taught, can be enforced, and can be constantly maintained. Now as the method of instructing by authority, is that which answers all these heavenly purposes, and leads man to virtue and happiness in a manner conformable to his nature; and as the contrary method, whereby people are desired to shake off authority and judge for themselves, naturally leads to so great evils, and is so ill suited to the state and condition of mankind: it follows that the Roman Catholic Religion, which is the only one that instructs by authority, is also the only Religion whose method of instructing is adapted to the nature of man.

But does not this doctrine, which enforces the necessity and the obligation of being guided by Church authority, tend to make people the vassals and slaves of churchmen? Are we to hoodwink our reason, and blindly to follow whatever the clergy say? Are they not men as well as others, and as such, are they not liable to error? Might they not pervert their authority to bad purposes, and make us their dupes?

Objections of this sort, which indeed we but too often hear, proceed only from ignorance, pride, or passion; -they must immediately vanish, if we but calmly listen to the voice of reason. The authority we are obliged to submit to, is not that of any clergyman speaking or acting from himself; but it is the authority of the entire body of the Pastors of the Church. Each clergyman, in the discharge of his functions, acts as the Church's deputy. It is in her name, and by her authority, he instructs and guides the faithful committed to his care. The submission and obedience paid him in this capacity, is paid to the Church itself; and in obeying the Church, we obey Jesus Christ. Can this reasonable obedience (which regards only the concern of our souls) be called vassalage or slavery to churchmen? Or is it hoodwinking our reason, to submit to what is in fact the authority of God himself? That clergymen are only men, like others; that as such, they are liable to error; that they might possibly pervert their authority to bad purposes; all this is certainly true. But though they be of themselves liable to error, and capable of abusing their authority, we have nothing to fear by giving ourselves up to their guidance, as long as they preach only the doctrine of the

Church, and confine their authority to spiritual matters, for which alone it was given. If, indeed, any clergyman should happen to prove such a traitor to his trust, as to give out a doctrine different from that of the Church (a matter which would immediately spread an alarm), or if he should be imprudent enough to enforce his authority, which is spiritual, in matters that are merely temporal, every one knows, that in the former case he must, and in the latter he may be disobeyed; because he then ceases to be invested with the authority of the Church and of Jesus Christ; and thus we are secured from the danger of being (what the enemies of our religion are so apt to call us) dupes of the clergy.

However, from all that has been said on this subject, no one can doubt but that, whilst a clergyman goes on in the ordinary course of those functions the Church has cut out for him, he is entitled to the respect and obedience due to the minister of the Church of Jesus Christ, this quality is never to be overlooked, on account of any frailties of the person; and obedience cannot be refused without overturning the very foundations of faith: hence a disposition of revolt against the clergy, of disobedience to their authority, of aversion and contempt of them, carries with it all the malice and guilt of heresy; for by such a disposition every heresy is already formed in its cause; and from thence each particular heresy flows as a stream from its source.

you

How do shew that the Roman Catholic Religion is the religion which, of all others, shews best our Saviour's love for mankind, and holds him forth to us in the most amiable light?

From what has been already said, it plainly appears, that the Roman Catholic Religion is the only one that represents our Divine Redeemer as fulfilling the duties of the best of parents; in procuring us instructions the most proper and most suitable to our nature; in becoming even himself our instructor, and thus performing his loving promise, that he would not leave us orphans; in giving us (beside himself, the invisible guide) a visible one, we cannot mistake, that will guard us against going astray, and will direct us in that belief which, under pain of being eternally lost, is required of us. Our Divine

might be alleged, the Roman Catholic has, from the word of God himself, an entire and evident confirmation of what his own reason had already told him of his Church's Authority: whence with the fullest confidence he may rest assured that he cannot go astray under her guidance. Such are the grounds of certainty a Roman Catholic has with regard to his faith; and every person of candour must acknowledge they are just and reasonable.

