the word in its plain grammatical meaning; and I am not willing to allow Mr. Andrews the privilege of putting "his own meaning" upon the words of his devotional books. I take the words as I find them; I allow them to have the same power that I would allow them in any other book; and I appeal to every unprejudiced person, who understands the meaning of the words, whether they do not make out the charge of idolatry against the church of Rome as completely as ever it was made out against pagan Rome, or Greece, or Babylon itself.

The principal distinction which the Vindicator makes between Mary and Christ, as objects of prayer, is, that the former is a mediator of intercession, while the latter is the Mediator of salvation; but, as I showed in a late number, this distinction is a mere invention of popery; for the Bible speaks of only one intercessor in heaven, as of one Mediator. The work of making atonement, and the work of interceding for us, are vested in the same divine person, Jesus Christ, our only Saviour; and the church of Rome would not show greater impiety, were she to take the work of atoning also out of the hands of Christ, and ascribe it to her idol. The Vindicator adverts to Paul's request to the Christians at Rome to pray for him, and to the command of God to Job to pray for his three friends, as bearing him out in his statement about mediators of intercession; but if this proves any thing at all, it proves that every Christian in the world is a mediator for every other Christian, for they all pray for one another, which certainly cannot make out the speciality which he means to establish with regard to the mediatorship of the Virgin Mary.

The Vindicator does not know, with all his powers of quibbling, how to explain away certain words which I quoted from great popish divines, in which the Virgin Mary is exalted above the heavens, and in fact, represented as greater than the Saviour himself. He, therefore, disposes of them in the following summary manner: "In looking over the extracts to which he refers, I find he has quoted the writings of St. Germain, St. Bonaventure, St. Bernardine, &c.; but as they are professed to be taken from the works of Archbishop Usher, and one M'Culloch, both of whom were as staunch antipapists as the Protestant himself, he will allow me to suspect the correctness of his authority, as I have not the least doubt upon my mind, that they were as capable of garbling and misrepresenting the words and sentiments of the authors cited, as I have proved our adversary to be with regard to mine." Col. 436, 437. Quite as capable, and, I believe, not more so; and as the Vindicator has not proved any thing of the kind on my part, it is fair to conclude that nothing of the kind was practised by Usher or M'Culloch, the latter of whom is alive, and abundantly able to answer for himself. That he has proved me guilty of garbling and misrepresenting his words and sentiments, is another assertion of The Vindicator's, without any more foundation, than that the apostles and the church of England teach and practise the worship of saints and angels. I defy him and his Glasgow constituents, with Mr. Scott at their head, to point out a single instance in which I have garbled and misrepresented either his words or his meaning; and I believe Usher and M'Culloch are equally innocent with regard to the authors whom they quoted. But why did he not go to these authors themselves, and see whether their words were correctly given? If he cannot read Latin, he knows that his friend and patron, VOL. II-48

Bishop Milner, can. Why not then have recourse to him? and why not overwhelm me with the exposure of misquotation, had any imposition of the kind been practised? There can be no doubt, the bishop knows the works referred to better than I do; and Mr. Andrews knows what share he had in The Vindicator better than I do; or whether he had any share in it at all, which I cannot aver from my own knowledge, as he can do. I have my suspicions on the subject; and I have what may be considered a moral certainty, that if I had garbled and misrepresented the above-named saints, or copied garbled extracts from their works, some learned Jesuit would long ago have exposed the imposition and as Archbishop Usher published his work when the order of Jesuits was in its glory, he would soon have been detected, had he misquoted or misrepresented a single sentence.

THE SUBJECT OF THE ADORATION OF the virgin, CONTINUED. THE VIRGIN MARY AS REALLY A SAINT AS PAUL. THE VINDICATOR'S OPINION OF PRAYERS TO SAINTS. REPLY TO HIS CHARGE OF ABUSE. CHARACTER OF THE VIRGIN'S WORSHIPPERS IN GLASGOW.

66

SATURDAY, August 25th, 1821.

THE Catholic Vindicator seems to be satisfied with his devotion to the Virgin Mary. He makes very little account of other saints, or even of their relics. He disposes of both in a very summary way. "I wish," says he, "the reader particularly to remark it: the church of Rome approves and recommends the veneration of the saints, and the -honouring of their relics; but mark! she does not make it a law, nor does she consider it an essential part of Christianity. Neither does she encourage the superstitions and impositions which our adversary says she does. On the contrary, the guardians of her faith and doctrine are bound, upon the hazard of their eternal salvation, to exert themselves to destroy the abuses of superstition, and that cupidity which makes a shameful traffic of images and relics." Col. 565, 566. This is an admission, that in the holy and infallible church of Rome, there have been abuses of superstition, and a shameful traffic in images and relics; and it is a very poor defence to say that she does not make it a law, she only approves and recommends the veneration of the saints, and the honouring of their relics, that is, the worshipping of both, for this is the practical inference which every true Papist will draw from the words; and I apprehend that approving and recommending creature worship, is enough to convict a church of idolatry, whether such worship be established by law or not.

