man is too apt to take that for a sign of truth, which having been long connected in his mind with his old opinions, speaks the pleasing language of his heart. But to the eye of unprejudiced reason, and of common sense, to which alone the Author of truth, as such, addresses himself, in his word, the signs by which this important distinction may be made, are there too evidently declared, to be mistaken. All we are to believe and do, is, with the utmost plainness, set forth in holy Scripture; and besides, the genuine characters, both of the true and false teachers, are therein made as clear and glaring as we can desire.

Cardinal Bellarmine, that most distinguished champion of the church of Rome, hath given us fifteen notes or marks, which he takes to be those of the true church, and whereby he endeavours to prove that his own, and no other, is that very church, He observes, very justly, that such marks as serve for this distinction, ought, with full and sufficient notoriety, to be found in the true church, and in that alone. Unhappily for him and his cause, some of his marks are not to be found in any church; many of them not in his; some of them are not marks either of a true or false church; and others, while they are manifestly wanting in his, are as manifestly found in such as he condemns of heresy. These things have been fully made out against him, by the answers of our Protestant divines.

His method, however, is good; and he fails only in the application and execution, which, as it cannot be ascribed to his want of talents, must, we may presume, have been owing purely to the badness of the cause he espoused. Give me leave, in pursuance of his method, to point out the signs of a corrupt church, or a church so exceedingly depraved, that he who communicates with it, must, by so doing, endanger the salvation of his soul; and to shew that these signs are found in the church of Rome. In doing this, I shall proceed on fair reasons, and unsophisticated Scriptures; so that he who contradicts me, shall be forced to contradict the common sense of mankind, and the word of God.

Let the first sign of such a church be this, that it opposes sense and reason, and makes it impossible for any man sincerely to communicate with it, who is not ready to believe

and, in consequence of his belief, to act, directly against the testimony of those senses God hath given him, as the only inlets, and that reason bestowed on him, as the only test, of all his knowledge. That church must certainly be a very depraved one, which, in any instance, degrades its members, not only below the rank of human creatures, by prohibiting the use of their reason, but even below that of brutes, by obliging them to disbelieve their very senses, and that in pain of damnation. God, who knows we can receive no possible evidence of revelation, but through sense and reason, could never have intended to try our faith, by a flat contradiction to both. The source of truth and goodness knows we can have no apprehension of any revelation, but by our senses, nor judge of its meaning, but by our reason; and therefore cannot be supposed to have required of us the belief of any thing, as revealed by him, which those senses, and that reason, pronounce, and must invariably pronounce, impossible. It would be as needless to enlarge on the proof of this, as on that of his goodness, or any other attribute essential to him. It is enough, it is even more than enough, to observe, that, throughout his word, he deals with us according to the perceptions and faculties he hath given us. He condescends to prove the points he would have us believe, by miracles wrought before our eyes. Christ, in order to satisfy John of his mission, said to the messengers, 'Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see; the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up.' In delivering his doctrines, he appeals to our senses; 'He that hath ears to hear, let him hear;' and upbraiding his hearers, who knew the signs of the weather, for not distinguishing the much more evident and certain signs of his coming, he calls them to the use of their own reason; 'Why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?'

Notwithstanding all this, the church of Rome hath made it a part of her creed, and denounces damnation against every one who cannot believe it, that the bread and wine in the Eucharist are transubstantiated into that very flesh and blood of Christ which hung on the cross, and are now in heaven, although our senses tell us, as clearly as they do any thing else, that these elements are still real bread

and wine. We should be the less surprised at this their literal interpretation of our Saviour's words, did they not put a figurative construction on numberless other parts of Scripture, and even on many that are purely historical. But they say, though the substance is changed, the accidents remain the same; and we say, that we know nothing of bodies, but their accidents; that seeing is believing at least; that all bodies are limited; that no body can be in two distant places at once; and that we are sure, were what they maintain ever so true, God could not have made the belief of it a duty necessary to our eternal salvation; because the distinction between the substances and accidents of bodies, is a thing that cannot be made good by the greatest philosophers, nor at all apprehended by the bulk of mankind. But though this distinction were both intelligible and demonstrable, yet as bread, wine, flesh, and blood, are objects of our senses, the senses here, if any where, have a right to give testimony; and, to our senses, the elements in the Eucharist, after, as well as before consecration, are truly bread and wine. If therefore our senses are not to be trusted in this their proper and immediate province, they are not to be trusted at all; and consequently, the thorough-paced Papist is reduced to the condition of a senseless block, of which those who have thus metamorphosed him may make what use they please, may either canonize him for a saint, or set him up for a god, or make a stool of him, to seat themselves

at ease on.

