simeon had sent off my answers to Mr. Andrews, as sufficient evidence to rebut his accusation of forgery, and to prove my own innocence, we should have had some whole pages of CAPITAL LETTERS, and notes of admiration, exclaiming against the effrontery of the "charlatan," one of the polite names which Mr. Andrews gives me, who could suppose that his word would be taken in proof of his innocence, after the VINDICATOR had CONVICTED, and PROVED HIM GUILTY of falsehood, forgery, and I do not know how many crimes.

The paper last quoted seems to be intended for a protest against their being considered parties in the examination of my witnesses; but they would have acted more consistently by not asking, or declining to receive, an extract. They say "they have many good objections against the admissibility and credibility of the persons by whom these declarations are said to have been emitted." So far as appeared, they did not know any of the persons, except the widow of their late zealous and worthy brother in the faith of Rome; and I learned by some hints, and half sentences, that their objection to her was, that she was not really M'Murray's wife. "What would you think," said Mr. Simeon, in the first conversation, "of a woman who should live so many years in adultery with a man who had a wife and a family in Ireland? What credit would you give to her testimony?" "I would," said I, “consider her innocent, if she was ignorant of the fact; but I would regard

the husband as a very wicked man indeed, and not worthy to be a member of any church."

I learned by this, that our Papists were going to rest the defence of their church, at least of their late brother, and perhaps of their priest, on the alleged illegality of the marriage of the parties, and of course, in their opinion, its invalidity: but it is by no means the business of THE PROTESTANT to enter into a controversy on this point, though every body knows that, in Scotland, such a marriage is as valid as if Mr. Scott had made a sacrament of it. It is enough that I have proved by two witnesses, besides the widow's own declaration, that she and the deceased were known and acknowledged for many years in Glasgow as man and wife; that, during the years of his absence, she lived as his wife, and that when he returned, she received him as her husband. She declares that she never knew of his having another wife. If he had one, which she does not believe, it proves nothing but his own wretched depravity; and my Papists must not only prove that he had a wife living when he married Margaret King, but that she knew the fact, before they can invalidate her testimony on the plea of adultery. And though they could prove this fact, which I am persuaded they cannot, I would as soon receive her testimony as that of a man who came to assert in my face what I knew to be a falsehood,— who could say, and persist in saying, that he came for a certain avowed purpose, when I knew that no such purpose had been avowed. If Papists attempt to invalidate the testimony of a witness on the vague suspicion of a crime, they may find the testimony of some others invalidated on the conviction of a crime; for I hold that a violation of the ninth commandment will go at least as far to set aside the credibility of a man's testimony, as a violation of the seventh commandment; nay, without regarding the latter crime as a light matter, I am persuaded there are many guilty of it, who would scorn to tell a deliberate lie, and whose testimony would go farther than that of another man who had once been convicted of an untruth.

But with regard to the case in hand, I have ample testimony on behalf of my witness, that she is a person of Christian character, whose word may be believed; and if any one attempt to injure her, either in her person or good name, she will receive the protection which the poorest individual enjoys by the laws of this country, which happily are not administered by Papists.

It will be a work truly worthy of Mr. Simeon and his friends, to persecute an industrious woman; to exaggerate, and even to invent stories to her prejudice. I doubt not, while I am writing this, they are engaged in what Papists will consider the honourable work; and Mr. Andrews will give the story all the effect which capitals and notes of admiration can give it. There are, however, some stubborn facts proved by my witnesses, which neither our Glasgow Papists, nor their organ, THE VINDICATOR, will be able to set aside by all their quibbling.

It was some days after my conference with Mr. Simeon and his friends, before I could imagine what could be their design in coming to pose me with a series of questions; but when I recollected that the Inquisition had lately been revived, it occurred to me that they wished to make an experiment to ascertain whether the establishment of the VOL. I.-48

holy office might not be attempted in Glasgow. In that tribunal, as every one knows, the accused person is usually made the principal witness against himself; and by flattery and cunning, they can bring the most innocent man in the world to say something which they can distort into the confession of a crime. This seemed to be the object of my inquisitors. They tried flattery first: they had the utmost confidence, they said, in Mr. McGavin as a gentleman, and would believe what he would say, though the very point in question was my own veracity. Afterwards, by cunning, they wished me to acknowledge, that I had concurred in the appointment of a meeting for the avowed purpose of being put to the inquisition, that is, to answer questions relating to charges against myself. Had I been seduced by their flattery, or ensnared by their cunning, to submit to their interrogatories, from want of experience in dealing with serpents, I might have been bitten; I might have said something which, however honestly meant, would have been turned to my disadvantage.

