exists in the Christian churches; that is, a tendency to diminish the authority and strictness of the divine requisitions; and to estimate that divine truth, which adverts chiefly to spiritual things, as of less moment than the external morality which is requisite for the welfare and decorum of society as if piety in principle was not inseparable from practical godliness. This profound and injurious mistake is illustrated in a very extraordinary manner, in its application to popery. It is generally believed by persons who are ignorant of the great antichristian "falling away" from the gospel, that the doctrines and ceremo nies of Romanism are merely a harmless system of nonsensical and childish observances, which have been superadded to the Christian religion; and which, by lessening its simplicity, obscure its brightness and corrupt its purity. But as it has assumed a Christian name, and as almost all its ritual is known by Christian appellations; the inference is drawn, that the whole complex system of the pontifical canons, bulls, decretals, and superstitions, although unmeaning, anti-evangelical, and even idolatrous, is still a vital part of that divine revelation which Jesus the Son of God hath brought to light in the gospel; and therefore, they are led to conclude, that the Romanists are one of the distinct communities within that church, which Christ hath purchased with his own blood?

It seems, now, also to be generally received as a principle which admits of no denial, that all defence of religious truth naturally includes a hatred of those who hold the opposite errors. This assumption is not less unfounded than it is mischievous. The unholy excitements of an antichristian alienation are discoverable in a far higher degree a mong those controversialists who belong to the churches of different denominations of evangelical Christians, than in reference to the warriors who contend against "the enemies of the cross of Christ." As all the worst passions of our depraved nature are much more displayed in civil commotions than in a foreign warfare, so there is much less of a Christian spirit developed by sectarian polemics, than by those servants of the church who "put on the whole armour of God and stand against the wiles of the devil.”

The position which is thus implied is equally contrary to the wisest and best examples, as it is unsound in theory. However marvellous the fact may appear to the inconsiderate, it is incontestably true, that the most renowned philanthropists have ever been the chief masters in religious controversy.

"Jesus of Nazareth, who went about doing good," was the founder of modern polemical warfare. His servant, the apostle Paul, also overwhelmed Festus with astonishment at the sublimity of his eloquence, and convinced Agrippa by the energy of his arguments. The long succession of immortal champions of truth, during the three primitive centuries of the gospel dispensation, by their efforts, accompanied with the divine sanction, razed the heathen temples, and subverted the Pagan idolatry. In the modern ages of the world, the leaders who ing, and the fire of Christian affection. These reformers were ing and shining lights" whose glory can never be eclipsed, until this

blessed reformation,

were never surpassed for the extent of their learn

vain world shall be no more.

VOL. I.-A

burn

The royalty of Gustavus of Sweden, and of Edward of England, is almost forgotten, when we recollect that they were humble and sincere Christians, who "loved the brethren." And the whole earthly pilgrimage of Wickliffe, Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, Cranmer, Knox, and the noble band of their immortal associates, after their renunciation of Babylon the great, displayed the highest-toned continuous benevolence.

The same character may be truly given of every succeeding generation of those" of whom the world was not worthy," and who staked their earthly all upon the contest with Satan, the adversary of mankind. And is it not now as undeniable, as in all former generations, that the most untiring friends of all the benevolent institutions which have been organized for the melioration of the world, whether in its religious or civil aspect, are those who are calumniated, because they are the most active opponents of the errors which darken the mind and corrupt the heart?

This is especially applicable to the controversy respecting Romanism. The Christian who ventures to unfold the banner of divine truth against the great apostasy, of which the Roman pontiff is the head, is pronounced an uncharitable and furious bigot; who is ever ready to kindle again the fires of persecution !-Such is the cloudiness of their understandings, that multitudes of persons appear to conceive that there is no possibility of impugning the heresies of antichrist, without hatred of those who avow them, and a predominant disposition to injure them in their personal comfort and enjoyments! As if all the uncharitableness and unholy tempers were experienced and manifested by the defenders of "the faith of God's elect;" and Christian love, with brotherly kindness and sanctity, was the exclusive endowment of men who obstinately refuse all allegiance to the oracles of God!

