ready to allow that they went to Plymouth for the purpose of seeing Bonaparte; nay more, that they actually rowed out into the harbour in a boat, and came along side of a man-of-war, on whose deck they saw a man in a cocked hat, who, they were told, was Bonaparte; this is the utmost point to which their testimony goes; how they ascertained that this man in the cocked hat had gone through all the marvellous and romantic adventures with which we have so long been amused, we are not told did they perceive in his physiognomy his true name and authentic history? Truly this evidence is such as country people give one for a story of apparitions: if you show any signs of incredulity, they triumphantly show the very house where the ghost haunted, the identical dark corner where it used to vanish, and perhaps even the tomb-stone of the person whose death it foretold."

"Bonaparte prevailed over the hostile states in turn, except England; in the zenith of his power, his fleets were swept from the sea by Eng land; his troops always defeated an equal, and frequently even a supe rior number of any other nation, except the English; and with them it is just the reverse; twice, and twice only, he is personally engaged against an English commander, and both times he is totally defeated, at Acre, and at Waterloo; and, to crown all, England finally crushes this tremendous power, which has so long kept the continent in subjection or in alarm, and to the English he surrenders himself prisoner! Thoroughly national to be sure. It may be all very true, but I would only ask, if a story had been fabricated for the express purpose of amusing the English nation, could it have been contrived more ingeniously?"See Eclectic Review for July, 1819. Thus the author shows that the glory of England being in a great measure connected with the fable of Bonaparte, we have reason to doubt every Englishman's testimony on the subject; the same thing is equally true of Scotchmen and Irishmen; and twenty arguments equally cogent are adduced to show, that we may very reasonably conclude that the whole story is a fabrication, intended to flatter our national vanity, and make us cheerfully pay our

taxes.

Now, to compare small things with great, this is precisely the way Mr. Andrews endeavours to discredit a story as true as the existence of Bonaparte. The reader will suppose that he must be a very ingenious man who can do this; and I cheerfully admit that there is a sort of coarse cleverness in his management of the subject, which is sometimes amusing enough, but more frequently disgusting, from the impu dence with which truth is denied, and falsehood asserted. We ought not, however, to give Mr. Andrews himself credit for all this; for having the whole college of Jesuits at his back, he would no doubt have all the advantage that was to be derived from their well known craft and cun ning.

The manner in which the Vindicator treats this subject, especially his bold attempts to make that appear false which I and fifty others know to be true, reminds me of a passage in a letter of a reverend correspondent in Ireland, to the following effect:-" Under the system that admits the lying casuistry of intention, and the principle that you may do evil that good may come, it is impossible to elicit truth from persons, whose object it is to hide truth, and who are too much every day under the power of their spiritual superiors, to dare to do any thing that

might either offend them, or bring them into disrepute. I have seen enough of this. I have witnessed the most decided breach of oaths under this influence. I have had the most decided denial of facts of which I was as certain as that the sun shines, and of expressions which I heard with my own ears, when they referred to any thing connected with priests and the church, or the cause of emancipation, &c. &c. Men unacquainted with those people, cannot conceive this. It is long before an honest, ingenuous Protestant mind can suppose it is possible; and nothing but the very clearest conviction can persuade some persons that it is so, and that a conviction from their own experience."

This conviction has been deeply impressed upon my mind from my experience of the manner in which The Vindicator and his Glasgow committee have treated this part of the controversy. It is not, however, my intention to resume that subject. It would be a work of supererogation to demonstrate again what I have proved in the publications above referred to, especially in my letter to Mr. M'Hardy, which remains to this day without a reply, for the few nibbling sentences which occur here and there in the Vindicator, do not deserve that name. If that letter, however, shall receive a respectful answer, I shall be as ready to return to the subject as ever. In the mean time, as some parts of my letter were understood to reflect rather severely on that gentleman, it is but just that I insert his defence, as it appeared in the thirtyfourth number of the Vindicator, professedly written by one who knows him well. And the Vindicator himself expresses thanks to his correspondent for giving him an opportunity of doing justice to a gentleman totally unknown to him, "but who has by his spirited and upright conduct in assisting to detect a foul fabrication, invented to calumniate his Catholic neighbours, raised himself in the esteem of all who admire probity and liberality, whether the possessor be a Protestant or a Catholic." Col. 543. If Mr. M Hardy had Mr. Andrews against him instead of for him, it would be rather unfortunate that the certificate of his character is anonymous; for the certifier subscribes himself under the very general designation of "a Highlander and Catholic;" but I am more liberal than the Vindicator would be in similar circumstances. I give as full credit to every part of the testimony as if it had been subscribed by Mr. Scott himself; and if I have not such profound admiration of "the high and important office which he now fills in the city of Glasgow," it is perhaps because I do not look up to it from such a “deep profound" as his popish admirers do. The certificate is as follows:

