Qrl F&8 
 I8i9 
 
 UC-NRLF 
 
 $B M7 515 
 
 CO 
 o 
 
THE DUTIES 
 
 OP 
 
 CHRISTIANS TOWARDS DEISTS: 
 
 ^ Sermon, 
 
 - PREACHED AT THE UNITARIAN CHAPEL, 
 PARLIAMENT COURT, ARTILLERY LANE, 
 BISHOPSGATE STREET, 
 ON SUNDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1819, 
 
 On Occasion of the Recent 
 
 PROSECUTION OF Mr. CARLILE, 
 
 FOB 
 
 THE REPUBLICATION 
 
 OP 
 
 ■f 
 
 By W. J. fox, 
 
 ' i^htistianity stands in no need of prosecutions for its snpport.'» 
 Spbkch of the Attornby-Gbnbbal. 
 
 Sbttoviti IBiitim. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed by George Smallfield, Hackney ; 
 
 SOLD BY R. HUNTER, 72, ST. PAUL's CHURCH-YARD, AND 
 
 D. EATON, 187, HIOH-HOLBORN. 
 
 1819. 
 
 Priee One Shilling and Sixpence. 
 
3 1 Sins' 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 '**^^-»''^»^*' 
 
 On the Sunday preceding the trial of Mr. 
 Carlile for the publication of Paine's Age of 
 Reason, having occasion to discourse on the 
 account of the persecution of Paul and Silas at 
 Philippi, I made the following allusion to what 
 I could not but consider as an imitation of the 
 opposers of Christianity in that transaction : 
 
 " And here I must be allowed to digress for a 
 moment, to lament that the Christian name 
 should have been sullied, stained, bloodily 
 stained with the foulest enormity of Paganism 
 and Imposture ; and that even here, in this 
 boasted land of liberty, and now, in the nine- 
 teenth century, there should be Christian tri- 
 bunals to whose bar the Unbeliever may be 
 summoned to expiate his want of faith, or even 
 his opposition to the faith, by pains and penal- 
 ties, fine and imprisonment. The very fact is a 
 libel on Christianity, and founded on a prin- 
 ciple against which every one who values the 
 character of his religion in the eyes of rational 
 men should solemnly protest. If Deists will 
 listen to you, persuade them ; if they will 
 
 A 2 
 
 M342061 
 
IV 
 
 reason, argue with them ; if they write and 
 publish, reply to them ; if they misrepresent, 
 expose them; but in the name of Christ, do 
 not persecute them, do not abet or sanction 
 iheir persecution. Fine and imprisonment! 
 What need has Christianity of such supports ? 
 What means could its bitterest enemies devise 
 more foully to disgrace its name, more effectu- 
 ally to obscure its truth ? It will never prevail 
 with such aid. O may it soon have ' free 
 course,' free not more from hostility than from 
 such fatal friendship, for then, and then only, 
 will it ' be glorified.* '' 
 
 Having thus freely expressed my opinion, it 
 was my intention not to have adverted again to 
 the subject, in the pulpit at least. During the 
 progress, and at the termination of the trials, I 
 found strong inducements to rescind this deter- 
 mination. The conviction of Mr. Carlile I had 
 anticipated ; but I had not anticipated the legal 
 doctrines which were advanced to aid in pro- 
 curing that conviction ; and still more was I 
 surprised and grieved at the feeling manifested 
 by that part of the public which was allowed to 
 be present during the trial, and by religious 
 people generally. The decorous silence of a 
 Court of Justice has sometimes given way to 
 sympathy with the accused, but rarely indeed 
 iias there been a disposition to violate that 
 
decorum by audible expressions of disapproba- 
 tion, during a defence, or of applause at a verdict 
 oi guilty. The common language of Christians 
 after the trials, as far as I could observe and 
 ascertain, and with the exception of a liberal 
 minority, was that of joyous congratulation, 
 as if a Waterloo victory had been gained over 
 Infidelity. To correct, as far as I can, this 
 improper and unchristian feeling, as it appears 
 to me, and inculcate '^ the duties of Christians 
 towards Deists," as those duties are taug^^ht in 
 the New Testament, is the design of the follow- 
 ing Sermon, to which, as I have rigidly restricted 
 myself, it may be allowed me here to make a 
 few brief remarks upon the trial. 
 
 In the Sermon I have taken for granted the 
 legal propriety of the conviction ; the pulpit was 
 not the place for the discussion of that subject : 
 to doubt it may be deemed presumptuous, but 
 doubts I have, and why should they not be 
 expressed ? They may be resolved into the 
 following objections : 
 
 1. It virtually rescinds the protection granted 
 by the Legislature to Unitarians. That protec- 
 tion rests upon Mr. W. Smith's Bill, 5Z Geo. III., 
 which certainly was not intended, either by the 
 introducer or the Legislature, to protect Unbe- 
 lievers, according to Mr. Carlile's interpretation ; 
 but by which it was clearly understood that 
 
VI 
 
 Unitarianism ceased to be an offence. Ac- 
 cording to the legal doctrines by which this 
 prosecution was supported, and which are con- 
 firmed by the verdict of the Jury, who " are 
 Judges alike of the fact and the law,^' Unita- 
 rianism is still an offence, and the liberal inten- 
 tions of the Legislature in extending toleration 
 to its professors are consequently defeated. It 
 was contended by the Attorney-General, and 
 allowed, and afterwards maintained by the 
 Court, that the Blasphemy Act, 9 and 10 Wil- 
 liam and Mary, made no new offences, but only 
 affixed statutary penalties to certain acts which 
 were previously, and still are, offences at Com- 
 mon Law. The denial of the doctrine of the 
 Trinity is consequently still an offence at Com- 
 mon Law, and punishable, upon conviction, at 
 the discretion of the Court. The Attorney- 
 General did not leave this to be inferred by 
 others, but followed up his premises with their 
 legitimate conclusion, " that any contumelious 
 attack on the Trinity would even now be liable 
 to prosecution." The word contumelious is here 
 only a " word of surplusage,'* for the offenders 
 described in the Act on which the argument 
 rested, and whom the Attorney- General was 
 describing as still offenders at Common Law, 
 are those " who by writing, printing, teaching, 
 Qr advised speaking, shall deny any one of the 
 
Vll 
 
 persons of the holy Trinity to be God." It was 
 also decided that to deny the truth of a doctrine 
 was reviling, which is much the same thing as 
 contumely. Now if the Legislature designed 
 to secure to deniers of the Trinity, by Mr. 
 Smith's Bill, " the most perfect toleration ;**^ 
 and of this we have the testimony of the Right 
 Reverend Supporters of that Bill, we must 
 demur to the propriety of a conviction on prin- 
 ciples which tend to defeat that design, and to 
 place us at the mercy of every bigot in the 
 country. We have the shield of public opinion, 
 as we had before. The prosecution of any sect 
 of Christians is not a very probable event ; but 
 it should be understood that the principles of 
 Toleration which protect us, extend also to 
 others with whom the public may have less 
 sympathy. 
 
