In like manner, it would be a piece of injustice, and incon sistency, to refuse salvation to those, whose judgment, not discerning clearly that the Scriptures are inspired,—for this reason, either entertain doubts respecting revelation, or, it may be, formally deny it :-" because," they say, "after having very seriously, and maturely, examined the question, we still find the most peremptory and insuperable objections against it." Now, since reason is the only acknowledged judge, and interpreter, of the sacred volume, and, of course, in the order of analysis, the sole foundation of their belief, or opinions,-so, consequently, to pretend to oblige them to believe what is contrary to the dictates of their reason, is an act, not only of inconsistency, but even (the above principle admitted) of injustice.

XXXI. Wherefore it is thus proved, that the Protestants, in order to be consistent, are reduced to the manifest necessity of tolerating, not only all those sects which admit the Scriptures, such as the Arians, the Unitarians, the Socinians, and so on, but even the very Deists, who reject them;or who rather, as they contend, reject only those human interpretations, which the Protestant churches think proper to affix to them. For, in reality, the Deist does admit the Scripture upon the self-same title as does the Protestant; he interprets it after the self-same method;-and finally, just like the Protestant again, he refuses merely to believe, what to him appears either obscure, or repugnant to the dictates of his reason. Thus, Rousseau, for example, bestows the highest and most eloquent praises upon the sacred volumes. It was his practice to read them unceasingly; and "their holiness," he tells us, "and their sublimity, spoke feelingly to his heart." In like manner, Lord Herbert (of Cherbury) calls Christianity "the most beautiful of all institutions." Such, too, as this is the ordinary language of many Deists, who, by denying revelation, contend, just as the Socinians do in denying the divinity of Christ,—that they understand the Scriptures still better than do the Protestants; and that even they obey, still more faithfully than the latter, the commands of Christ, who, according to them, preached no other religion but that of nature.

It is painful to the pious, and believing, Protestant to see consequences imputed to his principles, which he not only rejects, but views with the same degree of horror as does the Catholic himself. However, be this as it may,-if those consequences be really contained in his principles, then, so far from being an act of illiberality, it is, on the contrary, an act of charity to point them out. Accordingly, not only do the Socinians, and the Deists, defend their respective errors by the principles of the Reformation, but even the very Atheist himself does the same. Presenting himself, in his turn, before the Protestant, he with confidence addresses him thus: "Like you, I acknowledge no other tribunal but that of my own reason. Like you, I believe what my reason comprehends; and, like you, I reject, what appears to my reason unintelligible. Thus, to you, transubstantiation; to the Calvinist, the real presence, appear absurd. You, therefore, both, disbelieve those dogmas: and you are, both, in the right. The Socinian, and Unitarian, do not understand the Trinity they, therefore, refuse to admit it; and they, too, are in the right. The Deist, as he understands no mystery whatsoever, so he rejects all mysteries. And he, again, is in the right. Now, in my eyes, the Divinity is the greatest, and the most impenetrable of all mysteries. My reason cannot possibly comprehend the existence of an eternal Being: and therefore, I cannot believe it. I merely claim to myself the same right as you do; or as do the Calvinist, the Unitarian, the Socinian, and the Deist. You, and they, and myself, have all, and each of us, the self-same rule of faith. We all of us equally exclude any other authority, save that of reason. Therefore, with what consistency, or with what justice, can you pretend to condemn or censure me? If I ought to renounce my reason; or if you conceive me criminal for listening to its suggestions, do you then yourself give up your reason too, which is not more infallible than mine ;-abjure your rule of faith; and declare honestly at once, that what you have hitherto taught according to this rule, is founded upon no substantial basis; and that if the truth do really exist any where, you are as yet unacquainted with the means by

which it may be discovered." Such as this is the reasoning, and such the language, of the Atheist.

Considering the above reasoning, inasmuch as it is founded upon the leading principle of the Reformation, it does certainly follow from it, that the Protestants cannot, with any real consistency, or without violating their own maxims, refuse toleration to the Atheist himself. They may say, indeed, that he makes bad use of his reason, and that he is not sincere. But, might not the same thing precisely be said of the Socinian, the Unitarian, and in fact of the whole herd of heretics, without exception? Such reproach is, no doubt, unmeaning, and without any force, in the mouths of all sectarists whatsoever; because they have all, and each of them, a just and equal right to address it to one another. What the Lutheran says of the Atheist, the Atheist can say just equally of the Lutheran. And who, in such case, is the judge between them?-Reason? But, it is the judgment of reason precisely that is contested. For, each pretends, that reason determines in his own favour. So that to call in reason to decide the difficulty, or the difference between them, is, in fact, but solving the question by the question itself. It is making a mockery of common sense.

