way of reply to THE PROTESTANT, except a very feeble attempt to defend the doctrine of transubstantiation, which the reader may find in his forty-fifth number, continued in a desultory manner to his fiftieth, to which I shall pay attention in due time.

For a full account of the man in the Wynd story, I refer to Chap. L. Vol. I. and to my letter to Mr. M'Hardy, published two years ago. The Vindicator labours through many a long page to make this story appear a forgery of mine. All his ingenuity, with that of his committee, here seems to have been directed to that single point. He and they have started difficulties about it, and invented inconsistencies, and put questions, and formed answers, which raise such a dust about it, that few persons will have patience to take a deliberate view of the subject. The fact is true notwithstanding, as any person may satisfy himself, by inquiring of the surviving party, who is sufficiently designated in the publications referred to; and the scurrilous abuse which Mr. Andrews heaped upon this person, in almost every page of his work, indicated a conviction in his own mind, that I did not invent the story; for if he had really thought so, his invective would have been applied to me alone; and he has never so much as insinuated that the widow of his deceased brother invented it; for that would suppose her possessed of more intellect and literature than he will allow her.

66

There is not a fact recorded in history; nay, there is not a fact which a hundred men shall swear that they witnessed with their own eyes, which could not be rendered doubtful, or which might not be made out to be a forgery, by such quibbling and casuistry as the Vindicator has applied to this plain and simple story. A work was published about two years ago, entitled, "Historical doubts relative to the existence of Napoleon Bonaparte," in which the author labours with great ingenuity, though ironically, to prove that there never was such a man in the world; at least, that there is not such evidence of his existence as to command the belief of an impartial and philosophical inquirer after truth. Let it be allowed us," says the writer, "as is surely_reasonable, just to inquire, with respect to the extraordinary story I have been speaking of, on what evidence we believe it. We shall be told that it is notorious; i. e. in plain English, it is very much talked about: but as the generality of those who talk about Bonaparte do not even pretend to speak from their own authority, but merely to speak what they have casually heard, we cannot reckon them as in any degree witnesses." "What then are we to believe? if we are disposed to credit all that is told us, we must believe in the existence not only of one, but of two or three Bonapartes; if we admit of nothing but what is well authenticated, we shall be compelled to doubt of the existence of any. It appears then, that those on whose testimony the existence and actions of Bonaparte are generally believed, fail in all the most essential points on which the credibility of witnesses depends: first, we have no assurance that they have access to correct information; secondly, they have an apparent interest in propagating falsehood; and, thirdly, they palpably contradict each other in the most important points."

But what shall we say to the testimony of those many respectable persons who went to Plymouth on purpose, and saw Bonaparte with their own eyes? must they not trust their senses? "I would not disparage either the eyesight or the veracity of these gentlemen. I am VOL. II-49

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 England; his troops always defeated an equal, and frequently even a superior 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 impudence 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 cunning.

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 scen 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 pur pose 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