 2. That Christianity is part of the law of 
 England, the common or unwritten law, has 
 been often said, but I am not aware of any sa- 
 tisfactory evidence by which the assertion is 
 supported. To try by a Jury, to hang a felon, 
 are parts of the Common Law, which we derive 
 from the customs of our Gothic ancestors. But 
 it was not a crime with them to revile Christi- 
 anity. Preaching it might perhaps have been 
 treated as an offence. If the Common law be 
 traced to a period anterior to Trinitarianism, 
 
Vlll 
 
 Church-of-Englandism, Protestantism, Popery, 
 or. Christianity in any shape; and to such a 
 period Trial by Jury and the punishment of 
 felony may, I apprehend, be traced, it is difficult 
 to conceive how it should afford any more pro- 
 tection to the believers than to the impugners 
 of those systems. 
 
 3. If Christianity be part of the Common or 
 unvi^ritten Law of the land, it is to be presumed 
 that it has become so in a justifiable, lawful, and 
 honourable manner. The fact of its having be- 
 come the law sanctifies the means by which it 
 became the law. It establishes as a principle 
 of the Common Law, that those means were not 
 of a criminal character. Now the way in which 
 Christianity gained this elevation was by free 
 inquiry, by discussing and disproving the truth 
 and excellence of the former religion of the 
 country. Its success was therefore an esta- 
 blishment of the right to attack the religion of 
 the country. This must be granted by the 
 Christian, or he pronounces the first preacher 
 of the gospel in England, a criminal, deserving 
 fine and imprisonment. It must be allowed by 
 the Church of England, or a similar condem- 
 nation is passed upon the Reformers who pro- 
 cured its substitution for Popery. Not only a 
 general right of religious discussion, subject to 
 limitations, but a specific right to attack the 
 
religion of the country, (whether the use of 
 that right be an evil or a good, on which, of 
 course, the two parties will think differently,) 
 is implied in, and legitimated by, the fact that 
 Christianity has become the law of the land in 
 virtue of that right. To destroy it (and the 
 conviction of Mr. Carlile for its exercise does 
 destroy it) is to vitiate the title of Christianity 
 to be so considered. 
 
 4. Christianity is a vague term; or rather it 
 has been rendered vague by the diversity of 
 opinions held by those who claim that name in 
 common. What is the Christianity, to impugn 
 which is a legal offence ? To this question no 
 definite reply has ever been given ; and the fact 
 is, that the reply depends upon the spirit of the 
 times, and varies as that inclines to bigotry or 
 liberality. Nothing is more common than for 
 bigots to deny that name to those whose inter- 
 pretations of the Scriptures differ materially 
 from their own. Let such men obtain even 
 temporary influence, and a law so indefinite will 
 
 " Give ample room and verge enough 
 The characters of hell to trace." 
 
 On the other hand, when this indefiniteness 
 is liberally construed, and it could not be more 
 liberally construed that by the Lord Chief- 
 Justice, on Mr. Carlile's trial, it may easily be 
 
X 
 
 taken advantage of by the timorous, crafty, in- 
 direct enemy to Christianity, who is by far the 
 most formidable, and the vengeance of the law 
 only falls upon him who goes openly, bluntly, and 
 argumentatively to his object. That is to say, it 
 is not Deism that is punished, but honesty. Not 
 the insidious artifice that corrupts, but the open 
 hostility that disgusts. Not Gibbon, but Paine. 
 The liability of a Deist to punishment is in 
 exact proportion to the openness with which he 
 avows and pursues his object, and in which 
 proportion he may be considered as less culpable 
 in himself, and more harmless to society. This 
 is surely not consistent with laws which mak^ 
 evil intentions the essence of criminality. 
 
 6. If Christianity be the law of the land, 
 then the decision of Christianity is final and 
 obligatory, as to whether any, and what punish- 
 ment should be inflicted on those by whom it 
 is denied and reviled. If the New Testament 
 decides that they should be silenced, fined, im- 
 prisoned, banished, burned, then the production 
 of such authority indubitably legalizes those 
 inflictions. Its decision is the very reverse of 
 all this, as I have shewn in the following Sermon. 
 If it be said that the directions, which I have 
 endeavoured to illustrate, are for the guidance 
 of private individuals, and not of public func«» 
 tionaries, I ask where is its other code by which 
 
they are to be guided ? There is no intimation 
 of the repeal of the general precepts, as to the 
 particular case of their sitting in judgment upon 
 Deists. If it be objected that Christ did not 
 contemplate the adoption of his religion as law, 
 I reply, 1st. the supposition falsifies the decla- 
 rations of the Scriptures that he foresaw and' 
 foretold the future fortunes of his Church, and 
 is therefore itself an offence on the principles 
 of the objector; and, 2nd. that if Christ only 
 contemplated private duties, then his religion, 
 framed on that foundation, is incapable of be- 
 coming the law of this or of any country. The 
 distinction, therefore, completely fails, from its 
 inconsistency with the original supposition. The 
 argument upon that supposition I cannot state 
 better than by quoting a letter from a most 
 estimable friend: " We are told Christianity is 
 the lavv of the land. Admitted. This is the 
 only concession we need ; for then the law of 
 Christianity, the law of charity, kindness, for- 
 bearance, forgiveness, rendering good for evil, 
 blessing for cursing, is the law of England; and 
 then it follows, too, that these prosecutions are 
 illegal, because they are Antichristian.^' 
 
 Should it be urged that former convictions 
 are a decisive proof of the legality of punishing 
 unbelief, and that the Common Law is to be 
 interpreted by precedents, it may be replied, in 
 
XII 
 
 the words of Blackstone, that " this rule admits 
 of exception, where the former determination i» 
 most evidently contrary to reason, and much 
 more, if it be clearly contrary to the Divine law.*' 
 While as an Englishman I deprecate any limita- 
 tion of the right of canvassing opinions, whatevet 
 those opinions may be, as a Christian 1 feel still 
 more deeply the injury done to religion. As a 
 Unitarian and a Dissenter, I regret that the first 
 prosecution should have been conducted by one 
 >vho has acknowledged the former title, and 
 the second by one who still claims the latter. 
 There are many, however, whose faith and prac- 
 tice are described by those denominations, many 
 also of the Church of England, who lament 
 with me the glaring inconsistency of publishing 
 appeals to reason in behalf of the divinity of the 
 gospel, to which the objector replies at the peril 
 of his liberty and property. Deism has spread 
 widely in our country ; no inconsiderable pro- 
 portion of the lower classes are honest and 
 open unbelievers ; and a larger proportion of the 
 higher classes are, I fear, concealed unbelievers, 
 who, while they discard Christianity themselves, 
 think it an useful superstition to keep their 
 inferiors in order. It is proper and necessary 
 that Christians should exert themselves to re- 
 claim both these classes, but that very necessity 
 and that propriety also require the unsparing 
 
XIU 
 
 Tejection of all unhallowed means, of whatever 
 may deepen prejudices, of whatever is alien from 
 the spirit of their religion. 
 
