vert from the church of Scotland, as he told us in his former letter, he can misquote and misrepresent as expertly as if he had been born a Papist. În my eightieth number, page 567, I inserted a popish advertisement, with this motto, "Let us love not in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth, 1 John, 10 ch. 18 v.," and inserted as a note, "The reader will look in vain for such a chapter and verse in the common English Bible;" that is, he will look in vain for the 18th verse of the 10th chapter of 1 John. But W. D. gives as my words, "in vain shall we look for such a passage in the common English Bible." He says, I "made a note in the margin to contradict this passage;" and he gravely tells me where to find it, supposing I did not know that there were such words in the New Testament. Now I appeal to W. D. himself, whether this be not barefaced imposition? and if he has the effrontery to misquote my own words to my own face, what dependence can we have upon the accuracy of his quotations from so scarce a book as the works of Luther? This book, I am persuaded, he never saw. The few extracts which he gives must have been taken from some popish writer, who had taken them from some other, so that they may have come through twenty hands since they were taken from the original; and no dependence can be placed upon the veracity of any one of the reporters. In my second number I showed how Amicus Veritatis had garbled the words of the same reformer, so as completely to misrepresent his meaning; and I have since found, that what Amicus Veritatis gave as a discovery of his own, was a mere copy from other books. His very words are to be found in a book published in England, about ten years ago;* and I find the very same misquotation of Luther's words in a book published in the reign of James I. Yes, the very "adveniat ancilla," with a period instead of a comma, and the entire omission of that part of the sentence which explains the author's meaning, may be seen not only in the above modern publication, but also in the work of one Francis Walsingham, printed 1609, in which the garbled half sentence is given in English, as the entire and fully expressed doctrine of the reformer. Perhaps fifty later popish authors have taken it upon the authority of the said Walsingham; and so the lie has passed from one to another, till it fell to the lot of THE PROTESTANT to detect it, by reference to the authentic publication of Luther, in the library of our University. The same detection may, indeed, have been made by other authors whose writings I have not seen.

But we need not be surprised that such writers as W. D. should misquote and misrepresent the words of other people, for he actually does the same injustice to his own, in order that he may disengage himself from a dilemma into which he had fallen, by an expression in his former letter. He says, at the conclusion of his second:-" It appears that you discovered, in my last, that I did not possess a quiet conscience in the church of Rome. I cannot understand how you could discover this to be the case, for I only said, if you can prove the church of Rome to be in error in any point, I shall leave her as soon as I see any proof."Here he breaks off in the middle of a sentence of his own, and leaves out that part of it on which my remark was founded, which was this:— "for I am but a late convert from the church of Scotland, in which I

* A Vindication of the Remarks on the Charge of the Bishop of Durham, page 45.

was educated from my youth, and if I thought it possible to obtain salration in any other, (i. e. than the church of Rome,) I would not be another day in her communion," &c. It was upon his words, which I have here printed in Italics, that I founded the remark, that W. D. was heartily tired of the communion of his church, seeing he would not remain in her another day, if it were possible to obtain salvation in any other. If any man were to say, I would not lodge another day in this house, if it were possible to obtain another to accommodate my family, who would not infer that he was heartily tired of his present residence? There are several things in my correspondent's letter too trifling to require an answer; such as, when did I form the plan of my work? It is of more importance to attend to his promise; or what, perhaps, he means as a threat, in these words, "Take up any point of Catholic faith, and I shall be ready to contest it with you to the last, if you keep within the bounds of reason." Now I must give my correspondent a piece of information which will surprise him:-It never was my intention to contest with him, or any body else, any point of "catholic faith;" that is, any doctrine which the universal church of Christ, the whole body of real Christians, in all ages, have derived from the word of God. This is what is properly called catholic faith; and so far from contesting, it is my purpose to maintain it to the last. It requires no small degree of effrontery in the vassals of Rome, to call themselves Catholics, and their sect the Catholic church: yet, through mere indifference, this has been conceded to them by most Protestants, in writing and conversation, for half a century. This has given them a vast advantage in their endeavours to corrupt ignorant persons, with whom names have often more weight than things. It is one of their tricks to turn up what is called the apostles' creed, which is acknowledged to be a composition of great antiquity, to quote the words, "holy catholic church," in which Protestants profess to believe; and triumphantly to appeal to the language of our own profession, as an admission that the church of Rome is the true church. Ignorant people, who never hear the word catholic applied to any church but that of Rome, are very apt to stumble and be deceived by this inconsistency in the language of Protestants, and the advantage which Papists take of it. I hope this most teasing and tormenting work of mine, to give it no worse name, will have this among other important effects, to restore the legitimate word papist to its place in our vocabulary. It was used by popish writers themselves, without scruple, a hundred and fifty years ago; and it would be so still, if they did not wish to conceal from Protestants, the real nature of their dependence upon the pope.

