they had been previously taught to consider this as bread and wine taken in memory of Christ, or as the real body and blood of Christ himself. If they had originally held the former opinion, could they have been persuaded or dragooned into the latter, without violent opposition on their part, and violent persecution on that of their clergy? Again, they could not assist at the religious services performed at the funerals of their relations, or on the festivals of the saints, without recollecting whether they had previously been instructed o pray for the former, and to invoke the prayers of the latter. If they had not been so instructed, would they, one and all, at the same time, and in every country, have quietly yielded to the first imposters who preached up such supposed superstitions to them; as, in this case, we are sure they must have done? In a word, there is but one way of accounting for the alleged alterations in the doctrine of the church, that mentioned by the learned Dr. Bailey ;* which is to suppose that, on some one night, all the Christians of the world went to sleep sound Protestants, and awoke the next morning rank Papists!

IV. I now come to consider the benefits derived from the Catholic rule or method of religion. The first part of this rule conducts us to the second part; that is to say, tradition conducts us to Scripture. We have seen that Protestants, by their own confession, are obliged to build the latter upon the former; in doing which they act most inconsistently: whereas Catholics, in doing the same thing, act with perfect consistency. Again, Protestants in building Scripture, as they do, upon tradition, as a mere human testimony, not as a rule of faith, can only form an act of human faith, that is to say, an opinion of its being in spired; whereas Catholics, believing in the tradition of the church, as a divine rule, are enabled to believe, and do believe in the Scriptures with a firm faith, as the certain Word of God. Hence the Catholic church requires her pastors, who are to preach and expound the Word of God, to study this second part of her rule no less than the first part, with unremitting diligence; and she encourages those of her flock, who are properly qualifi ed and disposed, to read it for their edification.

In perusing the books of the Old Testament, some of the most striking passages are those which regard the prerogatives of

He was son of the bishop of Bangor, and becoming a convert to the Catholic church, wrote several works in her defence; and among the rest, one under the title of these Letters, and another called A Challenge.

+ Chillingworth in his Religion of Protestants chap. ii. expressly teaches, that "The books of Scripture are not the objects of our faith,' and that “a Dan may be saved, who should not believe them to be the Word of God."

the future kingdom of the Messiah, namely, the extent, the visi bility, and indefectibility of the church: in examining the New Testament, we find in several of its clearest passages, the strongest proofs of its being an infallible guide in the way of salvation. The texts alluded to have been already cited.

Hence

we look o her decisions with redoubled confidence. - But here I think it necessary to refute an objection which, I believe, was first started by Dr. Stillingfleet, and has since been adopted by many other controvertists. They say to us, you argue, in what logi cians call, a vicious circle: for you prove Scripture by your church, and then your church by Scripture. This is like John giving a character to Thomas, and Thomas a character to John. True it is, that I prove the inspiration of Scripture by the tradition of the church, and that I prove the infallibility of the church by the testimony of Scripture; but you must take notice, that independently of, and prior to, the testimony of Scripture, I knew from tradition, and the general arguments of the credibility of Christianity, that the church is an illustrious society, instituted by Christ, and that its pastors have been appointed by him to guide me in the way of salvation. In a word, it is not every kind of mutual testimony which runs in a vicious circle: for the Baptist bore testimony to Christ, and Christ bore testimony to the Baptist.

upon the church with increased veneration, and listen

V. The advantage, and even necessity, of having a living, speaking authority for preserving peace and order in every society is too obvious to be called in question. The Catholic church has such an authority; the different societies of Protestants, though they claim it, cannot effectually exercise it, as we have shown, on account of their opposite fundamental principle of private judgment. Hence when debates arise among Catholics concerning points of faith (for as to scholastic and other questions, each one is left to defend his own opinion,) the pastors of the church, like judges in regard of civil contentions, fail not to examine them by the received rule of faith, and to pronounce an authoritative sentence upon them. The dispute is thus quashed, and peace is restored for if any party will not hear the church, he is, of course, regarded as a heathen and a oublican. On the other hand, dissensions in any Protestant Society, which adheres to its fundamental rule of religious liberty, must be irremediable and endless.

VI. The same method which God has appointed to keep peace in his church, he has also appointed to preserve it in the breasts of her several children. Hence while other Christians who have no rule of faith but their own fluctuating opinions, are

carried about by every wind of doctrine, and re agitated by dreadful doubts and fears, as to the safety of the road they are in; Catholics, being moored to the rock of Christ's church, never experience any apprehension whatsoever on this head. The truth of this may be ascertained by questioning pious Catholics, and particularly those who have been seriously converted from any species of Protestantism: such persons are generally found to speak in raptures of the peace and security they enjoy in the communion of the Catholic church, compared with their doubts and fears before they embraced it. Still the death-bcd is evidently the best situation for making this inquiry. I have mentioned, in my former letter, that great numbers of Protestants, at the approach of death, seek to be reconciled to the Catholic church; many instances of this are notorious, though many more, for obvious reasons, are concealed from public notice: on the other hand, a challenge has frequently been made by Catholics (among the rest by sir Toby Mathews, Dean Cressy, F. Walsingham, Molines dit Flechiere, and Ulric, duke of Brunswick, all of them converts) to the whole world to name a single Catholic, who, at the hour of death, expressed a wish to die in any other communion than his own!