In numberless other instances, this church presumes to interdict the use of reason, as severely as she does that of the senses in this. It is the characteristic merit of a Papist, to believe, against his natural judgment, whatsover his unerring church, or rather its infallible head, shall dictate. In times of ignorance and superstition, this church was corrupted with infinite errors, both in faith and practice, which she, being too much attached to at the reformation, to give up, defended herself with high pretensions to infallibility. If she had taught her children to believe in purgatory, to trust in indulgences, to be content with a mutilated Eucharist, to pray to creatures, and to fall down before graven images; all this, and a great deal more, directly contrary to the reason of every one, who could read the Scriptures, must

be right; because she could not be in the wrong. But how shall we know, that a church enjoining the belief and practice of such things is infallible? If neither our senses nor our reason are to be trusted in matters so naturally obvious to both, we are incapable of knowing any thing, and consequently can know nothing of her infallibility; for belief of any kind must have some appearance, at least, of sense or reason to build on; and therefore, as we are but mere stocks and stones, it is ridiculous in her to expect we should believe any thing. If, to draw us in, she allows us but the smallest use of either, we shall presently see, by the injunctions just now mentioned, that she is far enough from infallibility. How can popery make a convert? Surely she will not presume to reason with him, in order to his conversion; or if she does, how will he like it, to be reasoned as far as the church door, and then to be stripped of his rationality, that he may the better digest what he finds within? Need I say more to prove this church deceived herself, and a deceiver of all who communicate with her, to men who are determined to use the senses of an animal, and the reason of a rational animal? Whether it is necessary or not, I will go farther.

Let the second note, or mark, of a corrupt church be this, that she enjoins things contrary to the express injunctions of holy Scripture. I must ask you here, whether you expect I should prove this to be the infallible mark of a corrupt church? Can that church possibly be a true and pure one, that bids us do what God peremptorily forbids, or prohibits that which he commands? Will the infallibility of the church do on this occasion, wherein it is opposed directly to the infallibility of God? If we have not been beat out of our reason, it will answer, no. With great modesty, surely, may it venture on that negative, for which it neither hath, nor can have, any other alternative, than downright blasphemy.

But wherein does the church of Rome thus directly countermand the orders of Almighty God? Why, God says, 'Thou shalt not make unto thyself any graven image, or the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth; thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them :' and the church of Rome says, Thou shalt how down to graven images

and worship them. God says of the cup in the Eucharist, 'Drink ye all of this:' and the church of Rome says, Ye shall not all drink of this. God says, 'Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve:' and the church of Rome says, Thou shalt worship the Virgin Mary; thou shalt also pray to her, and serve her. Many other instances, as strongly contradictory as these, though perhaps not altogether so obvious, might be assigned; but one may be sufficient: for what church shall dare to oppose the will of God? It is but an aggravation of the presumption, to say, he authorizes us thus to contradict himself.

But, on this head, the church of Rome defends herself, not only with her infallibility, but with her oral traditions. She says, God's word is twofold, either written or unwritten. She says also, that both were committed to her keeping, and subjected to her construction. The oral traditions she calls the unwritten word, and by them interprets that which is written. When the Protestants urge her with the Scriptures, she erects her own corrupt customs into traditions, and would have the Scriptures bend to these. It happens unluckily for her, that from the writings of the fathers, which is tradition on record, and to which therefore we allow its proper weight, we can shew in what remote ages, from the apostolic times, her corrupt customs were introduced. Now, we ask, whether the traditions that authorize these customs lay dormant from the days of the apostles, until the introduction of the said customs? Whether it was lawful to commit these traditions to writing, or not? Why, if it was, the fathers of the earlier ages do not mention them in their works? Why, if it was not lawful, the Romish writers have ventured to insert them in theirs? As they are used for a check, to say no worse, on the word of God, we ought to be very scrupulous about their genuineness and authority. We therefore farther ask, whether, as it always happens in things transmitted by word of mouth, through so many reporters, these traditions, supposing they could have had a real apostolical original, may not have been enlarged, mutilated, or corrupted, in a course of so many years, and in passing through so many hands, whereof those in later ages have given us so much reason to suspect their integrity? For our parts, we think a stream may as well