I have already shown that if creature worship be at all admitted, it matters not what be the rank of the creature. It may be the Virgin Mary, or it may be a fragment of her handkerchief; the worship of the one is as really idolatry as the worship of the other; and seeing the Vindicator declares that he does regard the virgin as an object of devotion in a religious sense; (col. 443,) and seeing he admits that Papists address their prayers directly to her, (col. 435,) it is needless for me to spend more time in proving Papists to be idolaters. Our

Glasgow ones, at least, are convicted by the pen of their own advocate, whose book cost them so much money, and which even the recommendation of Mr. Scott could not enable them to sell.

This subject being set at rest, before proceeding to another, I shall notice a little more of the Vindicator's trifling. I had said, in one of my numbers, that "the sinner who believed in Christ yesterday for the first time, is as really a saint as Paul, or Peter, or even the Virgin Mary." The Vindicator affects to understand me as saying, as great a saint, instead of as really one; and to his own perversion of my words he replies at length, quoting scripture against me, about one star differing from another star in glory, which is usually understood to prove that there are degrees of glory among the saints in heaven, which, whether it be so or not, is a thing that I never disputed. If I were to say that Mr. Andrews is as really a sinner as Judas Iscariot, I suppose, he would not deny the charge; but I question if he would admit that he is as great a one, which I do not by any means assert; but I might do so with the utmost propriety, if I were to reason as he does. By a sinner believing in Christ, I mean one who has forsaken his sins, and who has begun to live a holy life. This person is a saint in the Bible sense of the word; he may, indeed, be one one of the very lowest rank of those who are called babes in Christ; but as an infant of a day old is as really a human person as the man of a hundred years, so he who began yesterday to live a holy life is as really a saint as any of the apostles were. He shall receive the reward of a saint if he persevere in holiness to the end; but the greatness of the reward, or degree of glory that shall be conferred, is quite another matter, and a matter with which we have nothing to do. I admit that the word of God seems to countenance the idea, that there shall be a distinction among the saints in heaven; for there are special promises to apostles and others who have been honoured to turn many to righteousness; but as their reward, first and last, is all of grace, it must not be calculated according to human reckoning, or according to merit in one more than in another. For any thing we know, the thief who confessed Christ on the cross has a higher place in heaven than the Virgin Mary. I do not say it is so, or that I believe it to be so; but I do say that we know nothing of the matter: and, therefore, supposing it were proved that saints in heaven were proper objects of worship, no one could tell whether the thief or the virgin had the highest claim to our devotion. Perhaps there are delicate minds that will feel hurt by placing these two individuals in such close contact; but the fact, that both were sinners saved by grace, ought to do away all such squeamishness. Nay, we have greater certainty of the thief's being in heaven than of the virgin's being there. By inference from certain premises, we come to a charitable conclusion with regard to the latter, though we have no evidence of her persevering to the end in faith and holiness; but for the former we have the express words of our Saviour, "To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise."

Speaking of the impossibility of the saints' hearing and attending to all the prayers of their devout worshippers, I used a word or two, of which, perhaps, the Vindicator has cause to complain. My words were, "I suppose he very piously makes use of the prayers which he has composed for the worshippers of his favourite idol, St. Wenefride; and

he must know that a number of pilgrims are every day paying their devotions at her holy well; now, I ask him seriously, how she can attend to the prayers of all these pilgrims in Wales, and at the same time hear his prayers in Drake street, Red Lion square, London? Or, supposing her to be in heaven, how she can attend to either the one or the other? If Mr. Andrews shall make this intelligible and credible, he will show himself to be as great a man as the unanswerable Dr. Milner himself." To this the Vindicator replies, apparently in great wrath, as follows:-"Such is the disgusting and contemptible stuff which my opponent compiles for the amusement of his readers; such his petty frivolous mode of conducting this important controversy. Would it not be more to his credit, were he to employ himself in refuting my arguments, by cool reasoning, or justifying his own assertions by convincing truths, than in calling upon me to explain the mysteries of God?" Col. 445. They happen, however, to be only the mysteries of popery, for God has never told us that the saints in heaven do hear our prayers. If he had, we should have been bound to believe it, though he had not told us how. But a thing of human invention ought to be capable of human explanation; and seeing the adoration of St. Wenefride is of no higher than human origin, the inventor, or the recommender of the invention, as Mr. Andrews is, ought to be able to tell us all about it. "As well," says he, "might I call upon him to explain the mysteries of the Trinity, or the incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity, as he, to inform him how the Almighty communicates his gifts to the blessed in heaven." Col. 445. But the question was not, how does the Almighty communicate his gifts to the saints? but, how does Mr. Andrews communicate his prayers to them? This he ought to understand, and be able to explain, else the nature of his worship is unintelligible to himself, and must be unprofitable.

