of these disturbances or schisms do we read of, respecting any of the doctrines or practices of our religion, objected to by Protestants, either in the same kingdom, or among the different states of Christianity. I said that the doctrines and practices of Religion were in the hands of all the people.' In fact, they were all, in every part of the Church, obliged to receive the Holy Sacrament at Easter; now they could not do this without knowing whether 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 perfromed at the funerals of their relations, or on the festivals of the Saints, without recollecting, whether they had previously been instructed to 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 impostors 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 doctrines of the Church, that mentioned by the learned Dr. Bailey; (1) 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

(1) He was the son of the Bishop of Bangor, and becoming a convert to the Catholie Church, wrote several works in her defence: and among the rest, one under the title of these letters, and another that of A Challenge.

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 inspired; (1) 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 qualified 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 the future kingdom of the Messiah; namely, the extent, the visi`bility, and indefectibily of the Church: in examining the New Testament, we find it 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 upon the Church with increased veneration, and listen to her decisions with redoubled confidence.-But here I think it necessasary to refute an objection, which, I believe, was first started by Dr. Stillingfleet, and has since

(1) 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 man may be saved, who should not believe them to be the word of God.'

been adopted by many other controvertists. They say to us, you argue in what logicians 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, which are two distinct things; 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.

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 heather and a publican. On the other hand, dissentions in any Protestant Society, which ad

heres 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 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 are 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-bed 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 been frequently 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; that individual Protestants have not been guided by it in the choice of their Religion; and 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 judgment 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, this Church is preserved in peace and union through all ages and nations:(1) 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.

(1) Domicillium pacis et unitatis.-S. Cyp. Ep. 40.