 It was not easy to ascertain from the language 
 held during the trials, whether Christianity was 
 considered as entitled to legal protection from 
 attack because it was true, or only because it 
 was established. Although the accused was 
 not allowed to enter into reasonings against its 
 truth, yet both the prosecutor and the Court 
 advanced a variety of arguments in favour of its 
 truth, as if, notwithstanding their repeated de- 
 clarations to the contrary, that were really the 
 question at issue. The impropriety of trying 
 such a question before such a tribunal, is most 
 glaring. If Christianity be only protected 
 because it is established, then to assail any 
 established religion is a crime also ; and instead 
 of its being a duty to " preach the Gospel to 
 €very creature," it is a duty to preach it to 
 no creature whose Ruler has taken idolatry, or 
 Mohammedism, or any other unchristian system, 
 under his patronage. If the protection of the 
 established religion be essential to the security 
 of Governments, then is a limit fixed to the 
 diffusion of Christianity, and societies whose 
 lists of members are graced with some of the 
 highest names in Church and State, are the 
 enemies of social order all over the world. 
 
 I lament that Mr. Carlile, by his defence, 
 
XIV 
 
 strengthened the prejudices which before ex- 
 isted against himself, his faith, or want of faith, 
 and his associates. Had he excited greater 
 sympathy, my feeble efforts to abate those pre- 
 judices would have been unnecessary. Unita- 
 rians especially have reason to complain, that 
 although he derived from their writers the most 
 effective part of his defence, he was so conti- 
 nually guilty of the injustice of confounding 
 their opinions with his own. Deists they cer- 
 tainly are, as Deist is opposed to Atheist, and 
 so are all Christians, and so are all Religionists. 
 But though this may be the original and proper 
 meaning of the term, common usage has re- 
 stricted it to deniers of Christianity, which 
 Unitarians certainly are not. He may have 
 learned this calumny from our reverend or 
 mitred antagonists, but this was no excuse for 
 its repetition. So far as our opinions coincide 
 with his, no fear of obloquy prevents their 
 avowal. With a brief statement of what they 
 agree in, and wherein they differ, I conclude 
 this preface. 
 
 Unitarians agree with Deists, and differ from 
 the majority of Christians, 
 
 1. In rejecting the notion of a Triune God, 
 and of a partial or inexorable Deity. 
 
 2. In reprobating the priestcraft which makes 
 religion the instrument either of public op- 
 pression, or private cupidity. 
 
XV 
 
 3. In maintaining the right of discussing freely 
 all opinions. 
 
 Unitarians differ from Deists, and agree with 
 other Christians in believing, 
 
 1. That a series of revelations, confirmed by 
 miracles, has been made by God to mankind. 
 
 2. That the Old and New Testament contain 
 an authentic account of those revelations. 
 
 3. That Jesus Christ had a divine com- 
 mission, that he rose from the dead, and that he 
 will come again to judge the world. 
 
 There are two points in which, generally 
 speaking, the opinions of Unitarians are opposed 
 to those both of other Christians and of Deists. 
 
 1. In asserting the importance of good works 
 in their immediate connexion with our future 
 destiny, which is diminished on the one hand by 
 a supposed indifference in the Deity to the con- 
 duct of his creatures, or the want of definite 
 commands and authoritative sanctions, and on 
 the other by the substitution of faith alone as 
 essential to salvation. 
 
 2. In resting the hope of future existence 
 upon the doctrine of the Resurrection, and not 
 upon the Orthodox and Deistical notion of the 
 natural Immortality of the Soul. 
 
 W. J. FOX. 
 
 Hackney Road^ 
 
 November 1, 1819. 
 
Postscript to the Second Edition,--*A reply to the following 
 Sermon has just appeared in the form of ** Four Letters" to 
 the Author, ** by an Inquirer." The writer has not exerted 
 himself to controvert my leading positions, but displays some 
 dexterity in carping at detached sentences. A specimen of his 
 logic, of his correctness, and of his candour, will, with impartial 
 readers, exonerate me from the task of commenting at length on 
 bis remarks. 
 
 He reasons from the exercise of miraculous power in punishing 
 with temporary blindness a hypocrite, false prophet, and sorcerer, 
 (Actsxiii. 6 — 12,) to the justifiableness of using political power 
 for putting down modern unbelievers ; and is of opinion that if 
 the apostle Paul could rise from the dead, and behold an agent 
 of authority manacling, incarcerating and ruining them, he 
 would say, ** I set the example" ! 
 
 He asserts that the language sometimes employed by un- 
 believers, which I have described as " vilifying Christ,'* " ca- 
 lumnious," ** wounding the feelings of pious Christians by 
 insulting all they revere," and so " foul and revolting" that 
 even to palliate it by the adduction of precedents would be a 
 ** loathsome task ;" that this language I " can listen to with 
 complacency.'' 
 
 His candour represents an admission that moral evidence 
 leaves the bare possibility of mistake, as an attempt to ** lead 
 the young, the artless, the unwary into the temple of Deism ;" 
 and brands a condemnatory allusion to those who combine a 
 hypocritical zeal against unbelief with an open disregard of the 
 injunctions of Scripture to command our passions, and not to 
 take the name of the Lord our God in vain, as ** a railing 
 accusation against his erring brethren.'* 
 
 The " Inquirer" has not shewn that Deists are excepted 
 from the Christian law of doing to others as we would that 
 they should do to us ; and, of the necessity of enforcing its 
 application to our conduct towards them, his pamphlet is an 
 additional and melancholy proof. How long will there be 
 occasion for the Saviour to offer, in heaven, for his disciples, 
 the prayer which he offered, on the cross, for his enemies, 
 " Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" ? 
 
 December 24, 1819. 
 
A SERMON, 
 
 Luke vi. 31 : 
 
 And as ye would that men should do to j/ou, da 
 ye also to them likewise. 
 
 This maxim is the foundation of the morality 
 of the New Testament. We are bound, as 
 Christians, to regulate our conduct by it ; and 
 my present purpose is to shew in what way it 
 should affect our behaviour towards those by 
 whom the religion which we esteem of divine 
 authority is disbelieved, attacked, and even 
 reviled. 
 
