tion of fact, the other of right. For, whether each of the various instances, commonly produced, is to be considered a corruption, an invention of man, or contradictory to the true revealed word of Christ, whether any Catholic dogma or practice, as transubstantiation, or confession, or purgatory, is to be pronounced a deviation from that which our Saviour instituted; such questions form matters of separate consideration, involving distinct facts, each whereof may rest upon its own peculiar proofs. But, if you proceed to examine the ground whereon these are upheld, and find that Catholics maintain them all exclusively by the same principle, of their being taught by an infallible authority, vested in the Church; it is evident, that all these various independent questions of fact are united, and concentrated in one: that is, in the inquiry, whether there be any authority which could sanction them, and upon which we are justified in believing them.

This is an important consideration: because it must be manifest, that, if we establish that right whereon, alone, we base all particular doctrines; if, in other words, we can prove that, besides the written word of God, an infallible authority exists, and always has existed, in the Church-which, being under the guidance of God, cannot be deceived in sanctioning any thing as having been revealed by Him-assuredly, we likewise make good all those different points, on which we are charged with having fallen into error, but which thus will be proved to have their foundation on an authority derived from God. And therefore, however, for the sake of entirely convincing the minds of those who doubt, and of more easily satisfying their peculiar difficulties, we may be induced to treat singly such points as I have instanced, it is evident, that they are all virtually and essentially demonstrated, if this one leading fundamental proposition can be proved: and, thus, all the questions of fact are absorbed in the one touching the divine right possessed by the Church to decide, without danger of error, in all matters regarding faith.

Now, my brethren, I may observe, that this line of argument is completely opposite to that pursued, if I may use the expression, on the other side; for, not considering the manner in which these questions hang together, nothing is more common than to hear, or read, of preachers who represent the fundamental question as only one on a level with the others; and, instead of at once closing with the main point, what is the rule of faith, treat the withholding of the Bible from the faithful, as it is called, or the doctrine of tradition, as one among what are to be considered the corruptions of the Church of Rome.

But, in this process of reasoning, there is, besides, a manifest logical error. For, whether or no it be a corruption to admit tradition, or to pronounce the Bible ill-calculated for a rule of faith to each individual, depends upon, or rather is identical with, the question, whether God intended the Seriptures to be the only rule of faith. This the Protestant asserts, and the Catholic denies. But, therefore, when it is

pretended to disprove the truth of the Catholic religion, by taxing it with additions to God's word, or with restraining the people from its use, it is manifest that the identical question is assumed as certain, on one side: namely, that Scripture is the only rule of faith. For, if this be not true, and if tradition be equally a rule of faith, the Catholic Church is not guilty of the alleged corruption. But this, as I before observed, is the whole kernel of the controversy between the two religions. So that, first, the very point in dispute is taken for granted, and then an argument is based upon it. Assuredly, it cannot be difficult to prove Catholics in the wrong, when the Protestant principle of faith is taken as a lemma.

Thus much may suffice as to the grounds which would be given, were we to interrogate any one who is separated from the Catholic Church, Why he is not a Catholic?

But, supposing now that we proceeded farther with the scrutiny, and asked him, Why he is a Protestant? the answer must, certainly, be different; for no religion can stand upon

mere negative grounds. You cannot believe one doctrine rather than another, simply because that other, which is proposed by some men, is false. Each religion must have grounds of demonstration essentially in itself, and independent of the existence of any other sect. We should have been able to prove the divinity of Christ, although Arianism and Socinianism had never arisen: and even now, if any one asked us for a demonstration of that doctrine, it would be no reply, to say that Arianism has been confuted, or that Socinianism has been proved false; but the dogma, and the system, of religion, which takes it for a foundation, must have their own essential reasons, independent of the rejection of another doctrine. Hence it is, that each one, if asked, not simply, why he is not a Catholic? but, why moreover he is a Protestant? must have positive reasons to give, wherefore he is a member of this communion.

