"I accept," he says, "his challenge, and call upon him to redeem his pledge." "Let him define and state clearly by which law he will stand or fall." "Let him show an honest face and weapons, and he shall find me ready to join issue with him." I will, Sir, leave Mr. B. to take his own course. He may prove his allegations from the Holy Scriptures, from Ancient and Modern Authors, from Popes, Councils, Living or Dead Witnesses, or from any source he may deem expedient. I now call upon Mr. Bentley to redeem his pledge. "I undertake," he says, "to prove, to the satisfaction of your readers in general, that the Romish Church teaches not only one, but several fundamental and fatal errors.' "Let him,' to use his own words, "show an honest face." "Let him choose his ground and his weapons, and he shall find me ready to join issue with him."

SIR

Your very obliged and obedient Servant,

[FROM THE JOURNAL OF MARCH 8.]

you and

your

W. L.

To the Editor of the Worcester Journal. IR,-W. L. has troubled readers with another letter quite worthy of himself, and the cause he has volunteered to advocate. It would not become me, as his opponent, to attach to himself and his letter, the epithets of which both are deserving. I shall first expose the one, and answer the jesuitism of the other, and then cheerfully commit both to the impartial judgment of your readers. His first letter challenged the Protestant world to point out a single error in Popery he was then called upon to say by what rule error and truth shall be ascertained; but his reply blinks the question, and declines the selection of any definite standard of religious truth. He proclaimed himself, without provocation, ready to join issue with any of your readers, on the great questions between Protestants and Papists; but his rejoinder my first letter, proves him unworthy of any further notice, either from you or myself. He shall not, however, escape thus. He called for controversy, and let him now digest it, and bear the consequences. Though I have no wish to occupy your pages with theological disputation, deeming it but an ill-assorted article in a newspaper, yet, having gone so far, you will allow me the requisite space to expose, a little further, this boastful champion, who has had the effrontery to dare the conflict, without courage to take the field.

to

He begins by saying, "I will pass by the major part of his letter." So indeed he has done, most completely. Your readers will agree with him, that this was, in every sense,

wisest and best. It shows his dexterity, if not his honour; and illustrates the policy, if not the candour, by which he is actuated. Next, he says, "and (I will) proceed to the question." This is a promise; where is its performance? He has not proceeded to the question. The major part of my letter was directed to what ought to be the preliminary step in every controversy, the ascertainment of some data, some rule, or final appeal, by which both parties agree to be bound. Such an agreement W. L. declines, and then says, with a composure highly amusing, "and (I will) proceed to the question." Has he agreed to any test out of the proposals I submitted? Has he bound himself to abide by my standard of Truth, or chosen another for himself? Has he defined on what ground he means to defend the alleged errors of Popery? Has he shown an honest face, and exhibited his panoply as a man of honour, who scorns alike to conceal his weapon under his cloak, or to cover his deed by the darkness of the night? Has he, like an honest Catholic, said, I believe as my Church believes; or has he, like an honest man, said, I try the Church's belief by the Bible? Or, has he, in any sense, met my proposal of defining explicitly, on whose decision he will allow the proof of error to be valid, and by what exclusive test the religious opinions of Christians ought to be tried? The validity of my impeachment of Popery, and the efficiency of his defence, are both inseparable from "the law and the testimony." I can prove nothing, and he can defend nothing, till we have both circumscribed our authorities, and invested some judge with the right of judgment.

He says, indeed, "I will leave Mr. B. to take his own course. He may prove his allegations from the Holy Scriptures, from Ancient or Modern Authors, from Popes, Councils, Living or Dead Witnesses, or from any source he may deem expedient. A more complete evasion of the very core of the controversy, was never penned by Jesuit. What if I bring proof of error in the Church of Rome, from any source or authority W. L. has named, does he bind himself to bow to that authority? Does he expect that I shall allow him a similar license, and admit that he is to defend the errors of his Church, from any source he may deem expedient? The terms, in fact, are utterly ridiculous. I may prove the errors of Popery from any source I deem expedient." What, then, are all sources, "Popes, Councils, Ancient and Modern Authors, Living and Dead Witnesses," all of equal authority with the Holy Scriptures? Are the Apocryphal Writings-which never were admitted by the Jews into the Old Testament Canon, nor by Christians into the New-to be placed in the same rank? Are we to appeal equally to all these authorities? Does W. L. know what he has written ?-does he agree to be judged, as a Papist, by any authority I may deem expedient? He cannot be sane, or at least not serious. He does but burlesque him

;