 You will readily suppose that my attention 
 has been directed to this subject by the recent 
 prosecutions of an individual for the republi- 
 cation of Paine's Age of Reason, and of Palmer's 
 Principles of Nature ; and such is certainly the 
 fact. If any have come, however, with the ex- 
 pectation of hearing remarks, of a political or 
 personal nature, on the proceedings of a Court 
 of Justice, or on those who presided over, or 
 
 B 
 
18 
 
 were parties in those proceedings, they will be 
 disappointed. I know too well the legitimate 
 boundaries of pulpit discussion to enter upon 
 such a field, and shall consider the subject qnly 
 in a general view, as it relates to the regulation 
 of your feelings, and the discharge of your duties 
 towards unbelievers. 
 
 It has long appeared to me that the liberality 
 which has unquestionably advanced amongst 
 Christians, and moderated the asperity of secta- 
 rianism, has by no means been proportionably 
 extended towards Deists. Aliens from the 
 household of faith, they have been considered 
 as without the pale of charity. Their continued 
 and almost solitary exclusion is not altogether 
 unaccountable. Liberality has been increased 
 by various causes in which they had "no share. 
 Missionary and Bible Societies, and a number 
 of similar institutions, by bringing partisans 
 together upon common ground, and uniting 
 them cordially in the pursuit of a common 
 object, have opened their eyes to each other's 
 virtues, and removed a thousand prejudices 
 which were the food of bigotry. But preju- 
 dices have only been removed as to the parties 
 thus uniting and co-operating. While they 
 have drawn closer to each other, the Deist has 
 been left at his original distance. Unconcerned 
 in the cause, or concerned only as an opponent. 
 
19 - 
 
 more or less active, he has not been privileged to 
 participate in the beneficial results. While the 
 once alienated children of the Christian family 
 were reunited, he, excluded from their social 
 endearments, as unwelcome to their sight as 
 ever, shunned by all, hated by some, stood far 
 aloof, a solitary orphan. Even Unitarians, out- 
 casts as they themselves are from the fraternities 
 of reputed orthodoxy, and pledged by the cha- 
 racter of their religious system to the most 
 extensive liberality, have but too often been 
 deficient in the duties which I intend this even- 
 ing to state and enforce. Goaded by the calumny 
 which would identify them with those who 
 reject the Saviour, they have, in repelling so 
 unjust an accusation, caught too much of the 
 tone of their opponents, and given the most 
 undesirable proof of their affinity to other Chris- 
 tians, by that unfairness towards the disbeliever 
 which does not become any Christian. How- 
 ever it be accounted for, I have a painful con- 
 viction of the fact, that Christians, as a body, 
 do not in their writings, preaching, conversation, 
 and behaviour on public occasions, or in private 
 life, treat Deists in that way which charity 
 should prompt, or even which is demanded by 
 justice, to which, as fellow-men, they have a 
 right, and which is by far the best calculated to 
 win their attention, disarm their opposition, and 
 
 »2 
 
20 
 
 correct the aberrations of their minds. This 
 conviction has been much increased by observing 
 the manner in which religious people were 
 affected by the late trials, and the emotion, 
 which would otherwise have been uppermost, 
 of disgust at seeing Christianity under the pro- 
 tection of law-officers, and its insults avenged 
 by legal penalties, was lost in regret that Chris- 
 tians could witness such proceedings with 
 pleasure, applaud the verdict which pronounced 
 open unbelief a crime, and find m the imprison- 
 ment of a Deist matter for congratulation. 
 
 I anticipate the misconstruction, by some, of 
 my motives for making this effort, and am pre- 
 pared to brave it. " Strike, but hear !" The 
 subject is of importance, and never did I enter 
 the pulpit under a more imperious sense of duty. 
 I am no sceptic, as to the essentials of Chris- 
 tianity. Its truth is my trust ; its evidences are, 
 to my mind, most convincing ; its moral loveli- 
 ness charms my heart ; to its holy precepts I 
 would yield unreserved submission ; in the 
 removal of its corruptions and the extension of 
 its influence I would exert all my powers and 
 spend all my days ; and its promises I regard as 
 a sure foundation for the immortal hopes of man. 
 Why is so divine a religion, invulnerable to the 
 darts of hostility, wounded in the house of its 
 friends? Why are not those friends more tho* 
 
21 
 
 roughly imbued with its just and liberal prin- 
 ciples ? 
 
 Were it possible to forget Christians, and look 
 only at Christianity, the astonishment which 
 many pious people feel at the fact that there are 
 unbelievers, would be fully justified, and the low 
 estimate formed of their minds or characters 
 would be greatly palliated. If impartially 
 weighed, how can the evidences for the divine 
 mission and resurrection of Jesus be resisted? 
 They leave, indeed, the possibility of error, and 
 so does all moral evidence ; yet on that evidence 
 man continually acts without hesitation, and 
 must, if he acts at all ; nor is it deemed a valid 
 objection, in any similar case, that we cannot 
 arrive at mathematical demonstration. The 
 variety, multiplicity, and cogency of the proofs 
 of the divinity of the Christian religion, place 
 us on the highest ground of conviction which 
 can be reached by this species of evidence. It 
 is possible^ but barely possible, that the predic- 
 tions of ancient prophets, who announced the 
 calamities or prosperity of various countries ; 
 who foretold the coming of the Messiah, the 
 place and time of his birth, his character and 
 conduct, the brilliance of his miracles, the purity 
 of his doctrines, the severity of his sufferings, 
 and the triumphs of his cause, were words 
 spoken at random, and that, notwithstanding the 
 
22 
 
 history forms so striking a counterpart to them, 
 all is to be accounted for by fortunate guesses 
 and accidental coincidences : it is possible, but 
 barely possible, that Jesus should form of him- 
 self a notion of the office of the Messiah com- 
 pletely unlike that which his countrymen 
 entertained, and act upon this fancy, though 
 certain that his imposture would bring neither 
 wealth, honour, nor enjoyment, but hatred, per- 
 secution, and death ; • that his miracles were 
 merely delusions, though his acute and bitter 
 enemies did not attempt to deny or disprove the 
 facts, but fully allowed them, and ascribed his 
 powers to the agency of evil spirits : it is pos- 
 sible, but barely possible, that a clan of ignorant 
 deceivers should frame a religion with delinea- 
 tions of the character of God, and the duties 
 and prospects of man, infinitely superior to what 
 the wisest and best philosophers ever taught; 
 should propagate it at the peril of every thing 
 dear to man, and succeed in establishing it in 
 the world, in defiance of the opposition of 
 priests and potentates, of the wise, the wealthy, 
 and the powerful of that age : it is possible, but 
 barely possible, that a system so framed and 
 propagated should prevail over all hostility, and 
 become the admiration of the wisest, the delight 
 of the virtuous, the refuge of the afflicted, the 
 source of knowledge, holiness and joy, to the 
 
93 
 
 world. But if this bare possibility be fact, how- 
 wretched is our condition ! Where shall we look 
 for truth, when accumulate sufficient proof, or, 
 in the moral world, what solid resting-place shall 
 we ever find ? It appears to me, that we must 
 admit such evidence, or we must admit nothing; 
 must own no proof whatever, except that of 
 our senses, if indeed that is to be excepted, and 
 incarcerate ourselves in the dark dungeon of 
 eternal scepticism. 
 
