years, that they had no leisure to dream of supremacy: after which time, (as rest breeds rust,) by little and little they grew ambitious, and now and then one bishop or other would affect priority: so that, about the end of the next three hundred years, they began to desire primacy but not supremacy; as POLYCARPE, bishop of Jerusalem, challenged the first place, 426 years after Christ. GELACIUS, bishop of Rome, after him, about 445. JUSTIN, emperor of Rome, made MISDA bishop of Rome, patriarch, about 520. About the same time, JOHN, bishop of Constantinople, was called universal bishop."-" PELAGIUS, bishop of Rome, was the first that challenged the primacy by scripture. JoHN, bishop of Constantinople, called himself universal bishop, 582. GREGORY the great, bishop of Rome, first of that name, reproved JoHN of Constantinople, for calling himself universal bishop, 591." His words are,-"I do confidently affirm, that whosoever doth call himself universal bishop, or desire to be so called, is the forerunner of Antichrist in his pride."—" Before him, JOHN the third, bishop of Rome, declared that none should be called summus sacerdos, or universal bishop, about 562.

"All this while not one thought of a pope, or of Peter's successor in Rome.

44

Now PHOCAS, servant to Mauritius, the emperor, killed his master, the empress, and children most cruelly: at this time BONIFACE the third, bishop of Rome, obtained of this butcher the title to be called universal bishop, anno 607. Therefore, the primacy of the bishop of Rome was first established by a murderer and a traitor, who died afterwards most miserably; for, in 612 of Christ, he was slain by the soldiers of his guard.”

Thus we see that six centuries of the Christian era elapsed before the bishop of Rome rose so high as to be called universal bishop. Where was the chair and the supremacy of Peter all this while? and who was the man that so much as imagined that the bishop of Rome was the successor of Peter, and, as such, the head of the Catholic church? It was not till after the light of knowledge had been almost extinguished in Europe,-when artful priests could teach the people any thing they pleased without fear of being contradicted,-when they began to collect and teach, as infallible truths, the traditions, and opinions, and even the conjectures, of their predecessors, whom they honoured with the titles of saints and fathers: It was not, in short, till they found the people in a state of the most sottish ignorance, and prepared to believe any thing, that they began to put forward the claim of the bishop of Rome to be the successor of Peter, the vicar of Christ, and the head of the church.

The Papists lay great stress on the evidence of antiquity; but the evidence of real antiquity proves the pope to be no more the successor of Peter, than of Judas Iscariot; and if the proof arising from similarity of character be of any weight, the popes will be found to have been worthy successors of the last named apostle. But, as I have said already, the whole system of popery rests upon the assumed fact of the pope being the successor of Peter in the see of Rome. As this, then, is not a fact,- -as Peter never was bishop of Rome, and as he never had a successor in office,-the monstrous fabric of popish superstition and domination is left without so much as a stone to stand upon.

I have said much more on this subject than was necessary in merely replying to the letter of PAX; but, as I had my hand in the work, I thought a few hours could not be employed to better purpose than in giving a short sketch of the arrogant claims of the Romish church, and of the arguments by which they are supported. This is a subject deeply interesting at the present time; and, I am sorry to say, it has been much neglected, even by the reading part of the community. Papists have been long working their way under ground, in order to regain the footing which they once possessed in this country. From the extreme liberality of the age, it has been reckoned a cruel thing to say a word against them; we were all willing to view popery as now quite harmless, whatever it might have been in former ages. Papists have therefore become more bold. From the indulgence and countenance which they have received from Protestants, they can now speak, and write, and publish, the grossest calumnies against the persons and religion of Protestants, expecting that they, poor simpletons! either cannot or will not be at the pains to answer them. I have partly shown already, and I hope yet farther to show, that the popish system is as bad as ever it was, that it retains all its malignity and opposition to the gospel of Christ, and to the best interests of men; and that, therefore, while I maintain that it would be unlawful to injure Papists in their persons or property, I hold it to be the duty of every Christian to maintain an unceasing opposition to their whole system of false religion, the opposition of calm and sober argument, drawn from the word of God, which ultimately will prevail.

