calculated to refute the false rule of heretics, condemned in the foregoing testimonies, and to prove the Catholic rule here laid down; still I cannot refrain from transcribing a small portion of it. "It is asked," says this father, "as the Scripture is perfect, what need is there of the authority of the church doctrine? The reason is, because the Scripture, being so profoundly deep, is not understood by all persons in the same sense, but different persons explain it different ways; so that there are almost as many meanings as there are readers of it. Novatian interprets it in one sense, Photinus in another, Arius, &c., in another. Therefore it is requisite that the true road of expounding the prophets and apostles must be marked out according to the ecclesiastical Catholic line.

You

"It never was, nor is, or will be, lawful for Catholic Christians to teach any doctrine except that which they once received; and it ever was, and is, and will be their duty to condemn those who do so. Do the heretics then appeal to the Scriptures? Certainly they do, and this with the utmost confidence. will see them running hastily through the different books of Holy Writ, those of Moses, Kings, the Psalms, the Gospels, &c. At home and abroad, in their discourses and in their writings, they hardly produce a sentence which is not larded with the words of Scripture, &c.; but they are so much the more to be dreaded, as they conceal themselves under the veil of the divine laws. Let us, however, remember, that Satan transformed himself into an angel of light. If he could turn the Scriptures against the Lord of Majesty, what use may he not make of them against us poor mortals! If then Satan, and his disciples the heretics, are capable of thus perverting Holy Scripture, how are Catholics, the children of the church, to make use of them, so as to discern truth from falsehood? They must carefully observe the rule laid down at the beginning of this treatise, by the holy and learned men I referred to: THEY ARE TO INTERPRET THE DIVINE TEXT ACCORDING TO THE TRADITION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH."*

It would be as easy to prove this rule of faith from the fathers of the sixth, as of the former centuries, particularly from St. Gregory the Great, that holy pope, who, at the close of this century, sent missionaries from Rome to convert our pagan ancestors. But, I am sure, you will think that sufficient evidence has been brought to show that the ancient fathers of the church, from the very time of the apostles, held this "whole rule of faith," namely, the Word of God, "unwritten as well as writ

* Vincent Lerins Commonit. Advers. Hær. edit. Baluz. An English translation of this little work has lately been published.

ten," together with "the living, speaking tribunal of the church," to preserve and interpret both the one and the other. I am, &c.

JOHN MILNER.

DEAR SIR

LETTER XI.-TO JAMES BROWN, ESQ.

THE TRUE RULE.

THE infinite importance of determining with ourselves which is the right rule or method of discovering religious truth, must be admitted by all thinking Christians, as it is evident that this rule alone can conduct them to truth, and that a false rule is capable of conducting them into all sorts of errors. It is equally clear why all those, who are bent upon deserting the Catholic Church, reject her rule, that of the "whole word of God," together with her "living authority" in explaining it: for, while this rule and this authority are acknowledged, there can be no heresy nor schism among Christians, as whatever points of religion are not clear from Scripture, are supplied and illustrated by tradition; and as the pastors of the church, who possess this authority, are always living, and ready to declare what is the sense of Scripture, and what the tradition, on each contested point, which they have received in succession from the apostles, the only resource, therefore, of persons resolved to follow their own or their forefathers' particular opinions or practices, in matters of religion, with the exception of the enthusiasts, has been in all times, both ancient and modern, to appeal to mere Scripture, which, being a dead letter, leaves them at liberty to explain it as they will.

I. And yet, with all their repugnance to tradition and church authority, Protestants have found themselves absolutely obliged, in many instances, to admit of them both. It has been demonstrated above, that they are obliged to admit of tradition, in order to admit of Scripture itself. Without this, they can neither know that there are any writings at all dictated by God's inspiration, nor which, in particular, these writings are, nor what versions or publications of them are genuine. But as this matter has been sufficiently elucidated, I proceed to other points of religion, which Protestants receive, either without the authority of Scripture, or in opposition to the letter of it.

* Among all the learned Protestants of this age, Dr. Porteus is the only one who pretends to discern Scripture, "partly on account of its own rea sonableness, and the characters of divine wisdom in it."-Brief Confut., p. 9. I could have wished to ask his lordship, whether it is by these characters that he has discovered the Canticle or Song of Solomon to be inspired Scripture.

The first precept in the Bible is that of sanctifying the seventh day: "God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it," Gen. ii. 3. This precept was confirmed by God in the ten commandments: "Remember the sabbath-day to keep it holy. The seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God," Exod. XX. On the other hand, Christ declares that he is not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil it, Matt. v. 17. He himself observed the sabbath: "And, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath-day," Luke iv. 16. His disciples likewise observed it after his death: "They rested on the sabbathday, according to the commandment," Luke xxiii. 56. Yet with all this weight of Scripture authority for keeping the sabbath or seventh day holy, Protestants of all denominations make this a profane day, and transfer the obligation of it to the first day of the week, or the Sunday. Now what authority have they for doing this? None whatever, except the unwritten word, or tradition, of the Catholic Church, which declares that the apostles made the change in honor of Christ's resurrection, and the descent of the Holy Ghost on that day of the week. Then, with respect to the manner of keeping that day holy, their universal doctrine and practice are no less at variance with the sacred text. The Almighty says, "From even unto even shall you celebrate your sabbath," (Levit. xxiii. 32,) which is the practice of the Jews down to the present time, but not of any Protestants that ever I heard of. In like manner, it is declared in Scripture to be unlawful to dress victuals on that day, (Exod. xvi. 23,) or even to make a fire, Exod. xxxv. 3. Again, I ask, where is there a precept in the whole Scripture more express than that against eating blood? God said to Noah, Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat to you; but flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall you not eat," Gen. ix. 4. This prohibition we know was confirmed by Moses, (Levit. xvii. 11, Deut. xii. 23,) and strictly imposed by the apostles upon the Gentiles who were converted to the faith, Acts xv. 20. Nevertheless, where is the religious Protestant who scruples to eat gravy with his meat, or puddings made of blood? At the same time, if he be asked, Upon what authority do you act in contradiction to, the express words of 'both the Old and the New Testament? he can find no other answer than that he has learned, from the tradition of the church, that the pronibition was only temporary. I will confine myself to one more instance of Protestants abandoning their own rule, that of Scripture alone, to follow ours, of Scripture explained by tradition. If an intelligent pagan, who had carefully perused the New Testament, were asked which of the ordinances mentioned in it is most explicitly and strictly enjoined, I make no doubt but he

