Page images
PDF
EPUB

again, what an admirable exemplification of the spirit of Christianity, that one should consent, on any condition, to lie in hell, for ever, sinning and blaspheming God! I am sincerely glad that no Protestant minister could be found to give his consent to an eternity of enmity against God. But the Catholics whom the Duke consulted, they loved the Lord so that they were willing to sin against him for ever and ever, with ever-increasing malignity of opposition, for the sake of saving their noble proselyte! "FROM WHENCE I INFERRED," says the Duke, (but you have no capitals large enough for this conclusion,) "the Roman Catholic faith was built on a better foundation than any of those sects that have divided from it." Admirable dialectician! He must be Aristotle himself, by metempsychosis.

I think that those who wish to live and die Catholics, had better keep their eyes shut. It is the safer way. If they open them almost any where, they will be in danger.

50. The Duke's Seventh Reason.

The Duke's fiftieth reason has been the subject of an article. Each of his reasons might be made the subject of one, but that would be giving them too much consequence. I have selected the seventh for some remarks, because I have several times, in conversation with Catholics, heard it alleged, and some considerable stress laid on it. The drift of it is this: Protestants acknowledge that some Roman Catholics

may be saved, but Catholics contend that no Protestants can be saved. Therefore it is better and safer to be a Catholic, than a Protestant! But, perhaps, I had better let his Serene Highness speak for himself. He says: "But what still confirmed me in my resolution of embracing the Roman Catholic faith was this, that the heretics themselves confess Roman Catholics may be saved, whereas, these maintain there is no salvation for such as are out of the Roman Catholic church." Let us examine this reasoning. Catholics say that there is no salvation out of their church, and therefore, by all means, we should belong to it. But does their saying so make it so? Is this very charitable doctrine of the Catholics of course true? Is it so very clear that none are saved but the greatest bigots-none saved but those who affirm, and are ready to swear that none others but themselves can be saved? Have Roman Catholics never affirmed any thing but what was strictly true, so that from their uniform veracity and accuracy, we may infer that they must be correct in this statement? Let history answer that question. This is more than we claim even for Protestants. No salvation except for Catholics! Ah, and where is the chapter and verse for that. I don't think that even the Apocrapha can supply them. If subsequent Popes have taught the doctrine, he who is reckoned by Catholics to have been the first Pope, did not. It is rather unkind, perhaps, to quote Peter against his alleged successors, but a regard to truth compels me to do it. It is true, Peter once thought that a person must be an Israelite to be saved, just as our Catholics hold that a person must be a Catholic in order to be saved; but the case of Corne

lius cured him of that prejudice. That led him to say as recorded, Acts 10: 34, 35, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." This sounds a little different from the Duke's premises. It is a little unlike the language of later Popes. They have not taken their cue from Peter. Peter was a little of a Catholic at first, but he soon got rid of it.

Now, if what the Catholics say about there being no salvation out of their church, is not true-if there is no Scripture for it, but much against it—if even Peter controverts it, it certainly does not constitute a very good reason for being a Catholic. Suppose that Protestants should give out to the world that none but themselves can be saved, would that make Protestantism any better, or safer, or worthier of adoption? Would our religion be more entitled to reception, if we should publish that Fenelon was lost forever, and that Pascal was excluded from heaven, and Masillon too, just because they were not Protestants, but in communion with the Church of Rome? I think not. Nor can I think that the Roman Catholic religion is entitled to increased respect and veneration, because Catholics assert as an undoubted verity, that such men as Locke, Newton, Leighton, Howard, and many others are beyond all question, in hell, not even admitted to purgatory, because, forsooth, they were not Catholics.

But the Duke's inference is from a double premiss. Not only do Catholics say no Protestant can be saved; but Protestants allow that Catholics may. If Protestants were to say that Catholics could not be saved,

then they would be even with each other, and there could be no argument in the case. But since Protestants allow that others besides themselves may be saved, while Catholics deny it, therefore the Catholic religion is the safer. See what credit the Catholics give our declarations when they seem to work in their favor. They build a whole argument on one. Why do they not give us equal credence, when we declare that the probability of salvation among Protestants is much greater than among Catholics?

But what is it after all that Protestants allow? They allow that some Roman Catholics may be saved. They allow that the fact of a person's being externally related to the Catholic church does not of itself shut him out from salvation-that if he believes with his heart in the Lord Jesus, and truly repents of his sins, he will be saved, though a Catholic: and that the fact of his being a Catholic, though much against him, does not preclude the possibility of his being a genuine penitent and a true believer. This is the length and breadth of our admission. It admits, as every one must see, not that there is salvation by the Catholic religion, but in spite of it, to some who professedly adhere to that religion. If a Catholic holds understandingly to the merit of good works, the insufficiency of Christ's sacrifice, the worship of creatures, or similar unscriptural doctrines, we do not see how he can be saved; but we believe many, called Catholics, reject these doctrines in fact, though not perhaps in word, and rely on Christ's atonement alone for salvation. Now if Catholics are so absurd as not to admit in our favor as much as we admit in theirs, we can't help it, and we don't care for it. It is just

as they please. We shall not take back our admission for the sake of making proselytes to Protestantism-and if they can draw off any from us by their exclusive notions, they are welcome to them.

But I must call the reader's attention to the extent of the Duke's inference. He infers the perfect safety of the Catholic religion, because Protestants admit that some Catholics may be saved! But is that a safe spot of which this only can be said that some of the persons occupying it, may possibly escape? And is it madness to occupy any other spot? The Duke exclaims, "What a madness then were it, for any man not to go over to the Roman Catholics, who may be saved in the judgment of their adversaries: but to sort himself with these, who, according to Roman Catholics, are out of the way?" What a madness indeed, not to join a people who may not all be lost! O what a madness to continue to be Protestants, when Roman Catholics say that they are out of the way! What if they do say so? What if every Jesuit missionary has ever so constantly affirmed? I suppose a Jesuit can say what is not so, as well as any body else. I suppose it is not naturally impossible for one being a Jesuit, I will not say to lie, but to err. goes on like a very Aristotle. "Who would not advise a man to take the safest way when he is threatened with any evident danger?" Certainly, noble Duke, the safest way; but not of course the way which some say is safest. There are a great many safest ways, if all which are said to be safest, are so. But his higness proceeds: "And does not that way which two opposite parties approve of, promise greater security than another which one party only recom

He

.

« PreviousContinue »