The following is the article in which he considers himself chiefly aggrieved:" And here," says he, "I cannot help noticing the unfair and dishonest dealings of this scribbler towards me. In the passage I have last quoted from his work, he has attributed the composition of the prayer to St. Wenefride to me, and he calls this saint my favourite idol. Now, I ask him in return, how he knows that St. Wenefride is my favourite idol, or that she is an idol at all in my eyes? Can he tell what passes in my heart? Can he say that St. Wenefride is a favourite of mine; or that I adore her and worship as an idol, which, Johnson says, is an image worshipped as God; and which our accuser frontlessly charges Catholics with doing. But mark, reader, the blind ignorance or the wilful falsity of this abandoned writer. He accuses me of composing the prayers to St. Wenefride which appear in her life, and yet the very first sentence in the book shows my edition is only a reprint from one which was published in the year 1712, and consequently I could not be the author. This being the plain fact, what reliance, I ask the reader, can be placed on the man who can thus sport with the sacredness of truth, in the hope of fixing a supposed odium on the shoulders of his antagonist? Oh! shame, where is thy blush!" Col. 446.

Many bad things the Vindicator lays to my charge; but this is the only one for which there is even an apparent foundation. I wrote as if the prayers which he gave in his edition of St. Wenefride's life were

composed by him, though it seems they were not. I knew perfectly well that it was a reprint of an old book; but it appeared to me to contain a good deal of new matter, composed by him, or some other modern author; particularly, a narrative of a miraculous cure, certified by his friend Dr. Milner, to have been lately performed by the saint at her holy well. I naturally concluded that the prayers which followed, at least the one which contains the words, "Holy St. Wenefride, even in in this unbelieving generation, still miraculous, pray for us," was also his composition. This was a mistake, if he tell the truth; and it was nothing but a mistake. I defy the world to make more of it; and it was a mistake that could do him no harm, seeing it merely represented him as the author of what he approved, published, and recommended. He must have been much at a loss for matter of accusation against me, when he holds this forth as "blind ignorance," wilful falsity," and "sporting with the sacredness of truth." My insinuation that Wenefride was his favourite idol, puts him into such a passion, that I suspect he was afraid of the jealousy of his other idol, the Virgin Mary, suspecting that she would be told by some of her Glasgow worshippers, what The Protestant had been saying about him and her Welsh rival. But he ought to pardon my mistake, seeing that when I wrote the offensive passage, he had not publicly declared his own devotion and attachment to the virgin; for in his school-book he only recommends her to others; and from the high encomiums which he had bestowed upon St. Wenefride, it was impossible not to consider her as a very great favourite of his.

66

It is perhaps necessary to remind the reader once more, that nothing which I have here advanced is meant to derogate from the respect that is really due to the memory of Mary, the mother of Jesus. My remarks refer only to the idol to whom Papists have impiously given her name; though The Vindicator represents them as applicable to the virgin herself. "It is impossible," says he, "not to be struck with horror and disgust at the irreligious and obscene manner in which The Protestant speaks of the holy mother of God, of that admirable pattern of innocence and holiness, who was saluted by an angel of God as 'full of grace.' Were he to advance but a tithe of his filthy abuse against the memory of the mother of the regent, who, from her high station as queen of England, was an object of respect and reverence, he would soon feel the weight of the laws upon his guilty head; but, because the Catholic church venerates with pious devotion the virtues and graces of the queen of heaven, the mother of that God who came down from heaven, and died to redeem him, this impious scribbler indulges in a strain of invective and sarcasm against the character of the blessed virgin, in the most base and contemptible language that can be used." Col. 517, 518. This is all downright falsehood, and misrepresentation of my words. I never wrote a syllable disrespectful of the Virgin Mary. My invectives and sarcasms, as he calls them, were not against her, but against the absurd, impious, and idolatrous representations which Papists have made of her. When the idolatrous Israelites worshipped the sun under the image of Baal, the prophet Elijah spared neither invective nor sarcasm against both the idol and his worshippers; though there can be no doubt he admired the sun, and loved this light as much as any of them. No creature, animate or inanimate, is honoured by