66

would answer that it is "the washing of feet." To convince you of this, be pleased to read the first seventeen verses of St. John, c. xiii. Observe the motive assigned for Christ's performing the ceremony there recorded-namely, his "love for his disciples:" next, the time of his performing it-namely, when he was about to depart out of this world. Then remark the stress he lays upon it, in what he said to Peter: "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. Finally, his injunction at the conclusion of the ceremony, "If I, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet." I now ask, on what pretence can those who profess to make Scripture alone the rule of their religion totally disregard this institution and precept? Had this ceremony been observed in the church when Luther and the other first Protestants began to dogmatize, there is no doubt but they would have retained it; but, having learned from her that it was only figurative, they acquiesced in this decision, contrary to what appears to be the plain sense of Scripture.

II. I asserted that Protestants find themselves obliged not only to adopt the rule of our church, on many the_most_important subjects, but also to claim her authority. It is true, as a late dignitary of the establishment observes,* that " When Protestants first withdrew from the communion of the Church of Rome, the principles they went upon were such as these: Christ, by his Gospel, hath called all men to the liberty, the glorious liberty, of the sons of God, and restored them to the privilege of working out their own salvation by their own understanding and endeavors. For this work, sufficient means are afforded in the Scriptures, without having recourse to the doctrines and commandments of men. Consequently, faith and conscience, having no dependence upon man's laws, are not to be compelled by man's authority." What now was the consequence of this fundamental rule of Protestantism? Why, that endless variety of doctrines, errors, and impieties, mentioned above; followed by those tumults, wars, rebellions and anarchy, with which the history of every country is filled that embraced the new religion. It is readily supposed that the princes and other rulers of those countries, ecclesiastical as well as civil, however hostile they might be to the ancient church, would wish to restrain these disorders, and make their subjects adopt the same sentiments with themselves. Hence, in every Protestant state, articles of religion, and confessions of faith, differing from one another, but each agreeing with the opinion of the princes and rulers of the state for the time being,

* Archdeacon Blackburn in his celebrated Confessional, p. 1.

were enacted by law, and enforced by excommunication, deprivation, exile, imprisonment, torture, and death. These latter punishments indeed, however frequently they were exercised by Protestants against Protestants, as well as against Catholics, during the 16th and 17th centuries,* have not been resorted to during the last hundred years; but the terrible sentence of excommunication, which includes outlawry, even now hangs over the head of every Protestant bishop, as well as other clergyman in this country,† who shall interpret those passages of the Gospel concerning Jesus Christ in the sense which, it appears from their writings, a number of them entertain; in the mean time none of them can take possession of any living, without subscribing to the 39 articles, and publicly declaring his unfeigned assent and consent to them, and to every thing contained in the Book of Common Prayer. Thus, by adopting a false rule of religion, thinking Protestants are reduced to the cruel extremity of palpably contradicting themselves! They cannot give up "the glorious liberty," as it is called above, of explaining the Bible each one for himself, without, at once, giving up their cause to the Catholics; and they cannot adhere to it, without many of the above-mentioned fatal consequences, and without the speedy dissolution of their respective churches. Impatient of the constraint they are under, in being obliged to sign articles of faith which they do not believe, many able clergymen of the establishment have written strongly against them, and have even petitioned Parliament to be relieved from the alleged grievance of subscribing to the professed doctrine of their own church. On the other hand, the legislature, foreseeing the consequences which would result from the removal of the obligation, have always rejected their prayer; and the judges have even refused to admit the following salvo added to their subscription: "I assent and consent to the articles and the book, as far as these are agreeable to the word of God." In these straits, many of the most able, as well as the most respectable, of the established clergy, have been reduced to such sophistry and casuistry, as to move the pity of their very opponents.

* See the Letter on the Reformation and on Persecution, in Letters to a Prebendary. See also Neale's History of the Puritans, Delaune's Narrative, Sewell's History of the Quakers, &c.

+ See many excommunicating Canons, and particularly one A. D. 1640, against "the damnable and cursed heresy of Socinianism," as it is termed in Bishop Sparrow's Collection, p. 335.

1st Eliz. cap. ii.-14 Car. II. c. 4. Item. Canon 36 et 38.

There was such a petition signed by a great number of clergymen, and supported by many others in 1772.

|| See Confessional, p. 183.