It follows, necessarily, that, by this principle, a very common ground for being a Protestant is, at once, excluded. For preachers will too often imagine, and their hearers will follow them in the idea, that when they have held up to hatred, or rejected as impious and absurd, the tenets of Catholicity, they have thereby established the cause of Protestantism. How many works have been published against the errors of the Church of Rome," or in confutation of Popery: how few systematic attempts are made to establish Protestant principles upon positive demonstration. Hence it is, that many consider religious belief only as based on a choice between the two religions, in which, the rejection of the one sufficiently demonstrates the other.

To such as are Protestants, on this ground I would say— suppose that you lived in a country, or in any part of this country, where there was not within your reach a single Catholic; where, consequently, it had not been necessary to hold un our doctrines to your execration,-indeed, where there would have been no opportunity given you even of hearing them. It is evident, that you could not have been a Protestant

upon this ground; but, that some positive reasons or motives, must have been proposed to you to satisfy you, that Protestantism is the true and normal state of the Christian religion; its rule of faith would have been propounded to you, based upon a series of positions and arguments, not relative or negative, but direct and positive.

But, my brethren, for the better understanding of this point, I wish to draw your attention to a very important distinction, and one which, I fear, is often not sufficiently observed; it is, the distinction between the grounds of adhesion to, or communion with, any Church; and the grounds of conviction of its truth. I am sure, that, if those who have been educated Protestants would ask their own minds, why they profess that religion, many would receive such an answer as would appear a justification to themselves for remaining in that communion, but yet does not involve the acceptance of the fundamental grounds of their religion. They would say, for instance-and I am sure that many, if they search their own breasts, will find it a reason of great weight-they would say, that they were born and educated in that religion; that it is the religion of their country; and that they think it shameful to abandon the faith of their forefathers. These are so many reasons, therefore, why they are Protestants; but they are precisely the same grounds which might be given for a thousand ordinary opinions; they are the very reasons by which you might ac. count why you are attached to your country; but they do not include, in themselves, the essential, the radical reasons, upon which Protestant doctrines are based. They are motives which justify the individual, in his own idea, for remaining in a communion; but, certainly, they contain no pledge of having adopted the principle of any. Others will tell you, that they are of that persuasion, because they take it for granted that their religion is demonstrated; they have been accustomed to hear it spoken of as a thing satisfactorily settled, and they have not thought it necessary to trouble their minds by inquiring farther; learned men have done it for them; and the

principles of the Reformation have been too firmly established, and too surely demonstrated, to need reconsideration or private study.

You must perceive—and a minute examination would only serve to demonstrate it—that, whoever gives you such reasons as these, for being a Protestant, only gives you such motives as influence him to continue in the profession of his creed, but they are not reasons which touch the grounds whereon Protestantism justifies its original separation from our Church; for the fundamental principle of Protestantism is this, that THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD ALONE IS THE TRUE STANDARD AND RULE OF FAITH. But, to arrive at this, there is required a long course of complicated and severe inquiry. You must, step by step, have satisfied yourselves, not merely of the existence of a revelation; but, that such revelation is really confided to man in these very books; that they have been transmitted to you in such a state, that is, that the originals have been so preserved, and the translations so made, as to make you confident, that in reading them you are reading the words which, the Spirit of God dictated to the prophets and apostles; and,

still more, that you have acquired, or that you possess, the lights necessary to understand them. You must not only be satisfied that the Bible has been given as the word of God; but you must be ready to meet the innumerable and complicated difficulties which are alleged against the inspiration of particular books, or individual passages; so that you may be able to say, that from your own knowledge and experience, you are internally convinced, that you have in that book the inspired word of God, in the first place; and, in the second, that you are not only authorized, but competent, to understand it. How few, my brethren, are there who can say, that they have gone through this important course! and, yet, it is the essential ground of Protestantism, that each one is to be considered responsible to God for every particular doctrine which he professes that each one must have studied the word of God, and must have drawn from it the faith which he