I am aware, however, that W. D. means the faith of Rome; but then, what becomes of his promise, or threat, to contest every point with me? He speaks as if I had not yet entered upon the controversy; as if he were waiting till I should begin, that he might begin his defence. Now he certainly knows, that I have taken up, and at least endeavoured to refute, many a point of Romish faith. Under the heads of transubstantiation, and purgatory, the supremacy of Peter, and of the pope, &c. &c., I have endeavoured to expose some fundamental articles of the faith of Rome, as no better than the invention of the devil. Why is it that he has not entered upon the contest, as he says he is ready to do? He makes a condition, indeed, by which, perhaps, he will justify him

self; that is, if I "keep within the bounds of reason;" but he must prove that I have exceeded these bounds, before he can lawfully declare off. This he has not done, nor even attempted to do. I insist, therefore, upon his fulfilling his engagement, to "contest every point with me to the last ;" and he must do something more than merely assert that I misrepresent the faith of his church; and that misrepresenting has been the practice of all the reformers. I know it has been the practice of all Papists to say so; but if it really were so, nothing could be easier than to prove it. It is sometimes difficult to expose a quibble or a sophism, in intelligible language; but a misrepresentation may be exposed in a moment, by any person who understands the subject of it. If, for instance, it were a misrepresentation to say that a Papist worships, as his God, that which his eyes and other senses tell him is but a piece of bread, in the form of a wafer, it could instantly be corrected by giving the real doctrine of the church as laid down by her authorized standards; and so with regard to any other point: but neither W. D. nor any other writer, has yet shown, by a single example, that I have so misrepresented the faith of Rome. I hold it then as good as admitted, that I have given a true representation of it.

He objects to my statement and remarks upon the different degrees of sin, as taught in the Douay Catechism; but does little more than state an objection. He adduces neither argument nor fact to prove that I had mistaken the meaning of the catechism, in which we have a list of seven sins which are called deadly, and two classes of other sins which are distinguished from those that are deadly. What could I infer from this, but that those which are distinguished from deadly sins are not deadly ones? W. D. tells me that it is not so understood by him and his brethren; but then I must tell him that he does not understand the meaning of words. I might as well say that when Papists are spoken of as distinguished from Protestants, it is not understood that the one class of persons is different from the other. He tells us, indeed, that the sins which are distinguished from the deadly, are more heinous and more grievous than the deadly ones. I did not know before that there was any thing worse than deadly; any thing beyond the eternal death which sin deserves. I have seen no such doctrine in any of the authorized standards of his church; and must suppose it is merely a private opinion of W. D., which is of no authority whatever. I do certainly maintain that every sin is deadly in its own nature, and by the righteous judgment of God. The smallest deviation from the divine law is disobedience as really as the greatest. Yet I believe there is no sin so deadly as that the mercy of God cannot pardon it, or that the blood of Christ cannot cleanse from it. Without pretending to speak peremptorily on a difficult subject, I am inclined to think, that our Lord's words, with regard to the sin against the Holy Ghost, had a special reference to the malignant rejection of the Saviour, by the Jews, after they had seen his miracles, and witnessed the effects of the descent of the Holy Spirit after his resurrection. Be this as it may, we are warranted from the whole tenor of the gospel to say, that no sin which any man has committed shall not be forgiven, if he shall come to Christ for forgiveness. Final impenitence is a deadly sin, in every sense of the expression, though the church of Rome has not put it into that list; for he that is guilty of it, shuts himself up, absolutely and for

ever, out of the reach of mercy. W. D. cites the words of the apostle John, (1 Epist. v. 17.) "There is a sin unto death, and a sin not unto death," to defend the popish distinction between venial and mortal sins. If the apostle had said there is a sin that does not deserve death, or is not in its nature deadly, he would have given countenance to the popish doctrine; but this was impossible, for it would have been contrary to the whole tenor of the word of God, which cannot contradict itself. What the apostle says, is true of every sin for which a sinner obtains repentance,—it is not unto death; but sin unrepented of, is unto death; and as such, is not to be prayed for, according to the words of the same apostle, in the immediately preceding verse. Final impenitence or impenitence to death, is, I suppose, the only thing which fellow-creatures are warranted to call sin unto death: and the apostle's injunction not to pray for it, is a strong testimony against the popish doctrine of purgatory and prayers for the dead, which perhaps he may have had in his eye, for that was one of the errors that appeared in the church at a very early period. Though impenitence, in the case of any individual, should not be final, it effectually bars forgiveness while it continues; and we have no warrant to pray for the pardon of the sins of an unbeliever, or impenitent person, but in the way of his being first brought to faith and repentance. I hope W. D. will not take it amiss, that I recommend to him the serious consideration of these things. He may rest assured that he is more likely to profit by the contemplation of every sin, as deserving God's wrath and curse, than by endeavouring to impose upon the words of an inspired apostle, a meaning that would countenance the error, that some sins are so trifling as not to deserve punishment in the next, as well as in the present world.