 Christians! draw not too hastily the inference 
 that, if the conclusiveness of these and other 
 proofs be not seen, it can only be attributed to 
 the mental perception being dimmed by the 
 effluvia of a corrupted heart. He to whose sight 
 alone the heart is open, who knoweth our frame, 
 and remembereth that we are dust, can alone be 
 qualified to pronounce such a condemnation^ 
 and to him much may be visible which you 
 cannot perceive, productive of an effect so un- 
 desirable without inculpating the individual. 
 Nay, you may imagine various pleas which, in 
 the judgment of charity, ought to be admitted, 
 for the claims of an avowed and active Deist not 
 to be ranked, in sincerity and rectitude, materi- 
 ally below an honest and active Christian. 
 
 Is there not in some minds an inherent and 
 constitutional tendency to scepticism, a tendency 
 resulting from that physical organization which 
 
24 
 
 combines, in some unknown proportion, with 
 early association to form character ? I would 
 much rather believe that there is, than believe 
 that every Deist, in a Christian country, is made 
 hostile to truth by the love of iniquity, because 
 it is not only more charitable but more plau- 
 sible. In every department of science and 
 history, and where neither the love of virtue nor 
 of vice could be gratified by the conclusion, there 
 have been men who could not yield credence 
 without a greater degree of evidence than suf- 
 ficed to produce conviction in others. Amongst 
 those who alike admit the authority of the 
 Scriptures there is a gradation of creeds, indica- 
 tive of a variety of estimates of the evidence 
 requisite to prove a doctrine scriptural. Even 
 the most orthodox leave some few points on 
 which it is allowed to believe or disbelieve, 
 without the imputation of moral turpitude, and 
 thus, in fact, admit the principle, that the con- 
 clusiveness of evidence may be modified by 
 causes for which we are not responsible. To 
 call this human frailty is saying nothing; for 
 who is frail, he who requires the greater, or the 
 lesser quantum of proof? Each, the other being 
 made a standard; both, compared with a third; 
 all equally, in the judgment of him who tracing 
 variety in all the other works of God, believes 
 its natural existence in the mental constitution 
 
25 
 
 of man. This diversity exists amongst the 
 believers in Christianity, even as to the proofs 
 on which they admit the divinity of their reli- 
 gion. Suppose those proofs could be represented 
 by a given number, say 60, That which pro- 
 duces conviction in one may be represented by 
 10; another requires 20; a third 40; another, 
 not satisfied with less than 60, remains an un- 
 believer. More evidence would have included 
 some who are Unbelievers ; less would have 
 excluded some who are Christians. But whe- 
 ther Providence had seen fit to give more or less, 
 their moral characters would have been precisely 
 the same; the Christian who, on the one suppo- 
 sition, would have been a Deist, would not have 
 been less meritorious ; the Deist who, on the 
 other supposition, would have been a Christian, 
 would not have been less depraved. 1 could 
 easily find, amongst you, two firm Christians, of 
 whom the one had required twice as much 
 evidence for his faith as the other. Does the 
 latter attribute the total rejection of Christianity 
 to depravity of heart ? He is equally liable to 
 the same charge from the more facile believer. 
 No man can indicate for another the mathema- 
 tical point at which culpable credulity ends, and 
 culpable scepticism begins. He might as well 
 profess to tell the depth to which a ball, with 
 any given nnomientum, would penetrate into any 
 
26' 
 
 substance, without knowing the power of 
 resistance which nature has imparted to that 
 substance. Nor can it be said that Christianity 
 has exactly that degree of proof which makes 
 scepticism criminal ; for the external proof of 
 Christianity, arising as it does from prophecy 
 and history, must of necessity have been liable 
 to considerable fluctuations, and is not in one 
 generation or country what it is in another gene- 
 ration or country. And if it be asserted, that in 
 all times and places it must have been powerful 
 enough to overcome a constitutional tendency 
 to doubt, unless strengthened by a vicious dis- 
 position, the assertion cannot be substantiated 
 without a knowledge of the human mind, which 
 belongs only to its Maker. 
 
 Amongst the most extensive causes of Deism 
 are the corruptions of Christianity, the diversity 
 of opinions held by its professors, and the guilt 
 and mischief which, to so enormous an extent, 
 are fairly chargeable upon them. Here, it is 
 true, that the Deist ought to distinguish, but 
 what Christian shall condemn him for not dis- 
 tinguishing? Not the advocates of these cor- 
 ruptions, for they deem them the genuine 
 gospel. Not the actors of these enormities, for 
 they pretend to justify them by the gospel. The 
 majority of nominal Christians are worshippers 
 of the Virgin Mary, and believers in Transub- 
 
^7 
 
 stanfiation; and a still greater majority believers 
 in the Trinity. The majority of nominal Chris- 
 tians for ages were persecutors in fact, and the 
 majority are still, I fear, persecutors in principle. 
 Who is to be condemned for taking their account 
 of their religion, rather than that of an insigni- 
 ficant minority? But the books; he is wrong 
 in not taking his notions of it from the Sacred 
 Books. Be it so. I think in that he is wrong; 
 but while millions reiterate the censure, I cannot 
 help saying, let him that is without sin cast the 
 first stone. Is there no vilified religion to whose 
 sacred books Christians have never appealed to 
 do it justice } Are not cruelties and absurdities 
 attributed to Mohammedism in conversation, 
 from the press, and in the pulpit, which a Koran 
 from the next bookseller's shop would shew to 
 be mere calumnies } Is not the Hindoo religion 
 daily stigmatized as a system of the grossest 
 idolatry, while an appeal to its Sacred Books is 
 in our language, proving that they teach the 
 purest Theism ? Nay, if nine Christians out of 
 ten were asked whether the book prosecuted the 
 other day contained arguments for the being and 
 moral perfection of God, and a future state of 
 existence for man, would they not answer in 
 the negative, and do they not talk of it in terms 
 only justified by that assumption ? One fault 
 cannot justify another. I am not vindicating 
 
s» 
 
 the Deist. But if the same or a similar error be 
 alike chargeable upon two classes, neither of 
 them is entitled to adduce it as a proof of the 
 depravity of the other. 
 