It does not at present occur to me that I have any more to say in reply to PAX. I think I have answered every thing in his letters that required an answer, that is, almost every sentence of them. I have, however, a great deal of work before me in performing the like duty towards AMICUS VERITATIS, whose letters, in the Glasgow Chronicle, are almost as full of errors and misrepresentations as of sentences. I expect these letters, along with my own, will be republished in a few. days, after which the reader will have it in his power to form a better judgment of my reply. In the mean time, I shall indulge myself and the reader with a little miscellaneous matter.

The first week after the publication of my second number, which contained my exposure of the popish imposition in the matter of Luther, the Rev. Mr. Scort addressed a letter to the editor of the Glasgow Chronicle, requiring my name and address, which having been communicated, he sent me a copy of the said letter, with one addressed to myself. I expect he will thank me for giving these letters publicity, as they seem evidently intended for the public eye; and I should have done them this honour sooner, had I not been unwilling to break the connexion of more important matter.

Copy letter from Mr. ANDW. SCOTT to Mr. D. PRENTICE, of the Glasgow Chronicle Office.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE GLASGOW CHRONICLE.

"SIR-From your paper of Thursday, the 2d of July current, I quote the following paragraph from a letter addressed to you, as editor, under the signature of A PROTESTANT

"But this is not all. I ask A. V. if that house' (meaning the new

Catholic chapel) was not built in a great measure at the expense of a poor, and in some instances, a starving people? I ask him, if money was not extorted by the fear of future punishment, for the purpose of building that house, from persons who had scarcely bread for their families, or clothes to cover them? And is this what he calls the piety and public spirit of the Catholics of Glasgow? The Almighty hates robbery for burnt-offering; and will he accept, as honouring to him, that which has been wrung from the sweat, and sinews, and blood, of his own miserable creatures? Let the means by which this house was reared be inscribed upon its front, and it will remain, for ages to come, a monument of popish hard-heartedness and cruelty.""

"It is well known to the public, and to the people of Glasgow in particular, that it was I who took the active management and superintendence in forwarding the new Catholic chapel, and obtaining subscriptions and money for it.. From this circumstance it has occurred to many, that the paragraph above quoted pointed at and referred to me; but I have no means, in the first instance, of ascertaining the truth of this, or the intentions of the writer, except by an application to you. I have therefore to request that you favour me with the real name and address of the author of the letter, or that he, through you, explicitly state whether he meant or referred to me, as the person who had extorted money by the fear of future punishment, for the purpose of building the Catholic chapel, from persons who had scarcely bread for their families, or clothes to cover them.

"It was some time after the letter referred to appeared in your paper before I saw it, and still longer before I heard it applied to me, or I would have made this communication sooner.

I am, sir, your most obedient servant,

(Signed)

6, Dunlop street, Glasgow, July 31st, 1818."

ANDREW SCOTT.

Mr. SCOTT gives a copy of Mr. PRENTICE's letter, containing my name and address, after which he writes to me as follows:

"SIR-I beg leave to refer you to the prefixed correspondence between Mr. PRENTICE and me. As that gentleman has condescendon you as the writer of the letter alluded to, I now request to be favoured with your answer to my inquiry.

ed

I am, sir, your most obedient servant,

6, Dunlop street, Glasgow, 31st July, 1818."

ANDREW SCOTT.

From the above it may be inferred that Mr. ScorT was taking very little interest in the controversy which had been carried on in the Glasgow Chronicle for several weeks. "It was some time after" my etter appeared before he saw it; and I believe this to be literally true. I learn, farther, that what I had written on the subject of extorting money from the poor for building his chapel, did not appear to himself to be applicable to him,-that he was quite unconscious of having done any such thing, and it did not occur to him that he was pointed at or referred to. It had occurred, indeed, he says, to many that he was the person pointed at; but it was "still longer" than the time of his seeing my letter, before he heard it applied to him. Now, if my observations were so remote from any thing in which he was concerned, VOL. I-13

that they were not applied by himself, one should think it was scarcely worth his while to trouble himself with the application which other people made of them, except to tell them that they were mistaken, that the words did not and could not apply to him; and he might have appealed to his whole flock, and called them to bear witness that he had never done what was insinuated,-that he had never extorted money from poor persons, by the fear of future punishment, for the purpose of building the chapel. It was my wish, however, to do him justice, and to allow him an opportunity of publicly vindicating himself. It was even my desire that he would answer the paragraph which he had quoted; I should have printed it free of expense to him: and if he had shown that he was injured by any thing that I had written, I should have made a public acknowledgment. Accordingly, I wrote him as follows:

"REV. SIR-I have received your letter of yesterday's date, with a copy of your correspondence with the editor of the Glasgow Chronicle; in reply to which, I have only to say, that if you, or any of your flock, feel injured or misrepresented by any thing published in that paper by A PROTESTANT,' the press is as open to you and them as it is to me. If you write a reply to the paragraph which you have quoted, I shall, if you please, give it a place in an early number of THE PROTESTANT.—I am, your most obedient servant,

37, Virginia street, August 1st, 1818.