It is indeed certain, that, in pretending to confine the boundaries of incredulity, by requiring the belief of a few articles denominated "fundamentals," the Protestants have done little else than betray the greatness of their own inconsistency. For, in the first place, they have neither determined, what these supposed fundamentals are; nor, in the next place, is the determination of them even so much as possible. In fact, how is it possible to separate objects, which are intimately linked together? In religion, there is nothing isolated. One truth reposes upon another, which serves as a kind of foundation to it. Its divine dogmas,— all of them,-flow, as it were, from each other;-following each other in the nicest order, and uniting together in the most perfect harmony; so that, without ever finding in them the slenderest point of division, we may trace them, one by one, up to the bosom itself of the Divinity,-that

ever-living and eternal source from which every truth proceeds. It is impossible to deny any one of them, without being obliged, if consistent, to deny them all. Whence, the consequence is, that the disbelief of all the mysteries of revelation is the direct result of the principles of the Reformation; and the natural complement of this fatal system. Protestantism, until this unhappy effect takes place, is replete with contradictions.

It would seem, that certain Protestant writers have felt this alarming circumstance. For, some of them, in order to preserve religion, have suggested, that the best, or only expedient to do this, is to make it over to the prince, or the civil power; and transform it at once into a political institution. But, surely, a resource like this, if it be not the sanction of Atheism, is, at all events, the approval of that degree of indifference to all religion, which approaches the nearest to it. "It is certain," says Jurieu, "that princes are born the heads of the Christian church, just equally as they are born the heads of the civil government. They are alike the masters of religion and of the state." Such too as this is the language of several other Protestant writers. Now, if such as this be the authority of princes, that they can ordain creeds, and establish modes of worship, according to the dictates of their own interests, or opinions,-then should men talk no more of the Bible, of revelation, and fundamentals. Creeds, when they are thus degraded, become a mere kind of tax, imposed upon the public, for the benefit of the state; and which the prince may either lighten or increase, accordingly as the character of the times, and the nature of circumstances, may seem to require; or as the caprice of his own fancy may chance to dictate.

Thus, then, it is manifest, both from the testimonies of experience, and from the reasonings and inferences of the soundest logic, that the principles of Protestantism conduct inevitably, whenever men follow them up with consistency, not only to the production of every form of error, but to the general rejection of revelation altogether; and still farther, to an absolute indifference to all religion whatsoever. Following up those principles with consistency, the mind becomes

L

early perplexed, uneasy, and beset with doubts. Unable to satisfy itself, it, ere long, concludes by the disbelief of all revealed mysteries whatsoever. Thus it is, that faith gradually vanishes, and disappears; and with it, worship, piety, and morals. Irreligion, or indifference, alone, remain; -alone, stand erect, amidst the scene of the awful shipwreck.

But, at all events, I have said enough, in the foregoing pages, to excite the attention of the thoughtful and prudent Protestant;-enough even to engage the thoughtless themselves to doubt. I have said enough to make them feel, that the neglect of truth, or a blind indifference to the interests of religion, are not less the melancholy pledges of future security, than they are the pitiful claims to any superiority of understanding. In short, I have said enough to prove this truth, that, unless the Protestant do examine and compare, with serious and impartial industry, both the grounds of his belief in Protestantism, and the foundation of his disbelief in Catholicity, he not only disobeys the strictest injunctions of Christian prudence, but violates, moreover, the most essential of his own leading principles.

XXXII. There are various causes, however,-although I shall not enumerate them,-why the Protestant refuses to investigate the claims, and discuss the character, of the Catholic religion. One of these, for I will just cite one or two of them,-is the ignorance, the strange, the false, the preposterous notions, which he entertains of our sacred institution. For, although there be perhaps no subject, that is more familiar to him than that of "Popery ;"-none, upon which he dwells more delightfully, and dissertates more fluently, (it is the constant topic of his conversations, and the favourite theme of his invectives,)—yet is it true, that there is no one subject upon which his ignorance is more pitiful, and his notions more erroneous. The circumstance is, unhappily, but too natural. For, not only is the whole education of the Protestant (I speak with some exceptions)— from the very lap of the nurse to the completion of his studies in the schools, a system of misrepresentation of our religion, but every thing almost in society contributes to burn still