We ask no more from

ously the right of conscience. fellow Protestants, than what we freely grant to all, both Protestants and Papists, viz. the right of entertaining and freely expressing our opinions on their creed, without incurring, in its legitimate exercise, the charge of illiberality or sectarian feeling. We complain not of the numerous periodicals conducted by Papists for the avowed object of exposing and condemning the heresy of all who reject their creed. We seek no coverfor the truth as we hold it; we shrink from no investigation of the creed which we profess; and we call no man illiberal or uncharitable who subjects our religious creed and principles to the severest scrutiny and to the closest examination; and surely it is ungenerous in Papists, and no less partial and strangely inconsistent in Protestants, to raise the cry of persecution against those, who subject the Romish creed and principles to the same scrutiny and examination.

There is a very popular consideration urged with great earnestness by Papists on the minds of those who are "halting between two opinions"-whether to become a Papist-or remain a Protestant. It is this: that in as much as Protestants admit the possibility of salvation in the Romish Church, and as Papists utterly deny the existence of such a possibility out of it, it is the safest to be a Romanist; and on this ground some have abandoned the religion by which their fathers were conducted to heaven, and have connected themselves with the Church of Rome. "According to this principle," observes the learned Archbishop Tillotson, writing on this very subject, "it is always safest to be on the uncharitable side; and yet uncharitableness is as bad an evidence, either of a true christian, or a true church, as a man would wish."* This popular argument so indus*Archb. Tillotson's Work, vol. I. p. 126.

triously used by Papists, may be thus stated in its strongest light; both Protestants and Papists unite in admitting that those in communion with the Romish Church may be saved, but only Protestants admit that those in communion with their churches may be saved, therefore it is safest to belong to that church in which all parties agree that there is salvation. I cannot give a better answer to this argument than that already given by Archbishop Tillotson above quoted. "For answer to this," says the learned Archbishop, "I shall endeavour to shew, that this is so far from being a good argument that it is so intolerably weak and sophistical that any considerate man ought to be ashamed to be caught by it. For either it is good of itself and sufficient to persuade a man to relinquish our Church, and to pass over to theirs, without entering into the merits of the cause on either side, and without comparing the Doctrines and Practices of both the Churches together, or it is not. If it be not sufficient of itself to persuade a man to leave our Church, without comparing the Doctrines on both sides, then it is to no purpose, and there is nothing got by it. For if upon examination and comparing of Doctrines the one appear to be true and the other false, this alone is a sufficient inducement to any man to cleave to that Church where the true Doctrine is found; and then there is no need of this argument.

"If it be said that this argument is good in itself without the examination of the Doctrines of both Churches; this seems a very strange thing for any man to affirm, That it is reason enough to a man to be of any Church, whatever her Doctrines and Practices be, if she do but damn those that differ from her, and if the Church that differs from her do but allow a possibility of salvation in her Communion.

66

"But as they who use this argument pretend that it

is sufficient of itself, I shall shew the weakness of the principle upon which this argument relies; and that is this, that whatever different parties in religion agree in, is safest to be chosen. The true consequence of which principle if it be driven to the head, is to persuade men to forsake Christianity, and to make them take up in the principles of natural Religion, for in these all Religions do agree. For if this principle be true, and signify any thing, it is dangerous to embrace any thing wherein the several parties in Religion differ; because that only is safe and prudent to be chosen wherein all agree. So that this argument, if the foundation of it be good, will persuade farther than those who make use of it desire it should do; for it will not only make men forsake the Protestant Religion, but Popery too; and which is much more considerable, Christianity itself.

"I will give some parallel instances by which it will clearly be seen that this argument concludes false. The Donatists denied the Baptism of the Catholics to be good, but the Catholics acknowledged the Baptism of the Donatists to be valid. So that both sides were agreed that the Baptism of the Donatists was good, therefore the safest way for St. Austin and other Catholics (according to this argument) was to be baptised again by the Donatists, because by the acknowledgment of both sides Baptism among them was valid.

Seve

"But to come nearer to the Church of Rome. ral in that Church hold the personal Infallibility of the Pope, and the lawfulness of deposing and killing Kings for Heresy to be de fide, that is, necessary Articles of Faith, and consequently, that whoever does not believe them cannot be saved. But a great many Papists though they believe these things to be no matters of Faith, yet they think those that hold them may be saved, and they

are generally very favourable towards them. But now, according to this argument, they ought all to be of their opinion in these points because both sides are agreed that they that hold them may be saved; but one side positively says that men cannot be saved if they do not hold

them.

"St. Paul acknowledged the possibility of the salvation of those who built hay and stubble upon the foundation of Christianity, that they might be saved, though with great difficulty, and as it were out of the fire. But now among those builders with hay and stubble there were those who denied the possibility of St. Paul's salvation and of those who were of his mind. We are told of some who built the Jewish Ceremonies and observances upon the foundation of Christianity, and said that unless men were Circumcised and kept the Law of Moses they could not be saved. So that by this argument St. Paul and his followers ought to have gone over to those Judaizing Christians, because it was acknowledged on both sides that they might be saved. But these Judaizing Christians were as uncharitable to St. Paul and other Christians, as the Church of Rome is now to us, for they said positively that they could not be saved. But can any man think that St. Paul would have been moved by this argument, to leave a safe and certain way of salvation for that which was only possible, and that with great difficulty and hazard? The argument you see is the very same, and yet it concludes the wrong way; which plainly shews that it is a contingent argument, and concludes uncertainly and by chance, and therefore no man ought to be moved by it.

"If this argument were good, then by this trick a man may bring over all the world to agree with him in an error which another does not account damnable, what

ever it be, provided he do but damn all those that do not hold it; and there wants nothing but confidence and uncharitableness to do this. But is there any sense, that another man's boldness and want of charity should be an argument to move me to be of his opinion? I cannot illustrate this better, than by the difference between a skilful Physician and a Mountebank. A learned and a skilful Physician is modest, and speaks justly of things: he says, that such a method of cure which he has directed is safe; and withal, that that which the Mountebank prescribes may possibly do the work, but there is great hazard and danger in it; but the Mountebank, who never talks of any think less than Infallible cures, (and always the more Mountebank the stronger pretence to Infallibility) he is positive that that method which the Physician prescribes will destroy the patient, but his receipt is infallible and never fails. Is there any reason in this case, that this man shall carry it merely by his confidence? And yet if this argument be good, the safest way is to reject the Physician's advice and to stick to the Mountebank's. For both sides are agreed, that there is a possibility of cure in the Mountebank's method, but not in the Physician's; and so the whole force of the argument lies in the confidence of an ignorant man.

"Again, this argument is very unfit to work upon those to whom it is propounded: For either they believe we say true in this, or not. If they think we do not, they have no reason to be moved by what we say. If they think we do, why do they not take in all that we say in this matter? Namely, that though it be possible for some in the Communion of the Roman Church to be saved, yet it is very hazardous; and that they are in a safe condition already in our Church. And why then