firmament; their light is the blaze of meteors, ominous and deadly; and rapid as that of meteors will be their fall.

But it is urged that though the Gospel is above human aid, the poor and ignorant should be protected from sophistical and demoralizing works. I know of but one way of protecting the ignorant, and that is, by destroying ignorance, by the diffusion of information. The best defence against sophistry is not its suppression but its refutation. Danger from books implies ability to read those books, and he who can read one book can read another; he who can read Paine can read the Bible. The New Testament, originally addressed to the poor, is a continued appeal to the understanding; its character is changed, if you make it any thing else. It knows nothing of implicit faith or blind obedience, and to make them its substitute is gross imposition. By the Toleration now allowed, the poor and ignorant, as they are called, are legally recognized as judges of the Trinitarian controversy, the Arminian controversy, the Episcopalian controversy; and surely not more ability is required for deciding on the merits of the Deistical controversy. Our Lord appealed to the poor on the divinity of his mission, and have we a less enlightened commonalty than Judea, sunk as it then was in ignorance and bigotry and barbarism?

Men forget the progress of society when they talk thus; they forget what the art of printing, or even the diffusion of education and knowledge during the last twenty years has done for man. There are but two things which can infidelize the poor of this country, and they are, the obstinate retention of the corruptions of Christianity, and the persecution of Deists. By those means perhaps it may be accomplished, for they and they alone, will rouse the best feelings of human nature against the name of Christianity.

The feelings of pious Christians are doubtless wounded by insulting language offered to all they revere. Let them meet it by a Christian spirit. Nothing will shew so well the heavenliness of their religion. Let them imbibe the spirit of the following beautiful remark of Robinson:" Is God dishonoured? Imitate his conduct then. Does he thunder, does he lighten, does he afflict this poor man? Behold his sun enlightens his habitation, his rain refreshes his fields, his gentle breeze fans and animates him every day, his revelation lies always open before him, his throne of mercy is ever accessible to him, and will you, rash Christian, will you mark him out for vengeance?" I fancy to myself a Christian, who has abetted a prosecution for Infidelity, reading such a passage as this. Does not his heart sink within him at the incorrectness

66

of the picture, an incorrectness produced by his instrumentality? No," he may say, "the sun does not enlighten his habitation; I have consigned him to a dungeon. The rain does not refresh his fields; I have invaded his property. His home does not smile; I have filled it with mourning. Revelation is not open before him; I have made him loathe the book, and done the utmost of a mortal to reverse the benignity of God!" Miserable man!

The conduct of Christ affords no encouragement for the protection of religion by power. Deists, to vilify him, and persecuting Christians to vindicate themselves, ascribe his forbearance to the absence of the means. It is a calumny! If he had not political power, he had miraculous power, and had this been a righteous use of it he would so have used it, and called down fire from heaven, instead of rebuking his disciples when they solicited him thus to punish the Samaritans. All his actions and his discourses contradict the assumption. The connexion of the text, both in Matthew and Luke, is directly in point.

In Matthew (vii. 11, 12) it follows a declaration of the compassion of God. "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father

in heaven give good things to them that ask him? Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets." Some consider the term " therefore," as a mere expletive. I apprehend not. Can there be a more legitimate inference from the paternity of God, than the brotherhood of man? We are told, that Christianity is part of the law of England. However that may be, it certainly contains a moral law, of superior obligation on the believer's conscience to all human enactments, and by which he ought to be guided in using, or abstaining from the powers which those enactments may give him to restrain or punish others. For the case of Deists, "this is the law," the law of Moses, according to the interpretation of Christ, the law of Christ according to every interpretation. No legislative authority can sanction or excuse the violation of this law by a Christian. In Luke, (vi. 27—37,) the connexion of the text runs thus: "But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to

take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. For if For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? For sinners also love

And if ye do good to

those that love them. them which do good to you, what thank have ye? For sinners also do even the same. And

if

ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? For sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful, and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful. Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned forgive, and ye shall be forgiven." Are these precepts become a dead letter? Has Christianity its obsolete laws? Surely if there be any direction in the New Testament for our behaviour towards open oppugners, revilers, of our religion, we have it here. Can we obey this, and institute or abet prosecutions of them? When I heard the disciple of Paine, in imitation of him, renounce the obligation of loving our