fword, the common feelings of commiferation "that spring up in favour of the diftreffed."

Now, in examining this important fubject, it is neceffary, in the first place, to give a true state of the question, that we may not beat the air in vain and run in the dark without knowing where. It muft, therefore, be carefully obferved, that we do not inquire whether or not any Papist has ever in fact broke his word to Proteftants; this is not the point. Papists have broke their word to Proteftants, and they have broke it as often with other Papists; and Proteftants have done the fame by them. But the question is precisely this, whether Papists in fo doing act according to the principles of their religion? whether they hold it lawful to do fo? or if, in doing so, they act in dia rect oppofition to their religion, and follow the bent of paffion in oppofition to principle; as is the cafe with Proteftants when they behave in the fame perfidious manner? Again, it most be observed, that the argument commonly used in this cafe, viz. Papifts are often guilty of breach of faith, therefore they believe it lawful to do fo, is a mere childish argument and has equal force againft Proteftants themselves. "Nothing can put this "observation in a fairer light, fays the above cited "author of the Free Examination, than to make "the Proteftant and Papist change fides in the dif

pute. Let us for a few moments fuppofe the Papift

charging Proteftants with a principle of breach "of faith and even of difpenfing with the most "folemn engagements to God as well as to men; "what an ample field has he to walk in? As foon as your pious minifters, (fays he), took up the principles of your religion, they abfolved them felves from the vows they made of chastity, of o

**bedience, and of obferving their religious duties; which were particularly tremenduous, because they "were contracts of the foul with the Deity. Your "patron and first Archbishop in England, Cranmer, "after he bad imbibed his new principles; made his "qualifying vows with duplicity, he went to the al“tar with a concerted defign to perjure himself, and lived after in the most criminal oppofition to his "confcience during king Henry's reign. The ever memorable and glorious queen Elizabeth fwore, at * her coronation, to preferve and fupport the efta"blifhed religion; which oath fhe not only broke with "the greatest tranquillity; but it appears very plain*ly from her behaviour, that fhe only took it for con"veniency, and did not intend to keep it when he "folemnly fwore to it. This principle advances a"long with the Reformation every where, as clofe as Milton's death accompanies fin. The fetaries

in Scotland and England had fworn fealty to the "king whom they depofed and murdered. The Cal"vinifts in France were in nothing behind their bre"thren in England but in fuccefs; they were guilty "of the fame kind of perjury, over and over, by the "advice of their godly clergy. These rebellions are "diftinguished from all others by the perfidious prin"ciple I speak of: Look narrowly into the folemn "leagues and covenants; look at the declarations of

Proteftant Diffidents; and you univerfally fee them *fet out with the most facred vows of loyalty to the "monarchs and to the governments they afterwards "treacherously deftroy, as foon as they have acquired "the power of doing fo. In short, where-ever the "Proteftant religion got footing, it never failed to "bring along with it this horrid principle that has “rent so many governments, and torn down so many E

46

** princes out of their thrones. A principle that is univerfal, and meets your eyes on every fide, does not ftand in need of any particular examples to prove it: but the cruel breach of the capitulation of Montbriffon, and the massacre of the garrifon, is too affecting to be passed over. As foon as "Francis de Beaumont, Baron des Adrets, a Proteftant general, who fought for his religious principles, had, under the faith of a capitulation, got "the garrifon and their brave general into his power, "he ordered them to be brought to the top of the platform on the caftle; where he diverted himself "with looking on them precipitated to the bottom; "where his barbarous foldiers received them, with fhouts of joy and exultation, on the points of their halberds and pikes. But, as I faid, there is no "need of particular inftances to prove my argument. Purfue the Proteftant religion in all nations, and you fee it inftantly diffolve the allegiance of its fol"lowers to princes of a different religion, and breach of fidelity followed close by bloodshed, rapine and defolation.- -You fee, Gentlemen, I have made my Popish declaimer run over exactly the fame cant of thofe Proteftants, who, from fome par"ticular facts, charge Catholicks with a prin

66

46

ciple of breach of faith; and, if I had a mind "to fpin out the difcourfe, and imitate thofe "doleful gentlemen, you are well aware, that I "need only transcribe from the hiftories of Eu

rope, with the addition of an exclamation against Proteftant treachery and rebellion, at "the clofe of every tale, to make out two or "three handfome volumes in folio.". But it is plainly a full and fufficient anfwer to all this, to fay, That thofe, and all fuch inftances of Protestant breach of faith, are to be placed to the cor

ruptions of human nature, which no religion can eradicate; and by no means to religious principle, which Proteftants openly disclaim. And are not

"

Catholicks defcended from Adam as well as Protestants? are they not co-heirs with them of the fame corrupt nature? and is it not an equally full and fufficient answer to all fuch inftances of breach of faith among them, that they ought to be placed to the corruptions of human nature, as well as in Proteftants; and by no means to principle which they no less strenuously disavow than the Proteftants do? Certainly the argument militates with equal force in both cafes; and therefore can never prove, that such a principle is held by the one more than by the other. We must therefore look for other kind of arguments than instances of breach of faith among Catholicks, before we can condemn them as guilty of holding fuch a principle. It cannot be called in question that the author of this fermon, wherein they are fo loudly accufed of this crime, whether it be Dr C1, or whoever elfe, is a man of parts and penetration, as well as of the most infinuating addrefs. His good-will in the caufe is evident from the whole fermon, and therefore it cannot be doubted but he has brought the strongest and most convincing arguments he could find to make good his charge againft his devoted adverfaries. Let us fee then what proofs he brings. Proofs did I fay! why truly, there is not the fhadow of a proof in all he fays. Trufting to the credulity and good-nature of his eafy audience, he does not even attempt it. He begins by boldly affirming, that fuperftition had introduced into the Christian morality a distinction between the

caufe of God and the cause of virtue; and you muft take his word that it is fo. He supposes this and all the confequences he draws from it to be undoubted facts, without ever offering the smallest argument to prove them. He artfully indeed introduces a Papist arguing in defence of these impious tenets; and the only shadow of an argument which he is pleased to put, even in the mouth of this his fictitious adverfary, is a vague appeal to the authority of learned Divines, refcripts of Popes, and decrees of Councils; but, however liberal he is in his citations from fcripture and other authors, he takes great care not to give us the finalleft hint where thefe divines, refcripts and decrees, are to be found. Does not this conduct carry suspicion in its front? does it not betray a fecret conscioufnefs, that these pretended authorities are all fictitious? In fact, as this is the only appearance of an argument that he produces to prove his charge, and even this has no other foundation than his own bold affertion; the Catholick, on the other hand, with equal boldness, and a more confcious fenfe of the truth of what he says, abfolutely denies, that any fuch approved divines of his communion, any fuch refcripts of Popes, or decrees of Councils, can be produced; nay, he even challenges the author, in the face of the world, to produce them if he can, and is willing to venture the whole iffue of his caufe upon his doing fo,

No doubt, if the author fhould attempt to anfwer this challenge, he would appeal to the affair of John Hufs, and the decrees of the Councils of Conftance and Lateran; as these are the only inftances of the kind which Proteftant declaimers have recourse to, as authentic proofs of the charge