self and his cause. We must have an infallible judge between us, whose voice both must agree to obey. But W. L. by telling me to appeal to Authors Ancient or Modern, or any source I may deem expedient, does, in fact, decline the argument; for the greater part of the proofs he allows me to use, he would pronounce destitute of authority. For instance, Matt. xxiii, 8, 9, 10, "Be not ye called Rabbi; for one is your master, even Christ, and all ye are Brethren. And call no man your father upon earth for one is your father which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, even Christ." This authority against the office of Pope (Papa, Father) and against the authority of Councils, he would not admit; because, possibly, he would aver, that his Church had authority to put upon it quite a different gloss. Again, it is impossible that he can believe in all authors, Ancient and Modern-as infallible; for they are replete with contradictions and yet he leaves me at liberty to take any of them for my Appeal. But neither does he believe in the infallible decision of all councils; for then he would hold both the negative and positive of every theological proposition that was ever broached: neither can he allow me to appeal to all Popes-for there have been more than one at the same time, who have excommunicated each other, and, at different times, the Decrees of one have been annulled by those of another.-Should I deem it expedient to appeal to the decisions of the English Parliament, or the Articles of the English Church, or the Decrees of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, still he could not admit their authority, for they all condemn Popery. But yet he says, "he may prove his allegations from any source he may deem expedient:" and what then? W. L. will decline to submit his opinions to any such sources of trial, and I shall have spent my strength on the air, or have assailed a man of straw. W. L. has said, "let him (Horace Bentley) show an honest face," &c. He has done so he has defined his appeal, and excluded all other, in the simplest terms-"the Bible, the Bible only, is the Religion of Protestants." Now, W. L. face him-and show your honest face in return, and say, "AGREED:" or say, "nay; Popes, Councils, and Fathers are above the Inspired Volume-and are my appeal." Say at once, "the Bible is not to be understood nor interpreted by common sense, and must be read only through the spectacles of the Church of Rome; with her resides a higher ability to maintain what is truth, and to express it for human instruction, than with the Spirit of truth himself or with Jesus Christ and his Apostles." This would be honest. One of these two things you must now do : or, like a true Jesuit, you may muffle up your face in your cloak, and retire, without having shewn your weapons to the light, but not without having betrayed your intentions. have boastfully said, "I defy any man to prove me in error, because I won't tell any man what error is." W. L. is now

You

betwixt the horns of a dilemma. If he assumes my proposition, "the Bible, and the Bible only, is the religion of CATHOLIC and PROTESTANT," he condemns Popes, Images, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, &c. And if he takes the opposite proposition-Popes, Councils, Fathers, are the final interpreters of the Scripture-the authority above Revelation, then he knows that I shall demand, and that he cannot produce, indubitable and ample demonstration. Both horns of the dilemma, I know, are sharp; but between them he cannot remain, and his position on either must be fatal. There, for the present, I leave him, with this recommendation-that whenever he again feels disposed to shew his skill in polemics, he should recollect that a little more caution, and a great deal more discrimination, than he has displayed in the present skirmish, will be requisite either to bring him off the field with honour, or to make a safe retreat. When he is disposed to come forward with a manly avowal of his infallible test of Truth and Error, he will find me still ready to meet him. I have left mine upon record in your columns, and, till he agrees to it, or controverts it, he surely deserves no further indulgence from the Editor of this Journal, and will receive no further notice from

HORACE BENTLEY.

SIR,

[FROM THE JOURNAL OF MARCH 22.]

To the Editor of the Worcester Journal.

OUR respectable correspondent, H. Bentley, has most

Yound rubbedly mistaken the question upon which the con

troversy, in your pages, commenced. It was not what constitutes the Religious Creed of Protestants or Catholics. No, Sir, the question was simple and plain; and required no extraordinary erudition to comprehend it; no difficult task for my learned friend to dissolve. He who can discover so many errors taught by the Catholic Church, "errors fundamental and fatal," certainly cannot feel the least difficulty in pronouncing sentence upon a question plain and intelligible to the meanest capacity. Mr. B. says, "By using the term error, he compels me to demand first a definition." This is not unlike asking the prisoner at the bar, to define, before he is tried, "what is crime?" The question for my respected friend to dissolve, is simply this, -Does the Catholic Church teach an erroneous doctrine? or, iu other words,-Do her dogmatical precepts deviate one iota from the Truth? My learned friend says, they do; and he further says, "I undertake to prove, to the satisfaction of your readers in general, that the Romish Church teaches not only one, but several fundamental and fatal errors. "" This is the

point at issue between us; prove this, and the controversy is at an end; and I will immediately redeem the pledge I have given.

Mr. H. B.'s long letter to you, Sir, is any thing but an answer to the question; it is written in a strain unbecoming the gentleman. What in the name of common sense, has Papist, Jesuit, Pope, or Devil to do with it? He certainly is not acquainted with the general practice in our Courts of Justice, or he never would have required the accused to open the pleadings, and to consent to a prejudication of the case.

I have fairly and candidly left it to him, to prove his accusations by what rule or means he pleases. Why so shy, Mr. B.? could you wish or desire a more liberal antagonist than one who has left you to take your own course? However, Sir, to shorten the controversy as much as possible, and not to encumber your pages with extraneous matter, I will, without hesitation, accede to H. B.'s own propositions. "We must," he says, "have an

Infallible judge between us, whose voice we must both agree to obey." "W. L. has said, let him (Horace Bentley) show an honest face; (I made use of his own words) he has done so-he has defined his appeal, and excluded all others in the simplest terms. The Bible, the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants.' "Now, W. L. face him, and show your honest face and say, 'agreed.'" Agreed!-I agree to Mr. B.'s proposals, leaving him to prove from the Scriptures, or from any other source he may deem expedient, either in the Heavens above, or on the Earth beneath. And I will abide the decision of the infallible umpire, leaving him to appoint whom he pleases; I will object to no one-no, not to the Bible, nor any thing else. I now call upon Mr. B. to redeem his pledge; I have fearlessly accepted his own terms; and to prevent a multitude of unnecessary words, I expect him to prove, and not call upon me to define, his unmeaning assertions. Do not run away, Mr. B. with the idea that W. L. will be frightened to meet you with the Bible in your hand,―mistake me not, I will condescend to give you every advantage you can possibly wish or desire. Let him, Sir, bring forward his proofs clearly and explicitly, and leave all extraneous subjects to those who have a bad cause to advocate, and who want matter for argument. I am, Sir,

Your obedient Servant,

Be, 9th March, 1827.

W. L.