that high claim, and deftructive to it, as ten thoufand; for whoever errs in one point, is capable of erring in all →→ Are they Papifts who reafon thus? Certainly not: or they know not what they fay. To talk of holy Catholic church renouncing any of her once received, and eftablished doctrines, is the groffeft folecism in the language of a Roman Catholic, and fufficient to fix on him the brand of herefy. Nor do I fee by what right others can urge a plea in their behalf which they themselves muft reprobate. The confcientious Papifts, if fuch there be, will reckon themselves little obliged to thofe who plead for their liberty at the expence of their faith, and who fubvert the very foundations and whole fabric of their church, under pretence of feeking the eafe and better accommodation of the inhabitants.

And in this particular we are willing, for once, to agree with the Romanift, that his church hath acknowledged no change, but hath hitherto kept tenaciously to her system in thefe inftances. Her former and latter principles are not materially different, and the spirit of her dark and enlightened periods (if that kingdom of darknefs was ever yet enlightened) is much the fame. The beaft ftill' fpeaks as a dragon, though he has the horns of a lamb. To hear of Rome renouncing, and reforming, would be a greater wonder than to hear that he is no more. There is need of more than ordinary evidence to ascertain a fact so extraordinary. But upon what good grounds do any af firm this? We have proved, a priori, upon the principles of Popery, that this is impoffible; and we deny, in fact, that it has been done: it belongs to them to produce incontrovertible evidence of the contrary. Let thefe public and folemn acts of renunciation be shown, and the nature and importance of the caufe requires that these should be as clear, full and direct as poffible, that all clamour may be filenced, and every remaining doubt for ever removed. But as no fuch documents, to prove the fuppofed change,

have hitherto been produced, fo we defpair of ever feeing them. There has been but one general council fince the Jight of Reformation, dawned; but we hope they will not fend us to the registers of that council to find them.

"But though the church of Rome cannot change, be"cause the cannot err, yet her members may: and it can"not be denied, that many modern Papifts have relin"quished the creed of their ancestors in thefe points, and 46 are ready to renounce them in the moft explicit and "public manner; why then refufe fuch a legal indul"gence, and continue ftill to load them with all the er<< rors of their church? -For very good reafon: because they continue to load themselves with them by continuing ftill Papifts. No true or confiftent idea can be formed of a Papift, but as one who adopts the very fame faith and profeffion with the church of Rome. It is abfurd and prepofterous to judge of the principles of that church, from the private opinions and practices of fome of her members; but, according to the fundamental law of her conftitution, we are obliged to proceed in the very contrary order, and to form our estimate of the faith and principles of all her members, from the public faith and authoritative decifions of that church, to which they all affent, and in which they are all fuppofed to be agreed. And while thefe remain unaltered, the private judgment, and perfonal profeffions of individuals to the contrary, are of no confequence *. Muft we again repeat it, that a Papift

has

"It is to no purpofe," fays one writing upon this fubject, “to collect the "authorities of theologués, the refcripts of Popes, or even the decrees of coun*cils, if any fuch decrees there be. The Roman Catholic fill will repeat, "that" he believes no fuch doctrines:" and I fee no other answer that can "be returned, but that he is a d-d lying Papift, to whofe affeverations no credit " is due."-If thefe authorities are nothing to the purpose, certainly the repeated affeverations of a private Roman Catholic, in oppofition to them, are much less to the purphfe; otherwife, the authority of the church is fuperfeded by private judgment. Are her unerring doctrines, then, liable to be queftioned,

has no private judgment, nor any faith of his own, but what is impofed upon him. While he is a Papift he confeff es the church's infallibility, and implicitly fubmits himself to all her dictates, whereby he becomes refponfible for all the errors fhe hath taught, teaches, or fhall teach, to the end of the world. And a Papist must fooner renounce his own understanding, confcience, and faith, than accufe his church of error; and, upon fuppofition that his own private judgment or belief differ in the least from the public, he is by his own confeffion.erring: and what he believes or profeffes in error, he is bound to renounce, whenever he is by public authority (acknowledged unerring) required to do fo; or as foon as he comes to the knowledge of his error; that is, as foon as he discovers that the church thinks and teaches differently, which may be the very next day, or next hour, after he hath made fuch profeffions, or renunciations, as those fuppofed in the objection. If the tenets in queftion belong to the faith of the church of Rome, no Papist can consistently renounce them, or, if he do, by the general tenor of his profeffion as a Papift, he declares to all the world, that he deferves, in that cafe, no credit; feeing he holds himself obliged to abide by the faith of his church, even in oppofition to himself and all mankind. What he feems to yield and caft away with one