 That the great diversity of interpretations of 
 the Bible, by different sects, should distract the 
 mind of a man who never received from edu- 
 cation, or has lost by circumstances, a preference 
 for any one of them, and that he should think that 
 the book must needs want that clearness by 
 which truth is characterized, from which pro- 
 fessedly almost any thing and every thing has 
 been both proved and disproved, I can very well 
 conceive, without ascribing to him either stu- 
 pidity or malignity. The consequent rejection 
 does not appear to me more strange than many 
 of the interpretations. The heretics who think 
 Deists in a damnable error for rejection, should 
 remember that the orthodox think them in a 
 damnable error also for false interpretation. A 
 hundred voices cry to the Deist, " Be a Chris- 
 tian, or you cannot be saved, and ought not to 
 be tolerated." He asks, '« What is Christi- 
 anity?" They give him a hundred different 
 answers, and each condemns the rest. Until 
 we. Christians, shall approach somewhat nearer 
 to unanimity, our distractions will operate as a 
 cause of, and furnish a palliation for, infidelity. ' 
 Ecclesiastical History is full of foul and bloody 
 
29 
 
 deeds, the crimes of the corrupters of Christi- 
 anity, of the men who have made its name the 
 signal for desolating wars, the means of temporal 
 or spiritual usurpations, the defence of oppres- 
 sions and extortions, and the pretext for furious 
 persecutions. However these enormities may 
 be mitigated, the Christian Church has not yet 
 disowned either the corrupters or the corrup- 
 tions, but continues, to a considerable extent, to 
 fraternize with the one, and symbolize with the 
 other. While they do this, and yet allow the 
 moral fruits of a religion to be its surest test, and 
 appeal to that test on behalf of their Christianity, 
 it cannot surprise us that those who look no 
 further should disbelieve it, should shudder at 
 it as the source of incalculable evils. 
 
 Without going further into this part of the 
 subject, I will only observe, that the rejection of 
 Christianity may be thrown into a series of pro- 
 positions, every one of which propositions is 
 maintained by some sect of Christians; and if 
 each separately be not an evidence of moral 
 depravity, neither can they in the aggregate, 
 which will be only a sum of cyphers. One 
 Christian affirms that Scripture teaches the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity, and another that that doctrine 
 is a false doctrine. The combination of these 
 assertions is the rejection of the Scriptures. 
 Some affirm that they claim plenary inspiration, 
 
30 
 
 and others allow that they contain reasonings to 
 which we cannot assent, and assertions which 
 we cannot reconcile. Here, again, agreement 
 with both is fatal to the authority which both 
 acknowledge. Opposition to all Christian sects 
 in one particular may thus be analyzed into 
 agreement with each sect in some other par-^ 
 ticular. Their several contributions make up 
 the sum of Infidelity. 
 
 It is right that the tone of censure which 
 Christians are apt to indulge in should be mode- 
 rated by the recollection of these inducements, 
 furnished by themselves, to doubt and disbehef ; 
 and it would also be right for Deists to remember 
 that, aspiring to the character of reasoners and 
 philosophers, it ill becomes them to be hurried 
 away by appearances into the prejudgment of 
 so important a case. I would say to them, Why 
 do you not distinguish ? You confound perse- 
 cution with Christianity ; but it is not more 
 evident that Christians have persecuted, than 
 that in so doing they have been, not obeying, but 
 grossly violating the precepts of their Master. 
 You confound a superstitious, mysterious, op- 
 pressive, political religion with Christianity; but, 
 in the Christian Scriptures you will find the deli- 
 neation of that system presented, not for belief, 
 but for condemnation, coupled with expressions 
 of wonder and abhorrence ; its prevalence foretold 
 
31 
 
 and lamented, and its destruction identified with 
 the establishment of the kingdom of heaven. 
 You confound Christianity with the various 
 books relating to it, and when you have shewn, 
 perhaps successfully, that some contain historical 
 errors, or others unsatisfactory reasonings, or that 
 others are deficient in evidences of their authen^ 
 ticity, you proclaim a triumph as if you had 
 destroyed Christianity: forgetting that Chris- 
 tianity existed before any of the books of the 
 New Testament ; that it is quite independent of 
 the perfect accuracy and demonstrated authen- 
 ticity of those of the Old Testament ; and, that 
 the real question at issue is, Did Christ teach 
 the resurrection of man from the dead, and rise 
 himself in confirmation of his doctrine, which 
 unless you disprove you have done just nothing 
 at all. That he did rise has always been asserted 
 by Christians, from the time that we can make 
 out that there were Christians ; and for a long 
 period the assertion was made under circum- 
 stances which offered the most decisive guarantee 
 for its truth, by men who had opportunities 
 for knowing, and who had every thing earthly to 
 lose, but nothing to gain by their pertinacity. 
 The calm discussion of their testimony is your 
 proper task. This is the reasoning of Deism, 
 while all else, in which, for effect, you have more 
 largely indulged, is only its prejudices. If you 
 
3% 
 
 can disprove this assertion to others, Christianity 
 must fall, and ought to fall. If you only disprove 
 it to yourselves, still this fair and reasonable 
 course will destroy the suspicions which some 
 feel of your sincerity, hurl back with disgrace 
 the charges which others make against your 
 characters, moderate the antipathy which many 
 have to your writings, and if unhappily you must 
 be persecuted, would strip persecution of the 
 last flimsy veil which hides the deformity of her 
 countenance. 
 
 Whatever be the conduct of Unbelievers, let 
 Christians discharge their duty towards them, a 
 duty most emphatically and beautifully expressed 
 in the text: "As ye would that men should do 
 to you, do ye also to them likewise." This 
 noble and comprehensive precept is universal in 
 its objects and definite in its injunction. It 
 relates to our conduct towards man^ be his station 
 high or low, his colour white or black, his cha- 
 racter virtuous or vicious, whether he be ortho- 
 dox or heretic. Christian, Pagan, Jew, or Deist. 
 Every man wishes the conduct of others to be 
 just and kind towards himself; every man wishes 
 not to be misrepresented, not to be persecuted, 
 and every Christian who acts up to his religion 
 will make these desires the standard of his con- 
 duct to others. The application of this maxim 
 to the particular case of Deists, comprises all I 
 
33 
 
 have to advance, either of censure or admo- 
 nition. 
 
 Do justice to their opinions. You would 
 have them be more just to yours, and complain, 
 not without reason, of their identifying Chris- 
 tianity with various notions^ some unessential 
 and some opposed to it, merely because they 
 have been advocated by men bearing ignorantly, 
 hypocritically, or unworthily, the Christian 
 name. How common to confound Deists and 
 Atheists, although the very names indicate a direct 
 opposition, and there is the immense difference 
 between their creeds of a God and no God ; a 
 difference surely not less important than that 
 between a revelation and no revelation. The great 
 majority of them are also, 1 apprehend, believers 
 in a future state. To talk, therefore, of their 
 opinions dissolving all the bonds of society, 
 destroying the obligation of an oath, and anni- 
 hilating the distinction between vice and virtue, 
 is mere declamation. It is the language of decep- 
 tion, of ignorance, or of bigotry. Even Atheism 
 leaves the barriers of our natural sympathies, 
 of habit, and present interest ; and what better 
 defence, or what other, has virtue in the thou- 
 sands of nominal Christians, who, while they are 
 noisily zealous for putting down Infidelity, re- 
 quire a God only to swear by, and a hell only to 
 consign to it the objects of their indignation ^ 
 