Rev. ANDREW SCOTT."

This, it seems, was not satisfactory, for he wrote me again as follows:

SIR-Your letter of the 1st instant is no answer to mine of the 31st July, containing a copy of the correspondence which accompanied it. I asked no answer or explanations for my flock it was for myself, as an individual; and the only question was, whether you meant and alluded to me in the paragraph of the letter referred to? In that paragraph, I did and do still consider myself particularly pointed at. I was no party to, nor any way concerned with the publication of any of the letters that appeared in the Chronicle. I never saw them till I read them in that paper; and I consider it due to myself, and to the situation which I fill, to require an explanation from the author of the paragraph I quoted. I therefore still expect that your honour and character as a gentleman will convince you of the propriety of giving a direct answer to my query, namely, whether or not you alluded to me in the paragraph referred to?

"As I will be some days at this place, where I was obliged to come this morning, please send your answer to the shop of Mr. Charles J. A. De Monti, Argyle street, and they will have the goodness to for ward it, as I do not leave this till Saturday.

I am, your most obedient servant,

Gourock, August 3d, 1818."

ANDREW SCOTT.

To the above I replied, in few words, that I had no private answer to Mr. SCOTT, further than I had already given. It will be seen that the style of his second letter is somewhat different from the first. Formerly, it was not himself, but other people, who applied my para

graph to him; now he says, "I did and do still consider myself particularly pointed at." Then there is no occasion for his asking me the question. He finds the remarks applicable, and he applies them to himself. He certainly knows better than I do what hand he had in levying contributions from the poor, and by what means he did it; and now, since I am before the public, I will give him the answer which I did not choose to give privately:—I did not point at him as the person who was exclusively employed in the work of extorting money from the poor. I did not know how many agents were engaged weekly in that pious undertaking. I do not know whether Mr. SCOTT be the only priest that officiated while the chapel was building, or whether he be the only one that officiates in it at present. The house that is building immediately west of the chapel, and which is, it is said, intended for the Manse, will be large enough to accommodate a dozen of priests, while they remain unmarried, as they must always do; from which I infer that he either has, or intends to have, abundant assistance in milking and managing his flock.

It is doubtful how far he exhibits the character of a faithful pastor, while he seems to care only for himself; he asked no answer or explanations for his flock; it was for himself, as an individual. One, at least, of his flock had been severely attacked and exposed, as guilty of a piece of shameful imposition, equal to a forgery, in the name of Luther. Fearing, perhaps, that this would also be applied to him, he takes care to let me know that he had no hand in the controversy: this is very well; and I hope he will thank me for making it public; but he ought to have some mercy on the guilty one of his flock. If he ask no explanation for him, he ought to demand explanation from him; he ought to put him on a course of severe penance for the good of his soul; for certainly he was guilty of a greater crime than that of eating flesh on Friday. If no such penance is enjoined, the priest ought to be held as consenting to his crime, or thinking very lightly of it.

I shall resume this subject in my next number, and give some examples to confirm what I wrote about money being extorted from poor persons for the purpose of building the popish chapel.

CHAPTER IX.

NUMEROUS INSTANCES OF EXTORTION, IN ORDER TO RAISE FUNDS FROM THE POOR,

TO BUILD THE POPISH CHAPEL IN GLASGOW.

SATURDAY, September 12th, 1818. If it be not true, that "money was extorted, for building the popish chapel, by the fear of future punishment, from persons who had scarcely bread for their families, or clothes to cover them," why is it that neither Mr. SCOTT, nor any of his people, have publicly denied the charges insinuated in the obnoxious paragraph, which he has quoted from my letter? If it be not true, I should like to see it publicly disclaimed; and, if any one had sent me a disavowal, duly authenticated, I should have given it publicity. But, in fact, the thing is too notorious to be denied. It is not a thing of a thousand miles distance, or a hundred