Well, and how do you shew that a person who differs from the Roman Catholic Church has reason to fear being led astray, by interpreting the Scripture according to his own opinion and judgment?

say

He surely has every reason to fear it, when he considers, that to mistake in opinion is what daily happens to thousands and thousands, in other less difficult matters as well as in religion. Is not this even what he himself must of all those, who following their own opinion as he does, yet differ from him? Is it not even the nature of man, to be liable to error of judgment? And what privilege can he plead, to be exempt from the common lot of mankind? Is it that he seeks the truth with more candour and sincerity than others do? Such a notion, however he may flatter himself with it, must appear presumption and folly in the eyes of others. Moreover, by persuading himself he cannot go astray in his own interpretation of Scripture, he assumes to himself that infallibility he denies the Roman Catholic Church. Besides all this, he has to encounter against the certainty of his opinion, an argument which cannot possibly fail to make the deepest impression on an unbiassed person. I mean, that the sense he gives the Scripture is contrary to the sense in which it is understood by all the wise and learned men the Roman Catholic Church comprises within its pale, and contrary to what is acknowledged to have been believed by all Christendom at least for several ages. If, after all this, he persists in saying that he is sure he is right in following his own opinion and judgment, we can only beseech God to give him what Solomon begged of the Almighty for himself, that is, a docile heart. But it is sufficiently plain to whoever is open to conviction, that he has no just cause to be assured he does not mistake in his opinion, and of course that he has no reasonable grounds of certainty with regard to his faith.

But if we attempt to trace the origin of any other sect or society of Christians, we find ourselves stopped as soon as we come to the author of that sect, and the time of its forming a separate congregation:-here the chain is broken, the line of succession is cut short: from that time only, and not higher, can the origin of that sect or society of Christians be dated; just in the same manner (to use an example) as the Republic of Holland cannot be traced higher than about two hundred years ago, when the seven United Provinces shook off the yoke of Spain, and formed themselves into a separate state; and as also the American Republic began only the other day, by separating from the empire of Great Britain, and cannot therefore attempt to date its origin at any earlier period. Such exactly is the case of every Christian Society, except the Roman Catholic Church, whose origin reaches up to the apostles, whilst each of the others can go no higher than the time of its separation. And hence it appears plain to the weakest capacity, that it is only the Roman Catholic Church which can trace up its origin to Christ and his Apostles.

How do you shew that the Roman Catholic Church is the only Christian Society that has not violated the ninth Article of the Creed?

The ninth article of the Creed is, I believe the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints; by which words we declare, that we hold as an article of our belief, a true Church of Christ constantly subsisting on earth, which is holy, which is Catholic (that is, universal), and which is that communion wherein the saints are found. Now it is plain, that breaking off from this Church, which we thus in the creed profess to believe, is certainly violating or going against the ninth article of the Creed. But the Roman Catholic Church stands totally free from this charge, having, as all the world knows, never broken off from that standing body of Christians, which in all ages has been called the Catholic Church; being in fact itself, that very Church that has all along subsisted and borne the name of Catholic:-every other society of Christians, on the contrary, has broken off from this standing body, has quitted its communion, and formed as its origin a new church and congregation separate from all

that was before it. By which it is evident, that every one of these sects, however they may attempt to assign reasons for their separation, have by this very separation violated the ninth article of the Creed.

To render this argument quite short and decisive, we may thus reason with each and every one of these sects: -At the time your church formed a separate communion, either there was a true Church of Christ subsisting on earth, or there was not:-If there was, your Church, by forming a separate communion, quitted and renounced this true church of Christ :-If you say there was not, then you give the lie to the Creed, in as much as you make it propose as the object of our belief, a thing that did not exist.

Thus, without further inquiry, we see at once, that all the different sects of Christians who are separated from the Roman Catholic Church, carry on the very face of them their own condemnation.

But is it not very uncharitable to believe, that the Roman Catholic Church, besides being the only true Church, is the only one in which salvation can be obtained?

It is by no means uncharitable to believe this; no more than it is uncharitable to believe any awful truth which God has revealed. No Christian can be justly charged with a want of charity, for believing that many are called, but that few are chosen; that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven; that he who will not believe, is already judged; that without faith it is impossible to please God; that there is but one Faith, one Lord, and one Baptism; that he who will not hear the Church, must be considered as the heathen and the publican; or, in short, that Christ at the last day, shall thus sentence the reprobate: Go, ye cursed, into eternal fire. As the firm belief of all these, and the other terrifying truths which frequently occur in holy writ, and which are manifestly damnatory of the great majority of mankind, as well at this day as in all former ages, do not clash with charity; so neither does the doctrine of exclusive salvation. Our Saviour, who was charity itself; his Prophets and Apostles, who were animated with the same divine spirit, did all respectively deliver these formidable oracles, while their