and contradicted at pleasure; and her invariable decrees of fo little force as to be fet afide, and annihilated, by the fickle opinions, the fluctuating and capricious notions of every individual? What a monft ous abfurdity is here fuppofed Roman Catholic, and yet believing otherwife than the church believes,—and profefling otherwife than her Popes and councils have decreed! How will this comport with the following articles of the Romanift's creed, "I do acknow"ledge the holy Catholic and apostolic Roman church to be the mother and "miarefs of all churches; and I do promife and fwear true obedience to the bishop of Rome, the fucceffor of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, and "the vicar of Jefus Chrift.-I do undoubtedly receive and profess all other things which have been delivered, defined, and declared by the facred canons, and ecumenical councils, and especially by the holy fynod of Trent; and all things cont ary thereunto, and all herefies condemned, rejected, and anathe matized by the church, I do likewife condemn, reject, and anathematize." Leit. on relig. Moderat. let. v. Creed of Pope Pius IV. art. 23, et 24.

2

[ 221

hand, he holds faft with the other. Such kind of profet fions being inconfiftent with the firft, the fixed, conftant, and effential principles of a Bapift*, amount to nothing, and can give no real fecurity.

1

4

To fpeak then of Roman Catholics changing or renouncing their principles, is as abfurd as to fpeak of Rome herfelf doing fo; for without her they can do nothing. However defirable it would be, to behold her deluded votaries emerging from their darkness, bursting their bonds of iniquity, and adopting more generous, liberal, and Chriftian fentiments, yet fuch an event cannot rationally be expected, while they continue their connection with Rome, and dependence upon it. They muft renounce the whole fyftem, and affume another denomination; in other words, they must cease to be Papists, before fuch a change can take place in earnest; at leaft, before any can be bound, in reafon, to fuftain it as real or fatisfactory. Popery and liberality of fentiment, ecclefiaftical infallibility and private judgment, are as diftant and oppofite as the poles: and a Papift, as fuch, and while he continues fuch, muft ever remain the fame flavish, unenlightened, indocible and inconvertible animal, as long as an old man wears a mitre at Rome, and the priestly oracles give forth their refponfes.

According to the bishop of Meaux, one great ufe which a Catholic reader will make of his Hiftory of the Variations of the Protestant Churches, is this ;He will deplore the weakneffes and miferies incident to the human mind, "and know, that the only remedy for fuch great evils is to learn to be denied to his own judgment; for it is this makes the difference between the Catho"lic and the heretic. The diftinguishing character of the heretic, that is, of "him who holds a particular or private opinion, is, that he adheres to his own fentiments; whereas the proper mark of the Catholic, that is, of the uni verfaliit, is, to prefer the common fentiment of the whole church to his "own and this is the grace which he will beg in behalf of those who err." Hift. des Variat. des Egl. Prot. to. i. pref. § 29.

It

1

It cannot, however, be doubted, but that many of those who adhere to the church of Rome, may really abhor the obnoxious tenets in queftion, and heartily difavow them, from a conviction of their falfhood and impiety; while more may be equally ready to do fo from other confiderations, and that with the confent or connivance of their leaders, with a view more effectually to promote their caufe. If thofe doctrines did not pafs uncontroverted in the darkeft ages, when the Papacy was at its height, it need not appear ftrange, that a greater latitude should be both taken and allowed, now when it's power is fo much reduced: especially this may be expected of thofe living in the heart of Proteftant countries, where it would be equally hazardous and ridiculous to affert fuch unreafonable claims, and avow openly fuch wild and extrava gant principles. But those who make fuch profeffions are either Papists, or they are not: if they are, their willingnefs to renounce them muft either arise from a happy ignorance of the genuine principles of mother church, or from difregard and wilful contempt of her authority, which they acknowledge to be, of all things on earth, the most sacred. In either cafe their profeffions must be unfatisfactory, as they are in both rendered invalid by their other principles and engagements, the force and effect of which is only fufpended or contravened, in this inftance, by the ignorance or error of the one, and the irreligious treachery and perfidy of the other. If they are not really Papifts, then they have nothing to do in the prefent queftion; for we speak only of the toleration of Popery, and of Papifts properly fo called; and not of those who fay they are Roman Catholics, and are not: fuch can have nothing to fear from the penal laws enacted against Papifts only; nor could there be any neceffity, or the leaft fhadow of reafon, for repealing them on their account, if they are not the perfons meant or comprehended in the ftatutes. There are, doubtlefs, in this enlightened age, a great number of Free

J

thinkers,