34 
 
 Be just to their characters, and as you would 
 not have them estimate Christians by the ruffian 
 conquerors of Peru, or the merciless assassins of 
 St. Bartholemew ; by the avaricious priest who 
 makes religion the pretext of plunder, or the 
 crafty tyrant who perverts it into the machine of 
 oppression ; by the dreaming enthusiast, or the 
 gloomy fanatic; so pass not on them the sweeping 
 condemnation they may not deserve, which the 
 notorious guilt of some will not justify, and 
 which the merit of others ought to avert. If the 
 sincere love of truth and goodness, if just claims 
 to the regard and gratitude of all around, if 
 friendship the most disinterested and unvarying, 
 if pious feeling, pure and elevated, towards the 
 Author of nature, and philanthropy the most 
 diffusive, can form a title to high esteem, then 
 have I known, well known, one instance, at 
 least, in which it was due to an Unbeliever. 
 There may be many such. If we take characters 
 of rare excellence to shew the influence of Chris- 
 tianity, and reject the million, why should they 
 be decried from the opposite result of a different 
 process ? As Unitarians, we should remember 
 Andrew Fuller's picture of our party; as Pro- 
 testants, such tales as that of Luther's sale of his 
 soul to the Devil; as Christians, the debaucheries 
 and cannibal feasts ascribed by the Pagans to the 
 early churches. 
 
36 
 
 Nor does it become us to hesitate in admitting, 
 or grudgingly to praise the good services which 
 may have been rendered by Deists to the cause 
 of human improvement. As members of society 
 they have often done their duty, and done it well. 
 In relation to religion there are two things de- 
 serving notice. He who saves a human mind 
 from the dreary abyss of Atheism is entitled to 
 the praise of Christians. Deists have written 
 ably and forcibly on this subject. They are 
 more likely to succeed in staying the flow of 
 Scepticism towards this wretched termination 
 than we are, as their reasonings will be regarded 
 with less suspicion, and may proceed on prin- 
 ciples less likely to be disputed; nor do I see 
 why we should not both avail ourselves of their 
 labours, and applaud their object. They have 
 also done much for Toleration and Religious 
 Liberty. It may be doubted whether there be a 
 country in Europe where that cause has not been 
 advanced by the writings of Voltaire alone. 
 True, they needed that liberty, and what reli- 
 gionist does not, in every land, with the exception 
 of the single party that happens to be dominant? 
 
 Many of the objections urged by Deists against 
 the books of Scripture, though far enough from 
 disproving the truth and divinity of Christianity, 
 are entitled to serious consideration, and merit a 
 very different kind of treatment from that super- 
 
 c 2 
 
36 
 
 ci lions dismission, or violent condemnation in the 
 gross, which they often receive. By candid 
 concession Christianity would rather gain than 
 lose in real strength. That the early part of the 
 book of Genesis is a compilation of ancient docu- 
 ments, and not the writing of Moses, has been 
 the opinion of some most able divines, and sin- 
 cere believers. There are few whose hearts are 
 not absolutely cased in bigotry, who would not 
 confess, did they speak out, that the extirpation of 
 the Canaanites presents an embarrassingdifficulty. 
 Why should such things be defended, as if men's 
 salvation depended upon the belief of them ; 
 or why should their exposure be sound criticism 
 in the priest, and blasphemy in the Deist ? Let 
 them labour in this way, and I will thank them 
 for it ; for every exploded error leaves more 
 stable the truth with which it had been associated. 
 Instead of trembling for the safety of every sen- 
 tence, fondly clinging to every forgery, or impu- 
 dently vindicating every inconsistency, or worse 
 still, meeting argument by declamation, censo- 
 riousness, or prosecution, let us candidly admit 
 where we cannot refute, calmly reply where we 
 cannot admit, and leave anger to the vanquished, 
 and imputation of bad motives to those who are 
 deficient in good arguments. 
 
 Suppose a Deist to be a prejudiced man, and I 
 think many of them are prejudiced ; is this such 
 
37 
 
 a crime as to alienate him from all the sympathies 
 of society ? We find palliations for the preju- 
 dices of our own associates, and so we may for 
 theirs. If a man opposes Christianity because 
 he identifies it with mystery, superstition, hypo- 
 crisy, spiritual tyranny, bigotry, avarice, perse- 
 cution, I lament the want of more accurate 
 attention, which has confounded things so unlike, 
 but I respect the feelings which, in consequence 
 of that mistake, make him its determined enemy. 
 One of their number has justly said that, " though 
 freedom from prejudice is one part of liberality, 
 yet to respect the prejudices of others is a greater, 
 and it is certainly that part which most con- 
 tributes to the peace, comfort, and pleasure of 
 society." 
 
 Even their language, foul and revolting as it 
 sometimes is, may have apologies which Chris- 
 tians forget to make. For every abuse and mis- 
 representation a parallel may be easily found in 
 theological controversy. They are a foul blot, 
 but a blot which has stained the pages of men 
 whom all delight to honour. As to such failings, 
 charity should deal impartially, nor allow a larger 
 license to the defenders than to the impugners 
 of our own tenets.* 
 
 * Many expressions used by Mr. Carlile himself, or read by 
 him from Deistical works, evidently excited the strongest emg- 
 
38 
 
 There is a sensitive apprehension about many 
 good people, which ill beseems the man of en- 
 lightened mind and steady principle. " The 
 Deist strikes at my religion :" Well, he is only 
 breaking his weapon against a rock. " He 
 argues against the holiest doctrines of my faith:'* 
 does he? Listen to his arguments, and if they 
 be valid, allpw their force ; if not, rejoice in a 
 faith which will stand the test of reason. " But 
 he abuses an reviles:'* then he disgraces him- 
 self and injures his cause, and do you with a 
 better cause employ nobler weapons. " In this 
 
 tioii of disgust in the Court, Jury and spectators. Yet any one 
 acquainted with the writing of controversialists, not excepting 
 even those of the present day, could not but be aware that, if 
 ^he loathsome task were undertaken, it might be accomplished, 
 of shewing that every epithet of reproach, contempt, or abhor- 
 rence, applied on that occasion to the Scriptures themselves, has 
 also been applied by professed Christians to those who diflPered 
 from them in the interpretation of that volume, while they 
 equally maintained its authority. Nay, some of his '* blas- 
 phemies," at which so many shuddered, were the literal language 
 of serious belief. Why should interruption, indignation, and 
 horror, be caused by his asserting that the Bible represented God 
 the Father as dining with Abraham, when one of our most 
 illustrious critics (Lightfoot) thus explains a passage in Genesis : 
 ** Some three mouths after this, the three persons of the Trinity 
 dine with Abraham—the Son and Holy Ghost go down to 
 Sodom, but the Fhst Person ifl the Trinity stayeth with 
 Abrahatii" ? 
 
