and folly to the Gentiles, 1 Cor. i. 23. In short, according to the observation of St. Augustin, there is light enough in it, to guide the sincere faithful, and obscurity enough to mislead perverse unbelievers; because, after all, faith is not merely a divine illustration of the understanding, but also, a divine, and yet voluntary, motion of the will. Hence, if, in travelling through this darksome vale, as Locke, I think, observes, with respect to Revelation in general, God is pleased to give us the light of the Moon or of the Stars, we are not to stand still on our journey, because he does not afford us the light of the Sun, The same is to be said, with respect to the evidence in favour of the Catholic Religion: it is moral evidence of the first quality; far superior to that on which we manage our temporal affairs, and guard our lives; and not, in the least, below that which exists for the truth of Christianity at large. At all events, it is wise to chose the safer part; and it would be madness to act otherwise, when eternity is at stake. The great advocates of Christianity, St. Augustin, Pascal, Abbadie, and others, argue thus, in recommending it to us, in preference to infidelity: now the same argument evidently holds good, for preferring the Catholic Religion to every Protestant system. The most eminent Frotestant Divines, such as Luther, Melancthon, Hooker, Chillingworth, with the Bishops, Laud, Taylor, Sheldon, Blandford, and the modern Prelates, Marsh, and Porteus himself, all acknowledge, that salvation may be found in the Communion of the original Catholic Church: but no divine of this Church, consistently with her characteristical Unity, and the constant doctrine of the Holy Fathers, and of the Scripture

--

itself, as I have elsewhere demonstrated, can allow, that salvation is to be found out of this communion; except in the case of invincible igno

rance.

It remains, my Dear Friends and Brethren, for each of you to take his and her part; but, remember, that the part you severally take, is taken for ETERNITY! On this occasion, therefore, if ever, you ought to reflect and decide seriously and conscientiously, dismissing all worldly respects, of whatever kind, from your minds; for what exchange shall a man receive for his soul?(1) and what will the prejudiced opinion of your fellow-mortals avail you at that tribunal, where we are all so soon to appear! and in the vast abyss of eternity in which we shall quickly be all engulfed! Will any of them plead your cause at the bar? Or will your punishment be more tolerable from their sharing in it? Finally, with all the fervour and sincerity of your souls, beseech your future Judge, who is now your merciful Saviour, to bestow upon you that light to see your way, and that strength to follow it, which he merited for you, when he hung for three hours, your agonizing victim, on the cross.

Adieu, my Dear Friends and Brethren: we shall soon meet together at the tribunal I have mentioned; and be assured, that I look forward to that meeting with a perfect confidence, that you and I, and the Great Judge himself, shall all concur, in approbation of the advice I now give you.

A

POSTSCRIPT

TO THE SECOND EDITION OF THE

ADDRESS

TO THE

RIGHT REV. LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S,

OCCASIONED BY HIS LORDSHIP'S

'ONE WORD TO THE REV. DR. MILNER.'

MY LORD,

SHOULD a grave and dignified author be found unsettled in his opinions, and contradictory in his assertions, he would unavoidably puzzle his readers to make out his meaning, and distress his literary opponents, to preserve a due respect towards him; but much more so, should such a venerable character descend to the regions of burlesque and of ridiculous absurdity.

In the course of last summer, the Right Rev. Bishop of St. David's published, what he called, THE PROTESTANT'S CATECHISM, a work professedly intended, not only to defeat the claims. of the Catholics to more extensive, religious and civil freedom, but also to deprive them of that portion of it which they actually enjoy. Among the other articles, announced in The Table of Contents, at the head of this work, is the following: Sec'tion the 24th: Means of co-operating with the laws 'for preventing the danger and increase of Popery."

From this and other passages in his Lordship's work, we had too much reason to fear, that he was disposed to vote for and promote, to the utmost of his power, the re-enactment of Elizabeth's sanguinary Statutes against us: which fear was augmented by his twice quoting the following awful words from Milton's prose works: Popery, as being 'idolatrous, is not to be tolerated, either in public or in private; it must now be thought how to remove it, and hinder the growth thereof. If they say 'that, by removing their idols, we violate their consciences, we have no warrant to regard conscience, 'which is nat grounded on Scripture.' The adoption of these intolerant sentiments by a Lord of Parliament naturally alarmed us, not barely for our own lives, that is to say, for those of five millions of his Majesty's European subjects, who, though they are not idolaters, yet pass for such in his Lordship's eyes, but also for the lives of fifty more millions of his Majesty's subjects in Asia, Africa and America, who are, in the strict sense of the word, idolaters. Accordingly, when I had read the Contents of the Catechism, I hastily turned over the leaves of it to page 54, where these contents had informed me I should find the means in question, that is to say, the precise nature and extent of the religious persecution with which the Bishop of St. David's threatens us. But instead of finding these, I met the following note: The means of co-ope'rating with the laws for preventing the danger and increase of Popery, intended for the conclusion, as noticed in The Table of Contents, being intimately connected with the credit and usefulness of our Ecclesiastical establishment, as I conceive, but admitting a difference of opinion, are omitted for for further consideration. Now, my Lord, I ap

peal to your Lordship's knowledge of literature, whether another author can be named, who in the same work exhibits, such an opposition of sentiment and language, as this Prelate does in his Catechism? In a word, can either his readers or his critics pay any serious attention to what he writes, when it is evident that he has not made up his mind, and contradicts himself concerning it?

Soon after the appearance of this Catechism, its Right Rev. Author advertised, at the head of the Gentleman's Magazine, a new work, as being then actually in the press, under the title of THE GRAND SCHISM. Being then engaged in answering the Catechism, I own, I hailed this promise of fresh paradoxes, to support those which I was refuting; for I was perfectly aware that the farther his Lordship advanced in the thorny and miry lane, in which he was resolved to walk, the more he would get entangled in contradictions, and the deeper he would sink into absurdity. Accordingly, month after month, I inquired of all his publishers for The Bishop of St. David's GRAND SCHISM: but none of them had heard a word about it. In the end, it appeared that his Lordship had changed his mind about this publication also: but whether 'for the credit and usefulness of the Establishment,' or his own, he best knows. Hitherto the Prelate had not, to my knowledge, taken any public notice of my End to Controversy, or of my Address to him, at the beginning of it; but, meeting soon after with The Protestant Advocate's Retrospect for October, I found them both mentioned by his Lordship, or by some one else, who professed to know his mind, and who was evidently imbued with his bigotted notions, in the following manner. Speaking of this chef d'œuvre as the Prelate or his intimate