religion groundless. An unbeliever who is not ready to sacrifice his dearest passions even to a mere probability of the truth of the doctrine of a future life, gives full proof of the depravity of his heart.

any

Whether there be any one in the world, who, in spite of these dispositions, can persuade himself that religion hath no character of truth, we leave to the judgment of God: but as for those who sin against of the rules just now mentioned, (and how many reasons have we to conclude that there are numbers of this character!) they are included in the sentence of our apostle, and they deserve to feel its utmost rigour. "The unbelieving shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone."

IV. Let us advert to the fourth prejudice. Religions are indifferent. We will not go through the various sects of christianity, and decide these litigious questions, Which of these religions are compatible with salvation? Which of these religions are destructive of it? We will affirm only with our apostle, that "Idolaters shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." We intend pårticularly to wipe off that imputation which the church of Rome constantly casts on our doctrine. Under pretence that we have never been willing to denounce a sentence of eternal damnation against members of the most impure sects, they affirm that, in our own opinion, people may be saved in their community, and this, they say, is one of the articles of our faith.

妻

This is a sophism which you have often heard attributed to a prince, who had united, as far as two such different things could be united, the qualities of a great king with those of a bad christian. Haying a long time hesitated between the peaceable possession of an earthly crown, and the stedfast hope of a heavenly crown, his historian tells us, he assembled some doctors of the Roman communion and some of ours. He asked the first, Whether it were possible to be saved in the protestant communion? They answered, No. He then asked the second, Whether it were possible to be saved in the Roman communion? They replied they durst not decide the question. On this, the prince reasoned in this manner. "The Roman catholic doctors assure me "there is no salvation in the Protestant communion. The Protestants dare not affirm that there is no "salvation in the communion of Rome. Prudence, therefore, requires me to abandon the Protestant religion, and to embrace the Roman; because, in "the opinion of the Protestants, it is at the most "only probable that I should perish in the church "of Rome, whereas, in the opinion of the Roman catholics, it is demonstrative that I should be dam"ned in the Protestant community." We will not attempt to investigate this point of history, by examining whether these Protestant ministers betrayed our religion by advancing a proposition contrary to it, or whether the historian betrayed the truth by altering the answer attributed to our ministers. Whatever we think of this historical fact, we affirm

ઃઃ

with St. John, that "Idolaters shall have their part "in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone."

However, we ought to make a cautious distinction concerning doctrines, as we do concerning precepts, a distinction between questions of fact and questions of right. There is a question of right in regard to precepts; as for exampleIs a course of life opposite to the precepts of the gospel a damnable state? To this we reply, Undoubtedly it is. There is also a question of fact, as for example-Shall all those who follow such a course of life suffer all the rigour of damnation? A wise man ought to pause before he answers this question; because he doth not know whether a man who hath spent one part of his life in a course of vice, may not employ the remaining part in repentance, and so pass into a state to which the privileges of repentance are annexed. In like manner, there are questions of fact and questions of right in regard to doctrines. The question of right in regard to the present doctrine is this: Can we be saved in an idolatrous community? Certainly we cannot. The question of fact is this: Will every member of an idolatrous community be damned? A wise man ought to suspend his judgment on this question, because he who had spent one part of his life in an idolatrous community, may employ the remaining part in repenting, and consequently may share the privileges of repentance. Except in this case, according to our principles, "Idolaters shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." But, according to our principles, the Roman catho

lic church is guilty of idolatry; consequently, according to our principles, the members of the church of Rome, if they do not forsake that community, are among such as "shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone."

If it be necessary to prove, that, according to our principles, the church of Rome is guilty of idolatry, the evidence is easily obtained. Let us form a distinct idea of what, agreeably to scripture, we call idolatry. To regard a simple creature as God supreme; to render to a simple creature the worship that is due only to the supreme God, is what we call idolatry. Now, according to our principles, the members of the church of Rome do render to a creature, to a bit of bread, such worship as is due only to the supreme God. By consequence according to our principles, the members of the church of Rome are guilty of idolatry.

They defend themselves by a somewhat specious, but groundless argument. It was employed by a man* who disgraced his name by abandoning the Protestant religion, though, thanks be to God, I hope, I and my family shall always be enabled to continue it in the list of sincere Protestants. His words are these: "Two or three articles, saith he, excited strong prejudices in my mind against the church "of Rome; transubstantiation, the adoration of the "holy sacrament, and the infallibility of the church. "Of these three articles, that of the adoration of "the holy sacrament led me to consider the church "of Rome as idolatrous, and separated me from its

* Mr. Saurin of Paris.

"communion. A book which I one day opened "without design, instantly removed this objection. "There I found a distinction between error of place in worship, and error of object. The catholic worships Jesus Christ in the eucharist, an object truly "adorable. There is no error in this respect. If. "Jesus Christ be not really present in the eucharist, "the catholic worships him where he is not; this is a mere error of place, and no crime of idolatry." A mere sophism! By the same argument the Israelites may be exculpated for rendering divine honours to the golden calf. We must distinguish error of place from error of object. The Israelite worships in the golden calf the true God, an object truly adorable. "To-morrow is a feast to the Lord, the God, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt," Exod. xxxii. 5, 4. There is no error in this respect; if God be not really present in the golden calf the Israelite worships him where he is not, a mere error of place, and not the crime of idolatry. But St. Stephen saith expressly that this calf was an idol. "They made a calf, and offered sacrifice unto the idol," Acts vii. 41. By consequence, error of place in worship doth not exculpate men from idolatry. As, therefore, according to our principles, there is an error of place in the worship which Roman catholics render to their host, so also, according to our principles, they are guilty of idolatry.

But are we speaking only according to our own principles? Have we seen any thing in the wilderpess of Sinai which we do not daily see in the Ro