I have now, dear sir, fully proved what I undertook to prove, that the rule of faith professed by rational Protestants, that of Scripture as interpreted by each person's private judgment, is no less fallacious than the rule of fanatics, who imagine themselves to be directed by an individual, private inspiration. I have shown that this rule is evidently unserviceable to infinitely the greater part of mankind; that it is liable to lead men into error, and that it has actually led vast numbers of them into endless errors and shocking impieties. The proof of these points was sufficient, according to the principles I laid down at the beginning of our controversy, to disprove the rule itself: but I have, moreover, demonstrated that our divine Master, Christ, did not establish this rule, nor his apostles follow it that the Protestant churches, and that of England, in particular, were not founded according to this rule and that individual Protestants have not been guided by it in the choice of their religion: finally, that the adoption of it leads to uncertainty and uneasiness of mind in life, and more particularly at the hour of death. On the other hand, I have shown that the Catholic rule, that of the entire word of God, unwritten as well as written, together with the authority of the living pastors of the church in explaining it, was appointed by Christ: :- was followed by the apostles : — was maintained by the holy fathers: - has been resorted to from necessity, in both

particulars, by the Protestant congregations, though with the worst success, from the impossibility of uniting private judgmen with it-that tradition lays a firm ground for divine faith in Scripture that these two united together as one rule, and each bearing testimony to the living, speaking authority of the church in expounding that rule, the latter is preserved in peace and union through all ages and nations :-and, in short, that Catholics, by adhering to this rule and authority, live and die in peace and security, as far as regards the truth of their religion.

It remains for you, dear sir, and your religious friends, who have called me into this field of controversy, to determine which of the two methods you will follow, in settling your religious concerns for time and FOR ETERNITY! Were it possible for me to err in following the Catholic method, with such a mass of evidence in its favour, methinks I could answer at the judgment seat of Eternal Truth, with a pious writer of the middle ages: Lord, if I have been deceived, thou art the author of my error."t Whereas should you be found to have mistaken the right way, by depending upon your own private opinion, contrary to the directions of your authorized guides, what would you be able to allege in excuse for such presumption?-Think of this while you have time, and pray humbly and earnestly for God's holy grace to enlighten and strengthen you.

DEAR SIR

I am, Dear Sir, &c.

LETTER XII.

To JAMES BROWN, Esq. &c.

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED

I. M.

I AM not forgetful of the promise I made in my last letter but one, to answer the contents of those which I had then received from yourself, Mr. Topham, and Mr. Askew. Within these few days I have received other letters from yourself and Mr. Topham, which, equally with the former, call for my attention to their substance. However, it would take up a great deal of time to write separate answers to each of these letters, and, as I know, that they are arguments, and not formalities, which you expect from me, I shall make this letter a general reply to the several objections contained in them all, with the exception of such as have been answered in my last to you. Conceiving, lo, that it will contribute to the brevity and perspicuity of "Domicillium pacis et unitatis."-S Cy. Ep. 46. Hugh of St. Victor.

my letter, if I arrange the several objections, from whomsoever they came, under their proper heads; and if, on this occasion. I make use of the scholastic instead of the epistolary style, I shall adopt both these methods. I must, however, remark, before I enter upon my task, that most of the objections appear to have been borrowed from the bishop of London's book called a Brief Confutation of the Errors of Popery. This was extracted from archbishop Secker's Sermons on the same subject; which, themselves, were culled out of his predecessor Tillotson's pulpit controversy. Hence you may justly consider your arguments as the strongest which can be brought against the Catholic rule and religion. Under this persuasion the work in question has been selected for gratuitous distribution, by your tract societies, wherever they particularly wish to restrain or suppress Catholicity.

Against the Catholic rule it is objected that Christ referred the Jews to the Scriptures: Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life and they are they which testify of me. John v. 35. Again, the Jews of Berea are commended by the sacred penman, in that they search the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so. Acts xvii. 11.

Before I enter on the discussion of any part of Scripture, with you or your friends, I am bound, dear sir, in conformity with my rule of faith, as explained by the fathers, and particu larly by Tertullian, to protest against your or their right to argue from Scripture, and, of course, to deny any need there is of my replying to any objection which you may draw from it. For I have reminded you that, No prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation; and I have proved to you that the whole business of the Scriptures belongs to the church; she has preserved them, she vouches for them, and, she alone, by contronting them, and by the help of tradition, authoritatively explains them. Hence it is impossible that the real sense of Scripture should ever be against her and her doctrine; and hence, of course, I might quash every objection which you can draw from any passage in it by this short reply, The church understands the passage differently from you; therefore you mistake its meaning. Nevertheless, as charity beareth all things and never faileth, I will, for the better satisfying of you and your friends, quite my vantage ground for the present, and answer distinctly to every text not yet answered by me, which any of you, gentlemen, or which Dr. Por teus himself, has brought against the Catholic method of religion. By way of answering your first objection, let me ask you whether Christ, by telling the Jews to search the Scriptures in imated that they were not to believ› in his unwritten Word