"As to the respectability of Mr. M'Hardy, who was one of the deputation that waited on Mr. McGavin, I can, from my own personal knowledge, bear testimony. Born in a remote corner of the Highland as well as myself, in the same parish, I have had an opportunity of knowing his merits and demerits for a series of years. And from the high and important office which he now fills in the city of Glasgow with unimpeachable character, his bitterest enemies, not even THE PROTESTANT,' if he is one, dare avow that his honour, integrity, and high respectability, derogates in any one iota from that office. It would be much to the honour of THE PROTESTANT,' were he such a liberal minded and upright gentleman." Cath. Vind. col. 544. I have no wish to derogate from either the character or the dignity of this gentleman; and he should never have been honoured by a stroke of my pen if he

had not thrust himself forward in aid of our Glasgow Papists, and as a contributor to the CATHOLIC VINDICATOR; who, to use the language of the Vindicator, "so honourably, and so spiritedly, volunteered his services to detect the gross imposition of our accuser.' "Col. 487. Here I take leave of him and of the man in the Wynd, unless he or some friend of his shall revive the controversy; and with this short notice, I get over at once a large proportion of my opponent's volume; containing, indeed, a great deal of matter, but quite irrelevant; and, but for the incessant recurrence to the man in the Wynd, could scarcely be known to have any relation to THE PROTESTANT.

Amidst the mighty mass of irrelevant matter above referred to, we have one passage that merits a little notice in passing. In Chap. LI. I laid down what I believe to be the Bible doctrine in relation to the method of salvation;-that it is through Christ alone, without any merit of ours. On this the Vindicator remarks as follows:-" Such are the principles laid down by THE PROTESTANT' in his controversy with the Papists, and principles of a more diabolical and impious nature it is impossible to invent or propagate. If a man is taught not to expect that he can contribute in the slightest degree towards his salvation, by obeying the commandments, what motive or what interest can he have in keeping them? If his own merits are not to avail him in the least, in obtaining the rewards of eternal life, what inducement can he have to pursue a life of virtue here on earth, to reap a life of glory hereafter ? If the attempt to seek a justification by the performance of good works, is to renounce the Son of God as a Saviour, will any man endeavour to quell the irregular motions of his nature? On the contrary, will he not rather give way to the evil inclinations of the flesh, relying on the atonement of the Saviour by faith alone? Talk of popery being a system of wickedness, or permitting its adherents to live in a habitual state of iniquity, why, what is the sum and substance of the doctrine here stated by the adversary of popery? Does he not maintain, that to do good with a motive of securing salvation, is a horrible supposition,— that by faith alone can man be saved, and that all other means is a derogation from the merits of the Redeemer? And is not this an encouragement to live in habitual wickedness, provided you have faith to believe yourself a saved sinner?" Col. 582. Against the doctrine which I laid down, the Vindicator here cites the authority of WILLIAM COBBETT, which, in his opinion, is no doubt, sufficiently high and conclusive; and he seems not a little pleased to find such a great man on his side, and avowedly preferring the popish practice of confession to the methodistical doctrine of salvation by faith alone; but as I have never heard that Cobbett is acknowledged as an authority by any Protestant church; and as I certainly do not bow to his authority in matters of religion, or any other matters, I may be permitted to pass this over, allowing my opponent and his work all the credit which they can derive from such a name, though it will be alleged by some ill-natured readers, that in the matter of relics and rotten bones, Cobbett is more than half a Papist.

Any man who understands the Bible will perceive at once that the Vindicator is entirely ignorant of what he is writing about, though the subject is the most interesting that can be imagined. The doctrine which I laid down was, that Christ must be acknowledged by a sinner as a whole Saviour, else he is not his Saviour at all; in support of which I

adduced certain passages of scripture. The Vindicator makes no account of these; but he rejects the doctrine, because he cannot understand how good works are good and necessary, unless we are to merit salvation by them. He knows no inducement which a man can have to do good works, if they are not to avail him in obtaining the rewards of eternal life; and he can perceive no interest that he can have in keeping God's commandments upon any other principle than as contributing to his salvation. Thus he sets his own doings beside the merits of Christ, as possessing the same quality, and having the same influence, at least, in a certain degree; and thus he enters his protest against the doctrine of the apostle, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he hath saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost." Tit. iii. 5. It

is at least in part by his own works that the Vindicator expects to be saved. It is a melancholy reflection that even one individual sinner on the face of the earth is living under such a fatal delusion, and proceeding to the grave with a lie in his heart; but when we reflect that this is a fundamental article of popery, and that by teaching this doctrine the church of Rome seduces and ruins all that confide in her teaching, we cannot help considering her as emphatically the antichrist; that is, the mighty agent in the hand of the devil, raised up for the purpose of opposing the glory of Christ and the salvation of men.