The volumes which are now presented to the American community, exhibit an admirable specimen of controversial theology. It is the old and crafty artifice of Satan, whenever a vigorous assault is made upon his usurped dominions, artfully to complain that the Christian warriors will not permit him "to keep his palace and his goods in peace." The cry of bitterness of spirit and persecution is resounded, until the true character of the contest, and the glorious object proposed to be attained, by this cunning contrivance, are altogether concealed from view. Thus "the fact is almost obliterated from remembrance, that the counsel" and work are undertaken by the command of God, and that the sole design is to promote the mission of the Saviour, who is Christ the Lord."

The author of the following essays, William McGavin, Esquire, is a merchant of Glasgow, Scotland, who is deeply devoted to the Christian cause; and whose unwearied zeal in the service of his Master, and active benevolence to his fellow mortals, surpass all eulogy. He does not merely write and exhort, but he also acts; and the superfluities of an ample fortune are consecrated with genuine Christian heartiness, to the extension of that truth and holiness which he has so irrefragably defended. Circumstances which are detailed in the introductory letters, in the ensuing series of essays, produced a short controversy; and subsequently a regular exposition and refutation of the papal system, which have been highly beneficial to the Protestant cause. These

volumes furnish the most efficient antidote to popery, with which the present generation has been blessed.

In the primary onset of this holy war, two complaints were made by his Roman opponents. One referred to the unchristian spirit, and the other to the invectives and improper language of the author. These allegations are precisely the same which are now reiterated in the United States. Mr. McGavin objected to "the holiness of stones and timber;" and to the papal indulgences for the commission of sin. One of the Roman writers thus retorted-"By reproaches he 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 rusted to the hilt." To this accusation and prophecy the Protestant replied; and although written in Scotland more than fourteen years since, it comprises a full and explicit confutation of all the cavils which have been uttered by the various objectors in this republic, since the standard of the Lord, nearly three years ago, was lifted up against the papal enemy, coming in like a flood.

"What sword does he mean?" says Mr. McGavin. "If it be the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, I hope it will never be sheathed, that it will never rot, and that it will never cease to be wielded by the friends of truth, so long as error exists in the world. If he mean the sword of persecution, and that I try to unsheath it, he slanders his neighbour, and lays himself open to more severe reproof than I choose to administer. I have no hostility against him; I pity him as the unhappy victim of error and imposition; and the worst thing I wish him is, that he would be convinced of his errors, and renounce them. But I declare the most determined hostility against the whole system of popery; not against Papists, but against their errors, which are their greatest enemies. I believe it is not in the power of the devil to invent such another system of delusion, and wickedness, and opposition to the religion of Christ This was the mightiest effort of the wicked one to deprive the world of the benefits of Christ's incarnation and death, and to keep the human race in bondage to himself. He has been deplorably successful; and the ruin of millions of souls has been the consequence. It is because I wish well to the persons of Papists; it is because I wish nothing less than their present and everlasting happiness, that I wish them delivered from the bondage of error, and the dominion of their priests-and that the priests themselves were delivered from the slavery of the prince of darkness. But persecution is not the way to accomplish this. If there be one thing in popery which I abhor more than another, it is its persecuting spirit. It has always persecuted when it had the power. It made it a meritorious act to extirpate heretics. Most of the reformed churches brought a portion of this spirit from Rome with them; and it is one of the last rags of popery which some of them are inclined to throw away. I consider every species of civil disability and disqualifications, on a religious account, persecution. Persecution is disgraceful to those who inflict, but honourable to those who suffer it. It throws around them the charm and glory of a relationship to apostles and prophets, and men of whom the world was not worthy. I would never persecute Papists. Popery is not worthy of such honour."

