accuse the Catholic Church of coining new articles of faith, and of obliging all men to believe them. And as our adversaries accuse the Council of Trent on this head, so did the Eutychians as freely accuse the Council of Chalcedon; the Nestorians that of Ephesus; the Macedonians that of Constantinople; and the Arians that of Nicea. For, as it is essentially necessary for all Schismatics to accuse the Catholic Church of casual schism, so it is essentially necessary for all heresies, which either are, or ever will be in the world, to accuse the Catholic Church of coining new articles of faith, and obliging all men to believe them. Why? Because Schismatics are certainly offenders, unless the Catholic Church be guilty of their schism. And Heretics have no claim to Christianity, unless they pretend to the faith first delivered to the Saints.

"I must therefore beg leave to say, because it is undeniably true, that all Heretics and Schismatics, who ever were in Christendom, have accused the Catholic Church of UNCHARITABLENESS. All Schismatics have proclaimed her uncharitable, by being the cause of their schism. All Heretics have proclaimed her uncharitable, by coining new articles of faith, and obliging all men to believe them. consideration which ought to make our adversaries more backward in renewing the charge: for Heretics and Schismatics are bad precedents; and St. Augustine makes it a question, Which is in the more dangerous condition, a most vicious Catholic, or a person who is guilty of heresy only?

"It is a general, not an universal rule without any exception, that none are saved out of the Catholic communion : for, as in baptism, so we may here except two cases. The first is that of an inevitable and involuntary necessity: as if a person who loves God above all things, desires to be baptized or to be received into the Catholic communion, but dies before a Priest can be called. The second is probably that of an involuntary and invincible ignorance; as if a per

6

son, who is out of the Catholic communion, be ignorant, without any fault of his, of the true Church, and of the true religion. And here too Mr. Chillingworth, in his Dedication to the King, is not altogether so sincere, as might be expected from a writer of controversies concerning religion : for, if I understand him right, he would have His Majesty to think, that a point of doctrine and its explication, a general rule and its exception, are contradictions. For the most part,' says he, they speak nothing but thunder and lightning to us, and damn us all without mercy or exception. Yet sometimes, to serve other purposes, they can be content to speak to us in a milder strain, and tell us, that they allow Protestants as much charity as Protestants allow them.' Neither is this the only contradiction which I have observed in this uncharitable work; and since his Dedication is so very exact, what marks of sincerity may we not expect from the book itself?

"Can the Catholic Church be in separate communions, as in that of Catholics, of Protestants, of modern Greeks, &c.?

"This our adversaries assert; but whether by inclination or by necessity, I shall not determine, though I cannot but suspect the latter: for if it be a general rule, that there is no salvation out of the Catholic Church, how can a Protestant be saved? How can he be a member of the Catholic Church? The rock is plain. How is it to be avoided?

"For this, two courses may be assigned. The first by holding, that Protestants are the whole Catholic Church, the Church of all nations, and the Church of all ages: and that this Church, although it be always in being, for behold I am with you always,' says Christ, even to the end of the world,' is not always visible; for in the fifteenth century, and upwards, there was no known society of Protestants on the earth. The second course is, by holding that the Catholic Church may be, and is, in separate and dissenting

communion, as in that of Catholics, of Protestants, of modern Greeks, &c.

ແ The first of these two roads was not thought safe enought, though some bold sailors have attempted it; and therefore our adversaries choose rather to venture their salvation on the second; which to me seems equally unsafe, whether we consult the Scripture, the tradition of all ages,

or common sense.

"The Scripture seems very clear. For, 1st, St. Paul tells us, that without faith it is impossible to please God; and that there is only one body and one spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism. So that, as there is only one Lord and one baptism, there is only one true faith and as the Church of Christ upon earth has only one Holy Spirit, so she is only one body. From whence these consequences may be drawn:

"First, that Catholics, Protestants, and modern Greeks, have not, all of them, the saving faith, without which it is impossible to please God, according to St. Paul, and is only one, as there is only one baptism: whereas Catholics, Protestants, and modern Greeks, have three opposite professions of faith; and therefore three different faiths.

"Secondly, that Catholics, Protestants, and modern Greeks, are not all of them members of the Catholic Church; for this Church, according to St. Paul, is only one body: which three separate communions, dissenting from each other, in matters of religion, of government, of divine worship, of clear revelation, and excommunicating one the other, cannot possibly be; for, are not separate communions separate bodies? and when societies are divided with regard to religion, both in the articles of their faith and in the terms of their communion, is it not as clear as the sun, that, in matters of religion, they are not one society, but so many different and separate societies? If there be any degree of

K

uncertainty in this, are we not yet to learn what evidence

means?

"Again, Christ himself says,

Other sheep I have,' to wit, the Gentiles, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one Shepherd.' Where I observe, 1st, That our blessed Redeemer speaks here of his whole Church upon earth: for, converted Jews and converted Gentiles are the universal Church.

2dly, That few or no creatures keep so much together, as sheep of the same Shepherd, and of the same fold. They feed together, they herd together, and they are housed together so that, if you see one, you see them all.

“And therefore, 3dly, That the unity of Christ's disciples, in one faith and one communion, could not, under the emblem and allegory of sheep, be expressed with more evidence, nor even with more elegance and beauty, than by calling them one flock and one fold. But what can be more repugnant to this than the opposite system? Are Christians of separate and disagreeing communions, who, in religious matters, will neither assemble, pray, nor communicate together, in the same fold, and in the same flock? May we not despair of finding things evident in Scripture, if this be not?

"To suppose then, that Catholics, Protestants, and modern Greeks, are all of them members of the Catholic Church, is contrary to plain Scripture.

"It is also contrary to the universal tradition of the Catholic Church; as it appears, both from her two creeds, and from her unquestionable doctrine and practice, in all past ages."

Sir, their doctrine of exclusive salvation is therefore deemed essentially necessary, cannot be dispensed with by any Roman Catholic, and involves the general condemnation of all not in that Church. This point, as an assumed maxim, you must never forget in the discussion.

SIR,

LETTER XIV.

You observe, that our being excluded from the pale of the Roman Church, as well as being virtually shut out of heaven by its anathema, does not prevent us from still remaining under the Papal authority; so that, they say, we are equally liable to be punished by their Priest, however scandalous his life is, and however criminal his conduct may be! Do you think this tyrannical doctrine is fit to be taught at the 'present day, and to be even inserted in the common Bibles used by modern Papists, often reprinted in England, Scotland, and Ireland? Yet, Sir, this is the case; as I will prove, by quoting a passage from one of the last Catholic editions of the English Bible, published for their own sole use, under the eye of a Bishop and Vicar Apostolic!

The head, or contents, of DEUTERONOMY, Xviii. 8-12, runs thus: "Controversies are to be decided by the High Priest and Council, whose sentence must be obeyed under pain of death :" and the note upon that part of the text is this" Here we see" (alluding to the divine command, that whoever did not obey the Jewish Priest should die), “ Here we see what authority God was pleased to give to the Church Guides of the Old Testament, in deciding without appeal all controversies relating to the Law; promising that they should not err therein, and punishing WITH DEATH such as proudly refused to obey their decisions: AND, SURELY, HE HAS NOT DONE LESS FOR THE CHURCH GUIDES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT." See likewise the Latin quotation made by me from the Trent Catechism; and especially the Italic words, at p. 69, LETTER XII.

I intended, at first, to give merely this brief annotation from the most common edition of the English Bible, now in free use among English readers of the Popish Scriptures;