*

138

LETTER XI.

To JAMES BROWN, Esq. &c.

THE TRUE RULE OF FAITH.

DEAR SIR,

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 forefather's particular opinions or practices, in matters of religion, with the exception of downright 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, (1) 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.

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. Mat. 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 Subbath-day, 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 honour of Christ's Resurrection and the descent of the Holy Ghost on that day of the week. Then, with respect to the manner of

(1) Amongst all the learned Protestants of this age, Dr. Porteus is the only one who pretends to discern Scripture, partly on account of its own reasonableness, 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?

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 wnole 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 New Testament? he can find no other answer than that he has learned from the Tradition of the Church that the prohibition 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 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 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 learnt 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, (1) 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 endeavours. 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 depen'dence 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

(1) Archdeacon Blackburn in his celebrated Confessional, p. 1.

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, 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, (1) 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 clergymen in this country, (2) who shall interpret those passages of the Gospel concerning Jesus Christ, in the sense which, it appears from their writings, a great number of them entertain; in the mean time, none of them can take possession of any living, without subscribing to the Thirty-nine Articles, and publicly declaring his unfeigned assent and consent to them, and to every thing contained in the Book of Common Prayer. (3) Thus, by adopting a false Rule of Religion, thinking Protestants are reduced to the cruel extremi

(1) 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, Sewel's History of the Quakers, &c.

(2) 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.

(3) 1st Eliz. cap. ii.-14 Car. II. c. 4. Item. Canon 36 et 38.