39 
 
 he breaks the laws:'* so it appears. — Ought a 
 Christian to invoke the aid of such laws? I 
 come now to the consideration of this question, 
 and have no hesitation in saying that he ought 
 to have nothing to do with them, unless it be to 
 raise his voice for their repeal. 
 
 What is the effect of prosecuting Deism on 
 the individual who is thereby consigned to pu- 
 nishment ? You make of him a hypocrite or a 
 martyr. You confirm his worst prejudices, and 
 make him hate Christians and Christianity. 
 Penalty and imprisonment were never yet the 
 means of sincere conversion. Man clings to the 
 faith for which he suffers ; his enmity rises with 
 your inflictions. Is it a good deed thus to make 
 the gospel hated } Or suppose his spirit shrinks 
 from the fiery trial. You have then made a 
 hypocrite. No triumph that, for a good man to 
 glory in. How does it affect his party ? See, 
 say they, how these Christians meet us ; we 
 argue, and they prosecute ; we refute, and they 
 imprison. What think impartial lookers on, or 
 what the young, the undecided, and the inquir- 
 ing? In the contest of force with opinion, we 
 all know which way sympathy naturally inclines, 
 and you have to answer for giving them this bias 
 towards Infidelity. 
 
 Such prosecutions are a breach of the great 
 
40 
 
 principles of impartial justice and equal right, 
 which are the foundation of civil society. The 
 Christian has no more natural right to punish the 
 Deist, than the Deist to punish the Christian. 
 Persecuting laws, however small the number of 
 persons in a state who are exposed to their opera- 
 tion, are an invasion of the social compact ; -at 
 best, an usurpation of the majority over the mi- 
 nority, only to be vindicated on the assumption 
 that power is right. We unite for the protection 
 of life, liberty, and property, not for that of reli- 
 gious opinion. If the power to persecute be 
 offered, you should have magnanimity enough 
 to decline the unrighteous boon. Had Chris- 
 tians done this from the first, the Gospel might, 
 ere now, have been universal. 
 
 I. would not have on record such a confession, 
 a tacit and implied confession at least, of the 
 weakness of Christianity, and its need of the aid 
 of the civil power. That it is so may be dis- 
 claimed in words; why should it be proclaimed 
 by facts ? It is a libel on the Gospel. That 
 rock of ages needs no legal buttresses. If there 
 be forms of Christianity which require that pro-, 
 tection, let them be known for what they are, 
 the reveries of men, and not the word of God, 
 the creatures of the state, and not the offspring 
 of heaven. Such»churches are no stars in the 
 
4t 
 
 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 pro- 
 tected 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, ori- 
 ginally 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 contro- 
 versy; and surely not more ability is required for 
 deciding on the merits of the Deistical contro- 
 versy. Our Lord appealed to the poor on the 
 divinity of his mission, and have we a less en- 
 lightened commonalty than Judea, sunk as it 
 then was in ignorance and bigotry and barbarism } 
 
4g 
 
 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 obsti- 
 nate 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 heaven- 
 liness of their religion. Let them imbibe the 
 spirit of the following beautiful remark of Ro- 
 binson : — "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 
 InfideHty, reading such a passage as this. Does 
 not bis heart sink within him at the incorrectness 
 
43 
 
 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 pro- 
 perty. 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 be- 
 nignity of God !" Miserable man ! 
 
 The conduct of Christ affords no encourage- 
 ment 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, 15) it follows a declara- 
 tion 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 
 
44 
 
 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 enact- 
 ments, 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 ac- 
 cording to every interpretation. No legislative 
 authority can sanction or excuse the violation 
 of this law by a Christian. In Luke, (vi. Tl—'51^ 
 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 de- 
 spitefuUy 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 
 
45 
 
 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 vs^ould 
 that men should do to you, do ye also to them 
 likewise. For if ye love them which love you, 
 what thank have ye ? For sinners also love 
 those that love them. And if ye do good to 
 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 
 
46 
 
 enemies, I felt a momentary glow of triumph 
 for Christianity ; it was but momentary: I felt 
 where I was, and what was going on, and grieved 
 at the difference between precept and practice. 
 
 Admit the principle of Persecution, and where 
 will it stop ? Allow it to Atheism even, and 
 it will advance to Deism, allow it to Deism, and 
 it will advance to heresy ; and what is heresy ? 
 There is no medium in principle between the 
 liberty of all, and the tyranny of a particular 
 sect. Christians, you kindle a flame in which 
 yourselves may perish. 
 
 Look back to your own founders, your mar- 
 tyrs, your reformers; what you say of Deists 
 was said of them ; what you do to Deists, was 
 done to them ; they outraged the feelings of the 
 society in which they lived; they were con- 
 demned for the defence of the ignorant ; they 
 were held blasphemers ; they were dragged as 
 criminals to the bar. Are such recollections 
 favourable to your reacting these scenes ? What 
 would an Apostle say, risen from the dead, and 
 led into your Courts? Where would he natu- 
 rally look for his fellow-disciple, on the bench 
 or at the bar? How would he lament that all 
 Hie sufferings of Christians by persecution, have 
 not taught its professors to sympathize with the 
 persecuted, to abstain from pei-secution ! 
 
47 
 
 I am not addressing Legislators ; but you 
 have your share in public opinion ; let what 
 influence you have be exerted for the promotion 
 of universal religious liberty. The same prin- 
 ciple, as to legislative interference, applies to 
 religion as to trade. A celebrated minister of 
 France consulted some eminent merchants, to 
 know how he could best protect and advance 
 the commerce of the country ; their reply is 
 worthy of adoption. It was simply, " Let it 
 alone."' 
 
 There is a more excellent way than prosecu- 
 tions to convert Deists and counteract their 
 efforts. Christians, make vour reliorion more 
 defensible; not in itself, that cannot be, but as 
 exhibited in your opinions and practices. In 
 your absurd creeds, in your rapacious claims, 
 in your unholy alliance with the state, in your 
 bigotry and persecution, in your tenacity of 
 what is untenable, and in your want of practical 
 conformity with the pure morality of Chris- 
 tianity, lies all the strength of Unbelief. That 
 mighty change effected, which must come, when 
 the reign of Antichrist is over, all hostility will 
 be disarmed, and the genuine Gospel, rising 
 from the ruins of corruption, like the fabled 
 Phcenix in renewed youth from the funeral pile^ 
 shall spread its wings for a glorious flight, and 
 
48 
 
 urge its resistless course around the globe. The 
 sword then broken, whether drawn for Chris- 
 tianity or against it, more celestial weapons, 
 mighty through God, shall achieve the victory 
 of Truth, and " in the name of Jesus shall every 
 knee bow, and every tongue confess that he is 
 Lord, to the glory of God the Father/' 
 
 George Smallfuld; Printer, Hackuey»