' dates his judgments to the wrangling of pedan'tic theologues.' With equal plausibility, certain ancient philosophers have represented it as unworthy the Supreme Being, to busy himself about the actions of such reptiles as we are in his sight; and thus have opened a door to an unrestrained violation of his eternal and immutable laws! In opposition to both these schools, I maintain the following clear dictates of reason, that, as God is the author, so he is necessarily the supreme Lord and master of all beings, with their several powers and attributes, and therefore of those noble and distinguishing faculties of the human soul reason and free-will; that he cannot divest himself of this supreme dominion, or render any being or any faculty independant of himself or of his high laws, any more than he can cease to be God;-that of course, he does, and must, require our reason to believe in his Divine revelations, no less than our will to submit to his supreme commands;-that he is just, no less than he is merciful;-and therefore that due atonement must be made to him for every act of disobedience to him whether by disbelieving what he has said, or by disobeying what he has ordered. I advance a step farther, in opposition to the Hoadley and Watson school, by asserting, as a self-evident truth, that, there being a more deliberate and formal opposition to the Most High, in saying, I will not believe what thou hast revealed, than in saying, I will not practise what thou hast commanded; so, cæteris paribus, WILFUL infidelity and heresy involve greater guilt than moral frailty.

You will observe, Dear Sir, that, in the preceding passage, I have marked the word Wilful; because Catholic Divines and the Holy Fathers, at the same time that they strictly insist on the necessity of adhering to the doctrine and communion of the Catholic Church, make and ex

press exception in favour of what is termed Invincible Ignorance; which occurs, when persons out of the True Church, are sincerely and firmly resolved, in spite of all worldly allurements on one hand, and of all opposition on the other, to enter into it, if they can find it out, and when they use their best endeavours for this purpose. This exception in favour of the invincibly ignorant is made by the same Saint Augustin, who so strictly insists on the general rule above quoted. His words are these: The Apostle has told us, to reject a man that is a heretic: but, those who defend a false opinion, without pertinacious obstinacy, especially if they have not themselves 'invented it, but have derived it from their parents, and who seek the truth, with anxious solicitude, being sincerely disposed to renounce their error, as soon as they discover it, such persons are not to be deemed heretics.' (1) Our great controvertist, Bellarmine, asserts that such Christians, in virtue of the disposition of their 'hearts, belong to the Catholic Church.' (2)

Who the individuals, exteriorly of other communions, but, by the sincerity of their dispositions, belonging to the Catholic Church, who, I say, and in what numbers they are, it is for the Searcher of hearts, our future Judge, alone to determine. Far be it from me and from every other Catholic 'to deal damnation,' on any person in particular!-still thus much, on the grounds already stated, I am bound, not only in truth, but also in charity to say and to proclaim, that nothing short of this sincere disposition, and the actual use of such means as Providence respectively affords those who are ignoront of the true Church for discovering it, can secure their salvation:-to say nothing of the Catholic Sacraments and other helps for this purpose, of which such persons are unavoidably deprived.

(1) Epist. ad Episc, Donat (2) Controv. Tom. ii. lib. iii. c. 6.

I just mentioned the virtue of charity; and I must here add, that on no one point are Latitudinarians and genuine Catholics more at variance than upon this. The former consider themselves charitable in proportion as they pretend to open the gate of heaven to a greater number of religionists of various descriptions: but, unfortunately, they are not possessed of the keys of that gate; and when they fancy they have opened the gate as wide as possible, it still remains as narrow and the way to it as strait, as our Saviour describes them to be in the Gospel, Matt. vii. 14. Thus they lull men into a fatal indifference about the truths of revelation, and a false security of their salvation. Genuine Catholics, on the other hand, are persuaded that, as there is but one God, one Faith, and one Baptism, Ephes. iv. 5. so there is but ONE SHEEP-FOLD, namely, ONE CHURCH. Hence, they omit no opportunity of alarming their wandering brethren, on the danger they are in, and of bringing them into this one Fold of the one Shepherd, John, x. 16. To form a right judgment in this case, we need but ask, Is it charitable or uncharitable in the physician to warn his patient of his danger in eating unwholesome food? Again, is it charitable or uncharitable in the Watchman, who sees the sword coming, to sound the trumpet of alarm? Ezech. xxxiii. 6.

But to conclude, the Rev. Prebendary may continue, with most modern Protestants, to assign his Latitudinarianism, which admits all Religions to be right, as a mark of the truth of his sect; thus dividing Truth which is essentially indivisible: yet will the Catholic Church continue to maintain, as she ever has maintained, that there is only One Faith and one True Church, and that this her uncompromising firmness, in retaining and professing this Unity, is the first mark of her being this Church.The subject admits of being illustrated by the well-known judgment of

the wisest of men. Two women dwelt together, each of whom had an infant son; but, one of these dying, they both contended for possession of the living child, and carried their cause to the tribunal of Solomon. He, finding them equally contentious, ordered the infant they disputed about, to be cut in two, and one half of it to be given to each of them; which order the pretended mother agreed to, exclaiming, Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it. Then spake the woman, whose the living child was, unto the King; for her bowels yearned upon her son, and she said, O, my Lord, give her the living child, and in no wise slay it. Then the King answered and said, Give her the living child, and in no wise slay it; SHE IS THE MOTHER THEREOF! 1 Kings, iii. 26, 27. I am, Dear Sir, &c.

J. M.

LETTER XIX.

To JAMES BROWN, Esq., &c.

ON SANCTITY OF DOCTRINE.

DEAR SIR,

THE second mark by which you, as well as I, describe the Church in which you profess to believe, when you repeat the Apostles' Creed, is that of SANCTITY. We each of us say, I believe in the HOLY Catholic Church. Reason itself tells us, that the God of purity and sanctity could not institute a religion destitute of this character, and the inspired Apostle assures us that Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it, with the washing of water, by the word; that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle. Eph. v. 25, 27.- -The comparison which I am going

to institute between the Catholic Church and the leading Protestant Societies, on the article of Sanctity, or Holiness, will be made on these four heads: 1st, The Doctrine of Holiness-2dly, the Means of Holiness-3dly, the Fruits of Holiness -and lastly, the Divine Testimony of Holiness.

To consider, first, the doctrine of the chief Protestant communions: this is well known to have been originally grounded in the pernicious and impious principles, that God is the author and necessitating cause, as well as the avenging punisher of sin-that man has no free-will to avoid it -and that justification and salvation are the effects of an enthusiastic persuasion, under the name of Faith, that a person is actually justified and saved, independently of any real belief in the revealed truths, independently of hope, charity, repentance for sin, benevolence to our fellowcreatures, loyalty to our King and country, or any other virtue; all which were censured by the first Reformers, as they are by the strict Methodists still, under the name of works, and by many of them declared to be even hurtful to salvation. It is asserted in The Harmony of Confessions, a celebrated work, published in the early times of the Reformation, that all the Confessions of the Protestant Churches, teach this primary article '(of justification) with a holy consent; which seems to imply,' says Archdeacon Blackburn, that this was the single article in which they all 'did agree.' (1) Bishop Warburton expressly declares, that Protestantism was built upon 'it:' (2) and yet, what impiety can be more 'execrable,' we may justly exclaim with Dr. Balguy, 'than to make God a tyrant!' (3) And what lessons can be taught more immoral, than that inen are not required to repent of their sins

(1) Archdeacon Blackburn's Confessional, p. 16.

(2) Doctrine of Grace, cited by Overton, p. 31. (3) Discourses, p. 59.