Another objection against Mr. McGavin, was propounded in these

words "A spirit of irony so prevails, that I conceive him to be solely actuated by prejudice, or else why those epithets of papist, popish, &c., which originated in derision and were fostered by bigotry." This pretended fault has also been continually found with the friends of truth in our country; and the reply is equally apposite as when it was originally promulged. To this fallacious and crafty method of evading the force of an argument, the Protestant rejoined; that he would use the term papist in preference to catholic, because his Romish adversary attached great importance to the distinction, and felt offended by his use of the former word. I must maintain," adds Mr. Mc Gavin, "that his offence on this account is very unreasonable; and that it is equally unreasonable to expect that Protestants should give up the question which they have been contesting with Papists for three hundred years, which they must do if they yield to them the exclusive property of the word catholic. Every Christian is a catholic in the legitimate sense of the word. We profess to believe in the 'holy catholic church,' that is, in the existence of a holy and spiritual assembly, separated from the world which lieth in wickedness. This assembly consists of all the saints in heaven, and all on earth who are saved by the grace, and sanctified by the Spirit of God. This, however, is a very different church from the church of Rome. Now to grant to the Papist the exclusive property of the word catholic, is to concede to him what, indeed, he arrogantly claims, but to which he has no just right; the exclusive title to be a member of the true church. On what other ground does he consider the word papist a term of reproach? or on what other ground does he insist upon us calling him and his brethren catholics; but that we may concede to them the point that they only are Christians, and that all we are heretics? Papist is the distinctive name of those who believe in the sovereign and supreme authority of the pope in religious matters. Why should those who professed to believe in the divine authority and infallibility of the pope, think it a reproach to be called after his name? Let every sect be called after the name of its God, and papists will be found their proper name. That the word catholic, and not papist, is used, is a proof of the courtesy of gentlemen, who do not trouble themselves about religious distinctions; but it is one among many evidences, of a growing indifference to the great question at issue between Protestants and Papists. Whenever the exclusive right to the word catholic shall be generally conceded to the church of Rome and its members, Protestants will have gone far to shake hands with the pope, if not to kiss his great toe."

An additional objection has been offered not only by persons in Europe, but especially in the United States, to the renewal of the controversy respecting Romanism. They allege that it is unnecessary in modern times, and in this republic: because, even admitting that popery was formerly all that system of folly, corruption, and cruelty, which history delineates it; now it is changed, and so meliorated, that it has been divested of all its pernicious qualities. It is almost incredi ble that Protestants are either so wilfully unenlightened or so infatuated that they will propagate such sentiments as these; when all the Roman priests and authors of every class invariably affirm, that their ecclesiastical system of doctrine, rites, discipline, and government, from

their head the pope, to the meanest adherent of the hierarchy is not only unchanged, but being infallible, is unchangeable. Consequently, it is the same now, as in all anterior ages, because it cannot be changed; and it is identical not only at Rome and Pekin, in Paris and New Orleans, at Madrid and Goa; but also in London, Dublin, Mexico, and New York.

The following extracts from one of the preliminary letters and from the sixth essay, written by Mr. Mc Gavin, in reply to an opponent who signed himself Amicus Veritatis, will not only exhibit a fair specimen of the style and character of the work; but will also clearly demonstrate the identity of Romanism in all parts of the world, and at all times; for it is exactly as appropriate to America as to Scotland, and not less incontrovertible at this day than when it was written, in the year 1818.

“Some people have an idea that the popery of the present age is not so bad as the popery of a former age: and this is reckoned a charitable and liberal view of the matter; but Papists themselves do not receive this as a concession in their favour; they will not admit that their religion has changed in any point whatever. They would gladly have us believe that it was always as harmless as it now appears in Glasgow; and for this purpose they deny that ever it was what all history represents it to have been. They deny facts as clearly established, even by their own historians, as any fact of history can be; and with the most unblushing effrontery affect to wonder that we will not take their word in opposition to all other evidence. Besides the history of past ages, we know from the present state of popery in those countries where it reigns in all its glory, that the human mind is enslaved as much by it as ever. The pope is still looked up to as their God upon earth. His authority is supreme in matters of religion and morality. As if the law of God were not sufficiently strict; as if men were not wicked enough, by the violation of its precepts, he can virtually create sins and then forgive them; he makes that sinful which was not so, and then he can grant pardon for money. He can grant indulgence to marry within the forbidden degree; and it is difficult to say what he cannot do. He has prohibited the formation of societies for circulating the Bible. He has restored the Inquisition and order of Jesuits; and has done every thing in his power to bring Europe again under subjection to his dark dominion. I ask Amicus Verita

tis, if his religion be not the very same that prevails in Spain, Portugal, or Italy? If any person in any of those countries were to speak or write as freely against popery as he does against Luther and the reformation, would it not be at the risk of his life? His is the same religion that opposes heresy by force. He must approve of this, because such is the will of the holy church which cannot err; and though he cannot oppose error here by torture and the Inquisition, it is not unfair to presume that he would do so if he could. His system at least leads to this; and if his own humanity would not suffer him to do such a thing, it must be because he is not so bad as his religion. He says; 'it is vain that Catholics disdain the odious tenets which have been imputed to them in vain that they appeal to their professions of faith, and the canons of their councils. Certainly all this is vain, while they avowedly adhere to a system, the iniquity of which is known to all the world."