I advised W. D. to return to the church of Scotland, because, by his own account, he had left it under an erroneous impression of the doctrine held by that church. I did not hold up the church of Scotland as the only true church, or as the best of all possible churches, as Papists foolishly hold up theirs; but I maintain it as a principle of equity and common sense, that if a man leaves any church from a mistake with regard to any of its principles, he ought to return and confess his mistake, as soon as it is pointed out to him, unless he had found a better, which, it is very evident W. D. has not done.

My correspondent, by an indefinite use of the word church, bewilders himself, as all other Papists do. They hold it as a first principle, that the universal church of Christ is a visible organized body; and that it must be under one visible head, such as the pope. But nothing can be more unlike the pattern exhibited in the New Testament. When apostles speak of the church of Christ, in the singular number, they mean the whole company of believers, gathered together as one body in Christ, who is their only Head, Lord, and Lawgiver, In this sense, I admit that there can be only one true church; but then it is not a church exclusively on the earth; the greater part of it is in heaven. When the word church is used in reference to the associations of Christians in this world, so far from its being true that there can be only one true church on earth, there may be a thousand of them,-all true churches, and all living by faith in their divine Head, as separate members, but all belonging to the general body, and united to him of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named. Thus we

read, in the New Testament, of the church in Jerusalem, the church in Antioch, the seven churches in Asia, and the churches in Galatia, of which the number is not mentioned. It never occurred to inspired writers, when speaking of organized bodies of Christians, that there was only one true church in the world. This folly was reserved for the pope of Rome and his blinded adherents in later times; and it is worthy of remark, that the apostle Paul, when addressing the Christians in Rome, does not call them a church. Addressing those in Corinth, once and again, he speaks to them in their collective capacity, as "the church of God which is at Corinth." In like manner, several other churches are addressed; but his epistle to the Romans is addressed" to all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints," (chap. i. v. 7.) as if they had been so many unconnected individuals; and then, from the 16th chapter, we are led to infer that there were at least three churches in that city. In v. 3-5. speaking of Priscilla and Aquila, it is said, there was a church in their house. In the 14th verse salutations are sent to Asyncritus, and others, "and the brethren which are with them ;" and in the 15th verse, Philologus, and two or three more are mentioned, "and all the saints which are with them.” These small bodies of Christians, meeting in different places, perhaps compelled to meet in private houses, not being allowed greater publicity, would no doubt have a bond of union among themselves, so as to acknowledge, and have fellowship with one another, as they had opportunity; but it is a fact, that they are rowhere in scripture called the church of Rome. Yet, without the shadow of a foundation in the New Testament, a monster has arisen under this title, boasting itself to be the only true church on earth, and the mother and mistress of all churches.

If I could get my correspondent to understand what a visible organized church is, he would see that it does not necessarily follow, from the circumstance of one church being right, that another must be wrong. Every church is in the right that holds the faith once delivered to the saints; and every church is wrong that corrupts or denies this faith, of which the church of Rome has been notoriously, and above all others, guilty, for fifteen hundred years: and as for differences in government, discipline, and forms of worship among Protestant churches, though it would be foolish to say they are all alike agreeable to the word of God, yet the difference between the most opposite extremes, is not equal in importance to many doctrinal differences in the church of Rome. I admit, that it is "impossible that God should reveal one religion to one people, and a contrary one to another;" and when W. D. says that he hears this "very often from men of good education, and even from the pulpits," I must tell him, in plain English, that I do not believe it. Unless he is content to sit down under the odious imputation which this implies, he will tell me from what pulpits he heard such a sentiment expressed, and who were the speakers.

Though there is much to be deplored in the divisions which exist among Protestants, their separation into different communions is a proof of their honesty and sincerity; but the pretended union of doctrine in the church of Rome proves her insincerity and falsehood. The former are so ingenuous and candid, that they cannot profess to be all of one mind, when they are not; hence their separation into dif