Those who have read my papers with any degree of attention, must have seen that I do not undervalue good works; though the Vindicator always writes as if I did; and if he could make his readers believe this, they would very naturally look upon me as an enemy of both God and man; for whether men embrace one form of religion or another, or whether they embrace any religion at all, they will unanimously admit and maintain, that good is better than evil; and that if a man's conduct be bad, or if he teach men to be bad, he cannot be under the influence of a good religion. Now, I have not only insisted upon the necessity of good works, from the very commencement of my labours, but it has actually been my principal object, in writing against popery, to expose the evil works which arise out of it; to show that it is the great enemy of all righteousness; and to persuade my readers to avoid it, to renounce it, and to embrace and hold fast the doctrine of Christ, which is really according to godliness, and which effectually teaches all who embrace it to abound in the fruits of righteousness, that is, in good works, to the praise and glory of God. The good works of a Christian are obedience to the commands of God, springing from love and gratitude for the blessings of the gospel; as such they are approved and accepted, and shall be crowned with a gracious reward, even with the crown of righteousness which Christ has prepared for them that love him. But the fancied good works of a Papist are not an expression of gratitude for blessings received, but proffered as the price of blessings expected; that is, in part at least, as the price of salvation; as such they must be abhorred and rejected, as if they were the greatest crimes, not because they are necessarily such in the matter of them, but because they are put in the place of Christ's merits, and deprive him of the honour which is due to him alone as the Saviour of sinners. It is the glory of Christ to be the Saviour of the guilty, and his glory he will not give to another; but Papists do what they can to wrest it from him, when they

trust for salvation in whole or in part to their own merits. Every priest who teaches men to do this is an antichrist; and let his cruelties and extortions, which affect only the bodies of men, be what they may, they are not to be compared to the fiendlike wickedness of deceiving and leading to perdition, millions of immortal souls. I call this fiendlike wickedness, for it is the very work of the devil, which he began in paradise, when he seduced our first parents to sin against God; and which he continues by the agency of his ministers, preventing men from returning to God in the way which he has appointed; that is, confessing their sins-accepting the salvation of the gospel, through the righteousness of Christ, without merit of their own, and then living to the glory of God by obeying his commandments.

Works may be good in the matter of them, as it is a good thing to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. In this way substantial good is imparted to fellow-creatures, to whom such works will be always pleasing and acceptable; and they are pleasing to God also, if they proceed from principles and motives which he approves, but not otherwise. Professions of loyalty are good, and pleasing to a sovereign prince, provided they proceed from sincere affection for his person, and approbation of his government; but supposing the prince to see into the heart of a professedly loyal individual, and to perceive that his motive was to ingratiate himself with men in power, to subvert the government, and set aside the succession of the heir apparent, would not the loyalty of such a man, and all his professions of it, be more offensive to the prince than avowed treason? Now God knows the heart of every man and the motive of every action; and works materially good must be abhorred by him, when he knows that the motive and design of them is, to subvert the established order of his kingdom, and dishonour his beloved Son, by putting the merit of these works upon a footing with his merit, and refusing to submit to his righteousness, which is alone sufficient for the salvation of the guilty. I hope my readers are aware that there is an established order in the kingdom of heaven. The fundamental principle of it is, that by sin, all men are ruined and lost. The gospel of Christ takes this for granted; and it comes to them as a proclamation of peace and reconciliation, inviting sinners to repent of their sins, to accept the mercy revealed to them, and be reconciled to God. It is expressly declared that there is salvation in no name but that of Christ— that no merit or righteousness but his will be acknowledged as of the least avail in reference to the salvation of sinners. For men, then, to come on the footing of their own merit, is a direct insult to the God of heaven. It is to tell him to his face that they do not approve the way of salvation which his wisdom and mercy have provided: it is, in short, to declare that they neither care for him nor his salvation. This the church of Rome does every day, by teaching her members to merit salvation for themselves; and though she were to renounce all her other fooleries and impieties, this alone would fix the seal of perdition upon her.