I never considered the story of the man in the Wynd as worth a farthing in support of my general argument. I gave it merely as a recent anecdote to illustrate the popish character. I believed it to be true from the credibility of the persons through whom it came to me, for I did not go to seek for it; and it is now proved to be true by credible witnesses. But from the clamour which Mr. Andrews and his friends have made about it, they seem to consider it the most important point in the whole controversy; and they have used every species of abuse in order to bring me to a discussion of it, with a view to divert me from exposing the idolatry and wickedness of their religion. They have at last succeeded so far as to get me to devote a number of pages to the subject; but they will find they have gained nothing by it, as I shall return, in the commencement of my second volume, to lay open more and more of Rome's abominations.

I request my readers to remember that the controversy is between popery and real Christianity; not between the personal characters of Mr. Andrews and myself. Mr. Andrews has laboured through many a tiresome page to bring it to a mere personal matter; and no doubt those who read only his papers will consider it such, because he has carefully avoided entering upon the more vital parts of the question. Now the personal character of parties is a matter of no consideration in a controversy about historical facts, and publicly avowed principles. If I professed to have come from Spain or Ireland, and to describe what I saw and heard of the wickedness of popery, then, no doubt, the credibility of my testimony, so far as not corroborated by other evidence, would rest upon my personal character. But this is not the nature of my work. I speak not what I have seen and heard, but of what I read; and I usually refer to the volume and page of my authorities, that every reader may judge for himself. Supposing I were as bad a man as Mr. Andrews represents me to be, it would not be the less true that he teaches his readers to worship the Virgin Mary, and St. Wenefride; and that he and his correspondents consider his "Catholic school-book" as so much better than the Bible, that it will impart more knowledge of religion by one reading, than the Bible will do in the course of a whole life. If I gave this upon my own sole authority, and declared that I heard Mr. Andrews say so, perhaps some people

would not believe me; but when I give the very words which he has printed, and the pages in which they stand, every man may prove the truth of the matter for himself. When he charges me with falsehood and forgery in numerous instances, he does it for the avowed purpose of telling his readers that what I write is not to be believed. Now though I were guilty of these things, it would not in the least affect the truth of what I have quoted from saints, and fathers, and Dr. Milner, and Mr. Andrews, and a host of popish writers equally respectable.

my

I could easily rebut all his charges of falsehood, as I have done that of forgery; but I must defer this till I have gone through the remaining parts of the system, which will take a long time. But I give the following in the mean time, as a specimen, to show how easily his charges are repelled. In his nineteenth number, column 300, he says, "I now charge him (THE PROTESTANT) with asserting in his last number, a PALPABLE FALSEHOOD, in accusing me of swearing in column 108, seventh number of THE VINDICATOR. I challenge him to produce one word, or all of them together in that column, of my writing, which either he or his admirers can twist or turn into an oath,. and I refer my own readers to that number, to satisfy them of the turpitude of this evangelical writer." In relation to this, the handbill on the corners of the streets contained these words, "THE PROTESTANT charged with FALSEHOOD in his thirty-eighth number." Now let the reader judge of the truth of this accusation, and of the VINDICATOR'S impudence in making it. I refer to the following sentence, which begins with an oath, and shows that the poor man must have been writing in a passion; "FAITH, I do not wonder this writer looks so far as to perceive something more than human agency on her side;" &c. All that I have to do with this, at present, is with the first word, and if there be any of readers who do not think that it stands as an oath, and a great one too, I refer them to the words of Jesus Christ, Matt. v. 33-37, and xxiii. 16-22. He that sweareth by the temple sweareth by it, and him that dwelleth therein," &c. The meaning of our Lord's words evidently is, that he that swears by any thing, swears by all that is implied in it. FAITH, therefore, is the greatest oath by which a man can swear, unless he be an atheist. It is to swear by all that he believes; and it is a greater oath in the mouth of Mr. Andrews than in that of a Protestant; for besides believing in one God, which he at least professes, he believes in the Virgin Mary, and St. Wenefride. The reader will see that I attach very little importance to the accusations of this writer, seeing I have delayed for weeks and months the easy task of repelling them. I know his object is merely to divert me, as seamen are said to throw out a tub to the whale. This artifice indicates a conviction in his own mind that his cause cannot be maintained by fair argument. I can repeat with confidence, what I wrote some months ago, that he has not invalidated a single fact in any of my statements; has not pointed out one real contradiction, or detected a single sentence which I would wish to alter if it were to be written again. He vaunts incessantly of the great things which he has done, and of the pain which he supposes he has made me feel. I need not tell him that his boasting is vain; but I can assure my readers that his "lashes," as he calls them, have had no more effect upon me than

64